Last Thoughts: the Idealism of Open Source Hardware

Over the past two months, I have done my best to bring some of the many different sides of open source hardware together onto one site. By doing this, I hope that I have helped illuminate the general potential of this new way of internet collaboration, even as I explored its various manifestations. To finish this blog, I would like to turn to the idealism that seems to lie at the heart of each open source hardware movement, whether it be Arduino, RepRap, or OSE.

RepRap and OSE both take a deeply optimistic view of both the creativity of the individual and the willingness of people to change. Almost in the manner of the wonderfully optimistic utopian socialists of the early twentieth century, each of their long term goals include a "major paradigm shift" in the possession of the means of production. In reality, both the idea of universal 3D printing replacing the global trade of manufactured goods and that of micro-scale DIY industrial machinery taking over from macro-scale agricultural and construction firms seem extremely unlikely, at least in any general way. Most people are too tied in to the existing systems of production and trade for either idea to make much headway, especially in the developed world on which the organizations are currently based.

This does not mean that their efforts are pointless, however. Although they may never achieve the earth-shaking changes to which their avowed mission goals aspire, I believe they will still have a positive effect. 

As it improves, RepRap's printers will likely become more attractive as cheaper (compared to commercial 3D printers) design tools to businesses and artists. Also, RepRap's open source nature will continue to drive innovation from the hobbyist side of 3D printing, perhaps pushing forward the companies that form the consumer and business orientated side of 3D printing in a way parallel to the computer revolution of the past decades. 

Likewise, I think OSE will continue to grow in popularity among micro farmers, small businesses, and the environmentally conscious. Their machines actually seem to be pretty good, and although I do not think that many average American citizens will take up the grand DIY, self-reliant vision of OSE anytime soon, I think that their GVCS platform could have a future as a source for cheap, well-designed small-scale industrial and agricultural devices. Also, if OSE can get the entire platform running, it could see application in the developing world as a alternative or at least a precursor to Western capital-intensive macro systems

Perhaps the two organizations should take a humbler position more along the lines of Arduino. Arduino is content to simply produce its motherboard and then release it to those interested, espousing no splendid visions of a revolutionized world, but still keeping at its core a sense of positive faith in the ingenuity of other people. The organization keeps the free idealism of open source hardware, while not vaingloriously over-promising anything. It is thus more capable of seeming a real innovation and less of a hobbyist's dream than RepRap or OSE. 

Whatever the chosen approach, it cannot be denied that each of these open source hardware organizations works from a basic desire for the improvement of humanity. Open source hardware by its collaborative nature is less dependent on self-advancement and more reliant on an unselfish desire to enable others to produce something cool and better themselves. Arduino manages this with perhaps less arrogance than RepRap or OSE by not overreaching itself, but each still stays more or less true to the course. Open source hardware is still in its fledgling stages, but its ability to keep going on the basis of this idealism is encouraging for innovators everywhere. 

Cattle vs. GVCS: OSE in the Developing World

The playing field cannot be too new of course. Even the the GVCS system cannot be completely self-sufficient and insular before it is properly established. OSE has taken inspiration from other organizations like  Working Villages International (check it out and watch the attached video) and envisions "pilot infrastructure-building and poverty-alleviation projects" based on this model of largely independent 1000 person communities.

 Working Villages International however, relies primarily on cattle to raise the economic wellbeing of its members. Cattle herds of course, are much easier for people of largely undeveloped regions (such as the eastern Congo) to grow, maintain, and use for work than the system of machines that GVCS is. IF OSE decides to work by this sort of model then, they must turn to communities that fit the needs of the GVCS.

VS

As I see it, OSE would therefore have to look to stable communities with some sort of basic infrastructure in partially developed nations such as Ghana or Kenya. These nations have at least rudimentary transport systems for OSE's guiding experts to access communities with basic starter tools and gather needed scrap metal and other materials. There would also be less danger of corruption or the seizure of the system by vying rebel or governmental groups. Local government would likely be easier to work with and more helpful in protecting and advancing villager and OSE goals. Finally, working with local entrepreneurs and villagers who simply feel confident that what they make will last would make progress much easier. Attempting to implement a GVCS in a place like the eastern Congo would inevitably be doomed to failure, while trying it in a nation that fulfills these requirements would at least be plausible.

It would require a great deal of work and time however. OSE would have to come up with some efficient, sequenced way of progressively educating locals in the production and use of each machine as they gradually advanced up the chain of microfactory replication to the final machines. Also, they would have to build an effective working relationship with the people in charge. The experts that OSE used to create their GVCS's in developing nations could not just be intelligent engineers, manufacturers, and agriculturalists. They would have to be highly adaptable leaders, diplomats, administrators, and teachers, capable of communicating effectively with villagers and outside groups and reacting to contextual problems and local concerns. Only with this kind of inspired leadership and understanding of local societies could the GVCS really take off a begin to spread in a grass-roots way that resulted in the locals having full control of the technologies they are given.

The payoff could be huge though. As Marcin Jakubowski states, OSE is all about "lowering the barriers to entry into taking up the means of production." The GVCS system allows the leapfrogging of the slow technological and infrastructural advancements that led to the developed world having those means of production, potentially without the oppressive degree of foreign interference and aid that marks many nation-building efforts today. Getting started would be the toughest part. With a great deal of hard work and good fortune, it would be possible for the GVCS system to truly take off in a developing nation. If it did, local economic growth, and by extension human development, would catapult exponentially.

So, when Open Source Ecology does finish their Global Village Construction Set, where, and in what ways do they expect to begin implementing it in developing countries? A lot of interest has built up around this question, as people see a great deal of potential in taking the open source hardware revolution to a new playing field, one that has not already been dominated by the consumer/mass producer economic system of most of the developed world. If open source hardware can take root in a world where most people are still forced by their economic situation to be self-sufficient, then maybe it will eventually seem a more feasible and attractive option to the consumption-dependent populations of first world nations. Plus, of course, a successful open source hardware operation in a developing nation would impart all the benefits of a successful economic aid platform with arguably (depending on how it was implemented) a more natural and self-reliant method of local growth than the operations of most first to third world assistance operations.

Open Source Ecology Continued

OSE Mission

The mission of Open Source Ecology is to create an open source economy - an economy that optimizes both production and distribution, while providing environmental regeneration and social justice.

Open Source Ecology, like many “big ideas” DIY projects, seeks nothing less than an eventual paradigm shift in the modern means of production– away from the wasteful, global trade-dependent consumerism of today to the locally productive and self-reliant “open source economy” for tomorrow. And like with practically every other one of these projects, this goal will seem a little ambitious for a young organization working on a still shoestring budget. However, in my opinion, OSE has a greater opportunity for accomplishing some real economic changes than most of its coequals.

The main platform by which OSE seeks to accomplish this paradigm shift is its Global Village Construction Set, which I described last week as an “entire system of production and machines [that] has to be modular, DIY, low-cost, high performance, user-servicable, heirloom design, flexible in fabrication, and, of course, completely open source.” The production side of the system is dependent upon  “open source fabrication labs” made up of the machines needed for the creation of other machines– a laser cutter, surface grinder, CNC circuit mill, wire and rod mill, CNC multimachine, stuff like that. Starting with relatively small amounts of capital and little original manufacturing capacity, OSE believes that gradually more advanced and expansionary devices can be built through the evolutionary use of each of these machines. Such a style of production creates a complex web of necessary interlocking components, and it will be some time before this organic method can be perfected.

From this foundation of fab lab machines production can then be extended to the devices that actually make a community possible– tractors, soil pulverizers, plows, reapers, etc. OSE, taking a practical view of this development, has chosen to focus on a combination of both fab lab and community machines, making the simpler ones first as they gradually increase their membership and support.





Currently, OSE relies heavily on private donators, faithful followers, and project foundations for funding. But this is starting to change. Lately, the organization has received increasing numbers of orders for several of their finished machines from the smaller, localized businesses that they claim to support. These businesses have ordered tractors and CEB brick makers– and even more have started making use of the open source design and have built them themselves. OSE might just be beginning to catch.  And it is in this way that they may gain the lasting power that they will need to truly promote their vision long-term. Soon, they may manage to start creating some waves in the world of small-scale manufacturing, contracting, and agriculture– the localized businesses in which OSE shows the most grassroots value right now.

OSE’s current method has not been without criticism however. One of the more interesting views I saw was this:

I strongly believe that the plan is not conceived with efficiency in mind. There are very few people who can afford to start new villages and to re-create the civilization from scratch. But there are billions of people who need right now machines like: washing machine, refrigerator, dryer, stove, oven, microwave, coffeemaker, dust buster, and other essential machines like these. And they won't have the energy, time, money, freedom from their families, motivation, to buy land in a village and to start to make civilization from scratch, thinking that one day they will produce washing machines on their own. That would take way too long for them so it would be totally impractical for them to do it.

But the market is huge for home appliances. If we create just three or five such home appliances, they would be adopted around the world with light speed, it would generate tons of cash, and also would make everyone in the world know who OSE and Marcin are. Creating just a few home appliances would bring even more cash and publicity to the OSE project than it needs. Having such resources would only accelerate the creation of the GVCS machines.

Perhaps OSE should look more closely into this. Reinventing the washing machine may not be as sexy as reinventing the tractor, but it could be more useful, at least in the short term.