Re: [Internet Policy] Why the World Must Resist Calls to Undermine the Internet

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

I have found precious few uses for a degree in nuclear physics other than
pointing out nonsense. The speculative claims being made in the attached
post are complete nonsense.

They are also irrelevant to the IETF except in one respect: The
international developments and the demand for energy that the post are
responding too will create intense political demand to prohibit with
extreme prejudice any and all technologies that rely on proof of work or
proof of waste to function. There will thus be a demand for technologies
that provide the same notarization benefits as Blockchain claims without
the proof of waste. Such technologies could and should be pursued in IETF.

My contribution in this area can be found here:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hallambaker-mesh-callsign-01.html


[Irrelevance follows]

The folk pursuing nuclear fusion are aware of the need for tritium which is
why they propose to manufacture it. That is incidentally the reason why
merely achieving breakeven fusion power is insufficient, to be a viable
power source, the fusion output needs to be approximately 100 to 1000 times
the input. Muon catalyzed fusion fails for similar reasons. I think it
highly unlikely that fusion power will be viable in the next 30 years but
the people working on it do deserve a fair hearing.

Equally, speculation about the viability of fission power from folk who
admit being 'too lazy to dig into' the details seems superfluous. The
engineers working on the Manhattan project chose uranium over thorium for
good reason and those reasons have not changed. Path dependence is a
powerful effect but the claim that thorium was overlooked out of ignorance
is false,

Electricity generation from renewable sources is a larger fraction of power
generation than fission power both in the US and the EU. On pre-2022
trends, wind power will be the largest source in both by 2030. Those trends
have greatly accelerated in response to recent events.

The notion that technologies that are currently meeting 15% (EU) and 21%
(US) of electricity generation cannot provide substantially more demands a
fuller argument than pointing to the people suggesting that it can and
denouncing them as dirty smelly hippies.

Equally arguments based on how fast deployment of a technology has to grow
based on a fraction of existing deployment without reference to the
constraints are nonsense. The Web went from less than 1% of Internet users
to 99% of users in less than a year, a 100 times increase.

Oh and yes, an obligatory disclaimer, I do have substantial investments in
renewable generation technologies. But rather than that being 'bias' I
prefer to think of it as 'putting my money where my keyboard is'.



On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 3:17 PM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Richard and Axel,
> Unfortunately, civilization is moving right now to a dead end.
> Because it is still a pure Hydrocarbon civilization (solar or wind are a
> canned coal from China in reality - it is a fake that it brings anything
> positive in the mankind balance).
> But the return is smaller and smaller: initially, it was needed to spend 1
> barrel to produce 100 barrels.
> It is less and less productive now (I am lazy to dig exact numbers, a few
> decades have left by the people who calculated it carefully).
> The same is for all other natural resources (coal, gas).
> Return is already 3x for coal in some places. But even predators have 10x
> in nature.
> It is not possible to keep the current level of civilization with such a
> bad energy resource as we have for coal in many places.
> It has nothing to do with money - money would not help at all if
> calculations are done for the whole mankind.
> A human population like a virus should follow a famous logistic curve (S
> shape), it should abruptly drop (like for a virus) for the overpopulated
> community.
> Civilization could start from arrows without any nuclear war.
>
> Nuclear Fusion is a fake. Not because they have not mastered it after 70
> years.
> But primarily because it needs Tritium for "low-temperature" reaction.
> Tritium has a very small resource on the Earth. It would not help anyway.
> Oceans have Deuterium for 1 million of years (with the current mankind's
> consumption).
> But if "low temperature" was not archived (for D+T), how to achieve "high
> temperature" (for D+D reaction)?
> Looks like a guaranteed fiasco.
>
> There is a solution. Current nuclear stations consume Uranium 235 for
> "slow neutrons" reaction.
> Uranium 235 is very limited on the Earth too. It would not help for a long
> time (not even a hundred years).
> Uranium 238 is 100x more available.
> There were about 20 reactors on "fast neutrons" in different countries.
> I am lazy to dig, but a few big has been started in Russia recently
> (1.2GWt is the latest one - big noise around this), for sure India and
> China are doing a lot (and have operational reactors too).
> Uranium 238 is enough for 1.5k years of mankind.
> If India would find how to use Thorium (looks like they invest a lot in
> this topic), then it is about 3x resources compare to Uranium 238 (5k years
> for mankind?).
> Unfortunately, it may be too late to start massive construction for such
> types of reactors.
> The world needs thousands (I am lazy to calculate the exact number). It
> looks like time has been lost already.
>
> "Kardashev Scale" looks like a populistic discussion in the face of a
> deadly problem that mankind already has.
> We are on the top of the logistic curve.
> We need to jump on the next logistic curve or depopulate 100000x (return
> to wood again).
> We did already a few jumps between logistics curves: from wood to coal,
> from coal to oil/gas.
> We are still alive. We need the next jump. Or die.
>
> PS: Indeed, it is distantly related to the thread discussion.
>
> PS2: if somebody would start to argue about solar or wind - do not
> calculate anything in money.
> Distortions of falsely assumed "open market" are not relevant (with all
> sanctions, subsidizations, "currency board" colonial systems, etc.).
> The only calculation valuable is "how much energy is needed to produce
> energy".
> How much is the return coefficient?
> 10x is possible for predator (animals).
> 100x is needed for the current level of mankind.
> 1000x is needed for the next level of civilization.
>
> Eduard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger,
> Richard
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:32 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Why the World Must Resist Calls to
> Undermine the Internet
>
> To be pedantic, humanity has not even managed Kardashov level 1.
>
> At current energy consumtion rate, we manage a 0.73.
>
> (For reference, at level 2, each and every member of the human race would
> consume more than the energy, that we as a global society are currently
> using in total - or with other words, each human would control power
> similar to the current global scale).
>
> Couldn't resist.
>
>
> Am 29.03.2022 um 14:29 schrieb Axel Abad:
> > I.M.H.O. : This is a fallacy from the beggining. Maybe was a nice
> > idealism.. very altruistic and selfless.
> >
> > But the true is there for everyone to see.
> >
> > Why  should we think that Internet must be of and for everybody?
> > Is that more important than the Human Health? or the Food? (not for
> > free, not for everyone)
> >
> > By the moment, the only thing that we can consume freely  is the Air...
> > Al the other "basic" needs are rated and have a cost..
> > Is sad, but is true.
> >
> > Access to technology will be always reserved for some portion of the
> > human kind. There are lots of people who don´t have access to food..
> > or even water... They are not concerned about Internet, for sure...
> > But there are a lot of others who didn´t have access to basic tools,
> > like a hammer or a spade...
> >
> > So, the "formula" is very simple: If you have enough resources to live
> > in the current culture without worries about food and roof needs (and
> > other basics), then "you are in" (if you want invest on that).
> >
> > Then, access to technology is costly. If you can have this access,
> > then someone is receiving something in exchange.
> > And there is when the Internet stops be of all and for all. And there
> > is when the "control" begins.
> > No matter if it is on a Governement hands, or a Private entity.
> >
> > Until the entire Human race enter on the next Kardashov civilization
> > age (type II) we will continue to be "energy provider" dependent, and
> > that´s include all related technologies involved with electrical
> > energy (Telecomm, Internet, etc.)
> >
> > To have Internet free for all, we need to have Energy free for all first.
> >
> > That´s is my comment about. Sorry if it is not "nice" or "kindly".
> >
> > Axel Abad.-
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *De:* InternetPolicy <[e-mail]> en
> > nombre de willi uebelherr via InternetPolicy
> > <[e-mail]>
> > *Enviado:* lunes, 28 de marzo de 2022 15:47
> > *Para:* ISOC Internet Policy <[e-mail]>
> > *Cc:* IRTF discuss <[e-mail]>; IETF discussion
> > <[e-mail]>; IGF governance <[e-mail]>
> > *Asunto:* Re: [Internet Policy] Why the World Must Resist Calls to
> > Undermine the Internet
> >
> > Why the World Must Resist Calls to Undermine the Internet Andrew
> > Sullivan, 02.03.2022
> > https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resist
> > -calls-to-undermine-the-internet/
> > <https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/03/why-the-world-must-resis
> > t-calls-to-undermine-the-internet/>
> >
> > Internet Fragmentation: An Overview
> > William Drake, Vinton Cerf, Wolfgang Kleinwächter
> > 01.2016
> > https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overvi
> > ew_2016.pdf
> > <https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FII_Internet_Fragmentation_An_Overv
> > iew_2016.pdf>
> >
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > i am very surprised at the passion in this discussion to gather on
> > side issues instead of addressing the main issues.
> >
> > The statement by Andrew Sullivan from ISOC still stands:
> > "The Internet have to be for everyone".
> >
> > And from a member of the IETF-maillist:
> > "Internet, from the people, for the people ..."
> >
> > Already in 2016 this text was published, which I linked at the
> > beginning of this email:
> > "Internet Fragmentation: An Overview."
> >
> > On page 10 we read:
> > "From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the
> > Internet's development was that every device on the Internet should be
> > able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing
> > to receive them. ..."
> >
> > And even in our 1st discussion in 2016 on the topic of the Internet on
> > ISOC's global policy list, there was no relevant interest to address
> > the basic problem in the construction of an Internet.
> >
> > When private and governmental interests dominate, nothing can ever
> > emerge that is intended to work for communities of people. It then
> > remains a fragmented entity where only individual interests are to be
> > realized. And there we are still.
> >
> > We see today how disastrous this way is. The Russian Federation has
> > now put a stop to this madness by ending the militarization and
> > fascization of Eurasia.
> >
> > And we see in the food supply the consequences of regions not
> > respecting their sovereignty and autonomy. World trade and global
> > economic constriction is part of the great nonsense that people have
> > come up with. The Roman Empire also failed in this. And the US dollar
> > empire will also fail.
> >
> > We, as actors for a free global communication of the people of this
> > planet, do not need privatization and state control mania. Etatism
> > will be buried.
> >
> > We need the creative development of local and regional potentials.
> > Even if telecommunication is not a food, it is the prerequisite for
> > our free exchange of theoretical bases and our construction ideas, in
> > order to be able to produce all that we really need. And always there,
> > where it is also needed.
> >
> > The telecommunication in the form of an Internet is our instrument to
> > overcome our fragmentation of the people into ethnic groups and
> > linguistic and cultural spaces, in order to give to all people the
> > possibility to be able to produce their stable material bases of life
> > according to our natural conditions of existence.
> >
> > You see, I refer here clearly and without compromise to the statement
> > of Andrew Sullivan. Maybe some of you find my interpretation of this
> > statement unpleasant or not purposeful? Then let's talk about our
> > intentions and motivations that lead us to deal with questions of an
> > InterNet and to talk and write about it.
> >
> > When we talk about construction principles, we are not yet talking
> > about the details of the components that are needed for it and how
> > they can be created. Every manufacturing process rests on 3 phases:
> > Design, Construction and Manufacturing.
> >
> > We are actually back in the design phase because we can or might
> > recognize that what has been created over the last few decades is not
> > fit for purpose. So it was a design failure from the beginning.
> >
> > with kind regards, willi
> > Asuncion, Paraguay
> >
> >
> > original in german
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Liebe freunde,
> >
> > ich bin sehr erstaunt ueber die Leidenschaft in dieser Diskussion,
> > sich auf Nebenschauplaetzen zu versammeln, statt sich den Hauptfragen zu
> widmen.
> >
> > Nach wie vor steht die Aussage von Andrew Sullivan von ISOC im Raum:
> > "The Internet have to be for everyone".
> >
> > And from a member of the IETF-maillist:
> > "Internet, from the people, for the people ..."
> >
> > Schon 2016 wurde dieser Text veroeffentlicht, den ich am Anfang dieser
> > email verlinkt habe:
> > "Internet Fragmentation: An Overview."
> >
> > Auf Seite 10 lesen wir:
> > "From a technical standpoint, the original shared vision guiding the
> > Internet’s development was that every device on the Internet should be
> > able to exchange data packets with any other device that was willing
> > to receive them. ..."
> >
> > Und schon in unserer 1. Diskussion 2016 zum Thema Internet auf der
> > globalen policy-liste von ISOC war kein relevantes Interesse zu
> > erkennen, die Grundproblematik in der Konstruktion eines Internet
> > anzusprechen.
> >
> > Wenn private und staatliche Interessen dominieren, kann niemals etwas
> > entstehen, das fuer die Gemeinschaften der Menschen wirken soll. Es
> > bleibt dann ein fragmentiertes Gebilde, wo nur individuale Interessen
> > realisiert werden sollen. Und da sind wir immer noch.
> >
> > Wir sehen heute, wie katastrophal dieser Weg ist. Die russische
> > Foederation hat diesem Irrsinn nun einen Stop gesetzt, indem sie die
> > Militarisierung und Faschisierung von Eurasien beendet.
> >
> > Und wir sehen in der Nahrungsmittelversorgung die Konsequenzen, wenn
> > die Regionen nicht auf ihre Souveraenitaet und Autonomie achten.
> > Welthandel und globale oekonomische Verschraenkung ist Teil des
> > grossen Bloedsinns, den sich die Menschen ausgedacht haben. Auch das
> > roemische Imperium ist daran gescheitert. Und das US-Dollar-Imperium
> wird auch daran scheitern.
> >
> > Wir, als Akteure fuer eine freie globale Kommunikation der Menschen
> > dieses Planeten brauchen keine Privatisierung und staatlichen
> > Kontrollwahn. Der Etatismus wird begraben.
> >
> > Wir brauchen die kreative Entfaltung der lokalen und regionalen
> > Potentiale. Auch wenn die Telekommunikation kein Lebensmittel ist, so
> > ist sie doch die Vorraussetzung fuer unseren freien Austausch der
> > theoretischen Grundlagen und unserer Konstruktionsideen, um all jenes
> > herstellen zu koennen, was wir wirklich brauchen. Und immer dort, wo
> > es auch gebraucht wird.
> >
> > Die Telekommunikation in Form eines Internet ist unser Instrument, um
> > unsere Fragmentisierung der Menschen in Ethnien und spachliche und
> > kulturelle Raeume zu ueberwinden, um allen Menschen die Moeglichkeit
> > zu geben, ihre stabilen materiellen Lebensgrundlagen gemaess unserer
> > natuerlichen Existenzbedingungen selbst herstellen zu koennen.
> >
> > Ihr seht, ich beziehe mich hier eindeutig und ohne Kompromisse auf die
> > Aussage von Andrew Sullivan. Vielleicht ist manchem von euch meine
> > Interpretation dieser Aussage unangenehm oder nicht zielfuehrend? Dann
> > lasst uns ueber unsere Intentionen und Motivationen sprechen, die uns
> > veranlassen, uns mit fragen eines InterNet zu beschaeftigen und
> > drueber zu sprechen und zu schreiben.
> >
> > Wenn wir ueber Konstruktionsprinzipien sprechen, dann geht es noch
> > nicht um die Details der Komponenten, die dafuer gebraucht werden und
> > wie sie entstehen koennen. Jeder Herstellungsprozess ruht auf 3 Phasen:
> > Design/Entwurf, Konstruktion und Herstellung.
> >
> > Wir befinden uns eigentlich wieder in der Entwurfsphase, weil wir
> > erkennen koennen oder koennten, dass das, was die letzten Jahrzehnte
> > entstanden ist, nicht tauglich ist. Es war also von Anfang an ein
> > Entwurfsfehler.
> >
> > mit lieben Gruessen, willi
> > Asuncion, Paraguay
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions or unsubscribe, log into
> > the Member Portal at
> > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> > <https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login>
> > and go to the Preferences tab within your profile.
> > -
> > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> > https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
> > <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/>
>
>