Permacomputing

Quite a while back now, not so long after I made my long posts on sustainable computing and salvage computing, somebody brought to my attention (I now forget who, sorry) a very nice article outlining some similar thoughts, with the title "Permacomputing", a term coined via analogy to permaculture. It's absolutely well worth the read to anybody interested in these kinds of issues.

"Permacomputing" by Ville-Matias "Viznut" Heikkilä

My post "Discussions toward radically sustainable computing" (2020-07-26)

My post "The standard salvaged computing platform" (2020-07-02)

My favourite part by far is the quote below (IC stands for Integrated Circuit):

> IC fabrication requires large amounts of energy, highly refined machinery and poisonous substances. Because of this sacrifice, the resulting microchips should be treasured like gems or rare exotic spices.

The article goes on to talk about maximising active lifespans of devices, repairing what is broken, and several other ideas I've also written about, but rather than "salvage computing" (a term I borrowed from xj9, by the way), this article uses a somewhat less glamorous term:

> Once perfectly clean ways of producing microchip equivalents have been taken to use, the need for "junk fetishism" will probably diminish.

Ouch!

I don't share the author's apparent optimism that perfectly clean alternatives to semiconductors can provide a computing experience that resembles anything like what silicon has given us. I certainly don't think it's impossible, and I think research into plausible candidate technologies is worthwhile, but we shouldn't kid ourselves here: the universe does not owe us sustainable computing. Human ingenuity can and has achieved a great many remarkable things, but it's not magic. We can't develop whatever technology we like just by thinking long enough and hard enough about it. Cold, hard physical reality may not admit small, lightweight, low energy, high speed computing devices which can be manufactured on Earth without substantial environmental damage. I mean, why would it? It's not exactly a small ask.

Still, this is a difference of opinion more so than it is a substantial criticism of the article. Much of what the article says is still very relevant even with a worldview where salvage computing or junk fetishism is the end stage of computing, rather than just a transitional period before a future of sustainable computing. There is some interesting stuff in there that's not about energy or material consumption at all but rather about the social relationships between people and computers, network architecture, interface design, and more. There's also a bunch of stuff about Yin and Yang which I don't profess to, currently, understand at all. Still, as I said, on the whole the article is definitely worth reading, and if you are seriously interested in this topic then probably worth reading more than once.