Technology
Welcome to Praxis - Applying Global Crisis Framework to Real-World Challenges
This section translates theoretical understanding into practical insights by systematically analyzing contemporary crises through the GCF/TERRA lens. Each theme and sub-theme presented here undergoes rigorous discourse analysis to reveal underlying assumptions, critical review to assess current approaches, and transformation mapping to identify pragmatic pathways forward. Whether you're a policymaker seeking evidence-based alternatives, an activist looking for systemic leverage points, a researcher exploring interconnected risks, or a concerned citizen trying to make sense of our predicament, PRAXIS offers structured analysis that moves beyond both naive optimism and paralyzing doom.
How to Navigate: Each theme contains 4-5 sub-themes with dedicated analysis. Use the dropdown menus to explore specific topics or browse comprehensively through interconnected crisis domains. Content includes Overview papers (foundational understanding), Perspective Papers (expert analysis), Essays (critical examinations), Current Affairs (real-time applications), and Videos (visual explainers). We recommend starting with the Overview to ground yourself in each topic before diving into specialized content. Look for the [🔗] symbol indicating cross-domain connections and use the TERRA tool to assess your own contexts.
Technology Theme Introduction
Technology isn't neutral infrastructure—it's power relations embedded in material form. Every algorithm, platform, and device encodes specific distributions of control, concentrates or disperses capacity, and either accelerates or slows entropy generation. The comfortable narrative treats technology as tools awaiting wise use. The thermodynamic reality reveals technical systems as materialized social relations that concentrate power while externalizing costs onto planetary boundaries and human communities.
The Base Layer Reality: Thermodynamics Governs Every Technical System
Digital infrastructure consumed 416 TWh globally in 2024, equivalent to the entire electricity generation of France and Spain combined. This figure doubles approximately every four years, accelerating as AI training demands explode. Training GPT-4 consumed 50 GWh—equivalent to the annual electricity use of 50,000 U.S. homes. GPT-5 projections suggest 150+ GWh per training run. Data centers now represent 1-2% of global electricity consumption, rising to a projected 4-8% by 2030 if current AI acceleration continues.
These aren't abstract statistics—they're thermodynamic constraints colliding with declining energy surplus. Global Energy Return on Investment (EROI) stands at approximately 15:1, down from historical 100:1, declining toward the 10:1 threshold below which complex civilization cannot maintain itself. Every terawatt-hour directed toward computation represents energy unavailable for food production, healthcare delivery, infrastructure maintenance, or the renewable manufacturing that technology enthusiasts promise will save us.
The computational trap closes: AI systems promising to "solve climate change" through optimization consume exponentially growing energy generated primarily by fossil fuels during the very energy descent that makes such consumption unsustainable. The technology sector simultaneously claims to provide solutions while functioning as an Energy Parasite—adding complexity that requires energy surplus exactly as that surplus evaporates.
The Structure Layer: Economic Imperatives Drive Technical Development
Platform capitalism concentrates $2.9 trillion annually through monopolistic market positions that emerged not from superior products but from network effects creating winner-take-all dynamics. Five companies—Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft—control 65% of digital advertising, 90% of search, 80% of social media, and 75% of cloud infrastructure. This isn't competition; it's competition elimination through acquisition and market power.
Venture capital funding selects for specific business models: those capable of exponential scaling, monopoly capture, and 10-100x returns within 5-7 years. This requirement eliminates technologies serving long-term sustainability, community autonomy, or human flourishing that can't generate massive financial returns. Companies prioritizing user wellbeing over growth, maintaining ethical data constraints, or building for durability get outcompeted by those optimizing for extraction and concentration.
The economic outcome: technological development systematically selects against systems aligned with planetary boundaries and for systems concentrating wealth through extraction. Uber raised $25 billion to subsidize rides below cost until market dominance was achieved, then raised prices above taxi rates while paying drivers below minimum wage in many jurisdictions. The "innovation" transferred wealth from workers and communities to venture capital and platform owners while degrading transportation infrastructure and labor standards.
Platform monopolies appropriate surplus generated elsewhere without producing goods or services. They function as intermediaries extracting rents through market power while externalizing costs onto workers (gig economy precarity), communities (housing crises from Airbnb), democratic governance (Facebook's election manipulation), and planetary systems (e-waste, energy consumption, material extraction).
The Superstructure Layer: Innovation Ideology Conceals Structural Imperatives
"Innovation" rhetoric naturalizes surveillance, concentration, and extraction. The progress narrative frames all technical change as advancement toward better futures, foreclosing examination of whether changes actually improve human flourishing or ecological stability. The neutrality myth—"technology is neutral, it's all about how we use it"—fundamentally misunderstands what technology is. Technologies aren't inert tools; they're materialized social relations embedding specific power arrangements.
A smartphone isn't neutral infrastructure that could equally serve privacy or surveillance. It's designed for continuous data transmission to centralized servers, enabling surveillance as core functionality. Platform algorithms aren't neutral; they prioritize engagement over accuracy because that generates advertising revenue. The technical architecture embodies particular power relations.
Planned obsolescence demonstrates this clearly. Apple prevents battery replacement through serialization and software locks. John Deere blocks farmers from repairing tractors they purchased. Tesla disables features remotely. These aren't misuses of neutral tools—they're power relations embedded in code and hardware, designed to maintain manufacturer control and force replacement cycles generating maximum profit while externalizing environmental costs.
The ideology serves power by making structural change invisible. If every problem has a technical solution, we don't need to transform economic systems, redistribute power, or constrain accumulation. We just need more innovation, more investment, more technology. The narrative ensures that technological development serves existing power structures rather than challenging them.
Technology doesn't exist in isolation—it connects to every other crisis dimension:
Energy: AI energy demands force impossible trade-offs. Do we train language models or run hospitals? The question shouldn't exist, but declining EROI makes it real.
Economy: Venture capital's 10-100x return requirements select for extractive business models incompatible with sustainability regardless of green rhetoric.
Ecology: E-waste generation, rare earth extraction, and manufacturing energy represent direct planetary boundary transgressions accelerating with device proliferation and planned obsolescence.
Social & Culture: Screen addiction, attention fragmentation, and algorithmic manipulation degrade the social fabric and collective intelligence required for coordinated crisis response.
Geopolitics: Semiconductor concentration in Taiwan (92% of advanced chips), rare earth monopoly in China, and AI arms race create conflict dynamics as resource competition intensifies.
Civilization Collapse: Technology adds complexity requiring energy maintenance exactly as energy surplus declines—the Component C failure driving civilizational simplification.
The Sub-Themes Ahead
Understanding technology through the Global Crisis Framework requires examining ten interconnected dimensions: Artificial Intelligence & computational energy costs (3.1), Renewable Energy Technology limitations (3.2), Digital Infrastructure vulnerabilities (3.3), Automation & Labor Displacement dynamics (3.4), Biotechnology risks (3.5), Space Colonization thermodynamics (3.6), Surveillance & Social Control mechanisms (3.7), Cryptocurrency energy waste (3.8), Quantum Computing promises (3.9), and Nanotechnology material constraints (3.10).
Each sub-theme receives comprehensive analysis revealing what mainstream discourse conceals, what thermodynamics actually permits, and what Category 8 alternatives demonstrate viability at scale. Priority sub-themes (3.1 AI, 3.2 Renewables) activate first, with progressive expansion over coming years.
The window for building alternative technological infrastructure narrows as dominant systems extend control and planetary boundaries tighten. But communities creating convivial tools—repairable, democratic, low-energy, human-scale—demonstrate technological capacity aligned with both human needs and thermodynamic reality. Right-to-repair movements, platform cooperatives, mesh networks, tool libraries, and open-source hardware prove viability.
Technology can serve life or extraction. The choice isn't inevitable—it's structural. Understanding that structure through PAP, TERRA, and IvLS frameworks provides navigation capacity for the simplification ahead.
Video Gallery
Revised Related Themes Navigation
Sudhir Shetty realizes the existence of Global Crisis as humanity's existential predicament much larger than climate change or plastic pollution.
2018
Sudhir Shetty realizes the existence of Global Crisis as humanity's existential predicament much larger than climate change or plastic
pollution.2019
Founder quits formal PhD pursuits and embarks on independent research exploration to discover conceptual frameworks that can empower change makers to navigate Global Crisis.
2021
Launch of www.globalcrisisresponse.org in April as a collapse-awareplatform; birth of Orb-Tranz Research & Broadcasting Foundation with transnational vision; beginning of volunteer internship programs.
2022
Achievement of 12A & 80G certificates; live presentations in Rajasthan and Mumbai.
2023
Sajai Jose & Usha Alexander join as voluntary collaborators; website refurbishment.
2020 - 2025
Extensive research culminates in TERRA Framework and Global Crisis Response Strategy (GCRS) as model "super-narrative" to navigate Global Crisis.
2025
Launch of GCR.org's YouTube channel; Publication of comprehensive Global Crisis Framework White Paper.
Title: The Computational Energy Trap
Discourse Blind Spot: Silicon Valley assumes computation can scale infinitely while promising AI will "solve climate change" through algorithmic optimization and smart grid management.GCF Reality: Data centers consumed 416 TWh in 2024 (1-2% of global electricity), doubling every 4 years. At current AI trajectory, data centers require 800+ TWh by 2032 (4-8% of global electricity)—thermodynamically impossible as declining EROI from 15:1 toward 10:1 reduces available surplus. Training GPT-4 consumed 50 GWh, equivalent to 50,000 homes' annual electricity use. GPT-5 projected at 150+ GWh.
The Paradox: Technology sector promises energy solutions while consuming exponentially growing energy itself. AI "solving" climate requires energy that accelerates climate breakdown.
Explore: How do computational energy demands force impossible trade-offs between running AI systems and maintaining basic infrastructure?
Link: /praxis/energyTitle: Venture Capital's Extraction Imperative
Discourse Blind Spot: "Ethical tech" and "stakeholder capitalism" assume technology development can serve community benefit within existing financial structures requiring 10-100x returns in 5-7 years.GCF Reality: Venture capital invested $455 billion in tech in 2024, demanding exits through monopoly formation or acquisition. This structural requirement eliminates technologies serving long-term sustainability, worker ownership, or commons-based production. Uber raised $25 billion to subsidize rides until achieving market dominance, then extracted through higher prices and lower driver wages. Platform monopolies appropriate $2.9 trillion annually without producing goods or services.
The Mathematics: VC structure mathematically selects for extraction regardless of founder intentions. 90% of funded companies fail, requiring the surviving 10% to generate 100x returns. Only monopolistic extraction achieves this.
Explore: Why do funding structures make genuinely ethical technology development financially impossible within mainstream investment?
Link: /praxis/economyTitle: The E-Waste & Extraction Crisis
Discourse Blind Spot: "Green tech" focuses on operational energy efficiency while ignoring manufacturing energy costs, material extraction impacts, and planned obsolescence driving replacement cycles.GCF Reality: Global e-waste generation reached 62 million metric tons in 2024, growing 21% since 2019. Only 17% gets recycled. Smartphone production requires mining rare earths in Congo (cobalt), Chile (lithium), and China (processing 85% globally), driving biodiversity loss, water contamination, and conflict. Average device lifespan: 2-3 years despite technical capability for 8-10 years. Planned obsolescence is designed, not accidental—Apple serializes batteries, John Deere blocks repairs, Tesla disables features remotely.
The Thermodynamics: Extending lifespans from 3 to 10 years reduces manufacturing energy 75%, extraction 75%, and waste 75%—far exceeding any operational efficiency gains.
Explore: How does planned obsolescence transfer environmental costs from manufacturers to planetary boundaries while concentrating profits?
Link: /praxis/ecologyTitle: Attention Capture & Social Fragmentation
Discourse Blind Spot: "Digital connection" narrative claims social media strengthens community while isolating screen time to individual responsibility rather than algorithmic design.GCF Reality: Average U.S. adult spends 7+ hours daily on screens, 2.5 hours on social media specifically. Social capital declined 40%+ since 1970s, accelerating with smartphone adoption (2007-present). Facebook's algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, systematically amplifying outrage and misinformation because that generates 6x more interaction. Adolescent depression doubled 2010-2019, correlating precisely with social media adoption. Platform architecture designed for addiction, not connection.
The Mechanism: Dopamine manipulation through variable reward schedules, infinite scroll, and notification psychology. These aren't misuses—they're core functionality designed to maximize time on platform and advertising revenue.
Explore: Why do platforms designed to "connect" systematically destroy the social fabric required for collective crisis response?
Link: /praxis/social-cultureTitle: The Semiconductor Vulnerability
Discourse Blind Spot: "Technology independence" rhetoric ignores concentrated dependencies: Taiwan produces 92% of advanced chips, China controls 85% of rare earth processing, and AI arms race accelerates conflict risk.GCF Reality: TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) holds monopoly on sub-7nm chip production—92% global market share. Any Taiwan conflict disrupts global electronics, computing, military systems, and infrastructure. U.S. CHIPS Act allocated $52 billion for domestic manufacturing, but building equivalent capacity requires 10+ years and thousands of trained engineers unavailable domestically. Meanwhile, China achieved 7nm production despite sanctions, U.S. restricts chip exports, and AI compute becomes strategic weapon.
The Convergence: Resource competition (rare earths, semiconductors) meets geopolitical rivalry meets AI arms race—three impossibilities colliding.
Explore: How does semiconductor concentration create civilizational single points of failure exactly as geopolitical tensions escalate?
Link: /praxis/geopoliticsTitle: Component C: Adding Complexity During Energy Descent
Discourse Blind Spot: "Smart systems" assume adding technological complexity reduces risk and improves efficiency while ignoring maintenance energy requirements during declining energy surplus.GCF Reality: Component C test: Does initiative add complexity to existing systems during energy descent? If yes, it becomes maintenance burden accelerating collapse. Smart grids add sensors, processing, and control systems on top of aging infrastructure—requiring energy to manage energy. AI systems need continuous training, inference, and updates—each iteration consuming more energy. Autonomous vehicles require lidar, computing, mapping, and connectivity—eliminating simpler, lower-energy transport options.
The Trap: Every "smart" intervention adds complexity requiring maintenance energy exactly as EROI declines from 15:1 toward 10:1 threshold. At 10:1, 90% of energy goes to maintaining existing infrastructure—nothing remains for added complexity.
Explore: Why does technological "innovation" during energy descent accelerate civilizational simplification rather than preventing it?
Link: /praxis/civilization-collapseTitle: Dual-Use Technologies & Catastrophic Risks
Discourse Blind Spot: AI safety research focuses on distant AGI risks while ignoring immediate harms: deepfakes destabilizing elections, autonomous weapons lowering war thresholds, and gain-of-function research creating pandemic risks.GCF Reality: Technology development accelerates catastrophic risk across multiple domains simultaneously: AI-generated bioweapons (synthesis instructions publicly available), autonomous weapons deployed (Kargu-2 in Libya 2020), deepfake election interference (documented in 47 countries 2024), cryptocurrency enabling ransomware at scale, and quantum computing threatening cryptography. Each domain advances faster than governance capacity to regulate or contain.
The Velocity: Risk generation accelerating while coordination capacity declining. Time from lab to deployment shrinking (GPT-4 released 6 months after GPT-3.5). Dual-use technologies can't be un-invented.
Explore: How do converging technological risks overwhelm institutions designed for isolated threat management?
Link: /praxis/global-risk-management
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add a Title
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Technology Sub-Themes
3.1: Artificial Intelligence & AGI [TIER 2 - PRIORITY #1]
Status: Coming Q1 2026 | Priority: Foundation for understanding computational energy trap
The most urgent technology analysis: $200+ billion invested annually in AI systems consuming 200+ TWh and doubling every 4 years. OpenAI promises AGI will "solve all problems" while training GPT-4 consumed 50 GWh (50,000 homes' annual electricity). This exemplifies the
Energy Parasite—adding complexity requiring exponentially growing energy exactly as global EROI declines from 15:1 toward 10:1 collapse threshold.
Key Questions: How do AI energy demands force impossible trade-offs? Why does "AI safety" research accelerate AI deployment? What thermodynamic constraints govern computational scaling?
Coming Soon: Full perspective paper revealing what $200B in AI investment conceals about physics.
3.2: Renewable Energy Technology [TIER 4 - PRIORITY #2]
Status: Coming Q2 2026 | Priority: Decodes the "green transition" impossibility
Manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries requires fossil energy that won't exist at scale when needed. Mining lithium, copper, and rare earths transgresses planetary boundaries. EROI of renewables (8-12:1) below threshold for maintaining current complexity (15:1 minimum). The thermodynamic trap: using 15:1 energy to build 10:1 infrastructure at scale while maintaining consumption equals net energy decline.
Key Questions: What's the EROI cliff for renewable manufacturing? How does material extraction scale compare to planetary boundaries? Can renewables maintain civilization at current complexity?
Coming Soon: Complete thermodynamic assessment mainstream "green growth" advocates systematically ignore.
3.3: Digital Infrastructure & Connectivity
Status: Coming Q3 2026 | Priority: Exposes fragility of "critical" systems
The Internet, cloud computing, and telecommunications present as civilization-critical infrastructure while depending on continuous electricity, rare materials, and global supply chains vulnerable at multiple points.
December 2021 AWS outage: 4 hours offline crashed Netflix, Ring, thousands of sites. Single points of failure everywhere: undersea cables (400+ globally), data centers (require 24/7 cooling), semiconductor supply (Taiwan 92%), rare earth processing (China 85%).
Key Questions: How fragile is "critical" digital infrastructure actually? What happens when energy constraints force maintenance trade-offs? Why do we treat optional services as essential?
3.4: Automation & Labor Displacement
Status: Coming Q4 2026 | Priority: Labor-capital power shift analysis
Technology development systematically prioritizes labor elimination over worker empowerment. Automated customer service replaces human support. Self-checkout eliminates retail cashiers. Algorithmic management deskills drivers and delivery workers. AI systems target professionals for replacement. This isn't economic necessity—it's strategic choice reflecting power relations. Capital controls technology, directing development toward labor displacement concentrating wealth.
Key Questions: Why does automation consistently serve capital extraction rather than human flourishing? What happens when mass unemployment meets declining energy surplus? Can worker ownership change technological development priorities?
3.5: Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering
Status: Coming 2027 | Priority: Dual-use risk and hubris exposure
CRISPR gene editing, gain-of-function research, and synthetic biology advance faster than governance capacity to regulate or contain. Dual-use risks proliferate: pandemic potential pathogens created in labs, gene drives capable of eliminating species, biohacking accessible globally. Meanwhile, genetic determinism ideology masks social determinants of health.
The thermodynamic trap: biotechnology promises to transcend limits while requiring massive energy and material infrastructure.
Key Questions: How do dual-use biotechnologies create catastrophic risks? Why does reductionist genetics thinking ignore systemic health determinants? What viable alternatives exist?
3.6: Space Exploration & Colonization
Status: Coming 2027 | Priority: Ultimate extraction fantasy analysis
Mars colonization, asteroid mining, and space hotels represent peak "technological solutionism"—assuming off-world expansion solves on-world constraints. The thermodynamics: launching 1 kg to Mars requires approximately 15,000 kg of Earth resources. Building self-sufficient Mars colonies requires transporting industrial capacity impossible to achieve. Meanwhile, $150+ billion annually funds space ventures while basic Earth infrastructure crumbles.
Key Questions: What's the EROI of space colonization? Why invest in Mars terraforming rather than Earth regeneration? Whose fantasy does space ideology serve?
3.7: Surveillance & Social Control
Status: Coming 2027 | Priority: Power concentration mechanisms
Facial recognition, behavioral prediction, social credit systems, and pervasive monitoring concentrate control while marketed as security or convenience. Five Eyes intelligence sharing, China's surveillance state, predictive policing algorithms, and corporate data harvesting create infrastructures enabling authoritarianism at scales previously impossible. Privacy isn't individual preference—it's social infrastructure enabling dissent, creativity, and democratic governance.
Key Questions: How does surveillance technology concentrate power? Why do "security" systems systematically target vulnerable populations? What technological resistance remains possible?
3.8: Cryptocurrencies & Blockchain
Status: Coming 2028 | Priority: Spectacular energy waste analysis
Bitcoin mining consumed 150+ TWh in 2024—equivalent to Argentina's total electricity use—to process 7 transactions per second (Visa processes 65,000). This represents perhaps history's most spectacular energy waste for minimal functionality. Blockchain promises "decentralization" while concentrating mining in industrial operations. Meanwhile, cryptocurrency enables ransomware at scale, facilitates sanctions evasion, and generates financial speculation disconnected from productive activity.
Key Questions: What's the energy cost per transaction versus traditional systems? Why does "decentralization" rhetoric mask actual concentration? Are there legitimate blockchain use cases?
3.9: Quantum Computing
Status: Coming 2028 | Priority: Hype cycle reality check
Quantum computing promises revolutionary capabilities:
breaking encryption, simulating molecules, optimizing logistics. The reality: 30+ years of research, billions invested, still no practical quantum advantage for real-world problems.
Meanwhile, quantum systems require near-absolute zero cooling, are incredibly fragile, and face fundamental scalability barriers. Yet the hype drives investment, talent, and geopolitical competition based on capabilities that may never materialize at useful scales.
Key Questions: What thermodynamic constraints govern quantum computing? Which promises are physically possible versus marketing? What viable alternatives exist for claimed applications?
3.10: Nanotechnology & Materials Science
Status: Coming 2028 | Priority: Material limits & grey goo fears
Nanotechnology promises molecular manufacturing, self-replicating machines, and material properties transcending current limits. The reality: significant progress in specific applications (drug delivery, coatings, electronics) but nowhere near transformative "molecular assemblers" promised since 1980s. Meanwhile, nanoparticle environmental impacts remain poorly understood, and "grey goo" scenarios (self-replicating nanobots consuming biosphere) create existential risks even if low-probability.
Key Questions: What's achievable versus speculation in nanotechnology? How do nanomaterials interact with biological systems and ecosystems? Where do material science limits actually constrain possibilities?
Technology Perspective Paper
Sudhir Shetty realizes the existence of Global Crisis as humanity's existential predicament much larger than climate change or plastic pollution.
2018
Sudhir Shetty realizes the existence of Global Crisis as humanity's existential predicament much larger than climate change or plastic
pollution.2019
Founder quits formal PhD pursuits and embarks on independent research exploration to discover conceptual frameworks that can empower change makers to navigate Global Crisis.
2021
Launch of www.globalcrisisresponse.org in April as a collapse-awareplatform; birth of Orb-Tranz Research & Broadcasting Foundation with transnational vision; beginning of volunteer internship programs.
2022
Achievement of 12A & 80G certificates; live presentations in Rajasthan and Mumbai.
2023
Sajai Jose & Usha Alexander join as voluntary collaborators; website refurbishment.
2020 - 2025
Extensive research culminates in TERRA Framework and Global Crisis Response Strategy (GCRS) as model "super-narrative" to navigate Global Crisis.
2025
Launch of GCR.org's YouTube channel; Publication of comprehensive Global Crisis Framework White Paper.
This is not another technology ethics debate about whether AI or social media is "good" or "bad." This is a navigation system—a set of analytical tools that transform technology discourse from moralistic confusion into clear patterns revealing what accelerates collapse versus what builds genuine alternatives.
By engaging with the full Perspective Paper, you will possess three irreversible capabilities:
-
Technology Literacy: Decode any technology announcement—AI launches, smart city initiatives, platform regulations, digital transformation programs—to see control extension versus genuine community empowerment
-
Initiative Assessment: Evaluate any technology proposal—from national digital strategies to community tool libraries—using measurable frameworks grounded in thermodynamics, power analysis, and paradigm alignment
-
Navigation Capacity: Identify viable pathways toward convivial technology, distinguish lifeboats from fantasies extracting resources while claiming innovation, and know your role in building technological infrastructure aligned with human flourishing within planetary boundaries
This isn't theoretical. After reading, you'll be able to:
-
Tonight: Assess whether your city's "smart infrastructure" initiative builds community capacity or extends surveillance while increasing energy burden
-
This Month: Identify which technology narratives in mainstream discourse naturalize extraction and control, and explain precisely why to others using thermodynamic analysis
This Year: Participate in building community technology systems—mesh networks, repair cafes, tool libraries, open-source hardware projects—that maintain functionality as dominant systems fail
-
This 4-page overview synthesizes the 17,500-word Technology Perspective Paper, providing:
-
The question mainstream technology discourse refuses to ask
-
The Global Crisis Framework applied to technology (PAP, TERRA, IvLS)
-
Proof from operational case studies at scale
-
What you'll gain from the full paper
-
The timeline of technological transformation
-
The choice: convivial tools or extractive control
-
How to begin building alternatives tonight
-
What happens when digital infrastructure consumes 416 TWh annually (growing 8-10% per year) within hard planetary boundaries, while spending $3.2 trillion on systems that concentrate control and externalize thermodynamic costs?
Amazon Web Services experienced a four-hour outage in December 2021. Netflix, Disney+, Robinhood, and tens of thousands of websites went offline. Ring doorbells stopped functioning. Smart home devices became inert. Warehouse operations froze. The interruption revealed civilization-level dependence on infrastructure controlled by a single corporation—infrastructure requiring continuous electricity, rare earth minerals, and global supply chains vulnerable to disruption at multiple points.
Meanwhile: Five companies (Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft) control 65% of digital advertising, 90% of search, 80% of social media, 75% of cloud infrastructure. Platform oligopolies extract $2.9 trillion annually without producing goods or services. Semiconductor production consumed 19 billion cubic meters of freshwater in 2024—equivalent to 400 million people's annual domestic use—while generating 38 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. Training GPT-3 required 1,287 MWh—equivalent to 120 US homes for a year. Global e-waste reached 62 million metric tons annually, with only 17% formally recycled.
The question nobody asks: If technology infrastructure grows 8-10% annually within tightening carbon budgets, if semiconductor supply chains depend on geological resources approaching extraction limits, if platform monopolies concentrate wealth while degrading democratic governance—why does every solution assume we need more technology rather than different technological relationships?
Smart cities require sensor networks consuming continuous electricity and generating e-waste every 3-5 years. AI development projects exponential computational growth—IEA estimates 1,000 TWh by 2026, doubling in just two years. "Green tech" uses high-EROI fossil fuels to manufacture low-EROI renewable infrastructure creating energy debt repayable over decades. Platform cooperatives remain marginalized while venture capital pours billions into surveillance and extraction systems.
The discourse is trapped: Five dominant approaches command $3 trillion annually while sharing one fatal blindness: all assume technology serves neutral progress rather than embedding specific power relations requiring continuous resource extraction incompatible with planetary boundaries.
This Overview Paper reveals what mainstream technology discourse conceals—and provides the analytical tools to see through every innovation narrative, every digital transformation initiative, every greenwashed "tech for good" program guaranteeing failure
The Global Crisis Framework (GCF) provides three integrated analytical tools making technology predicament legible:
1. PAP (Paradigm-Affordance Pyramid): Three-Layer Analysis
Most technology discourse operates at superstructure layer—narratives about "innovation," "disruption," "digital transformation," "AI for good." These stories conceal two layers beneath.
Base Layer (Thermodynamic Reality): Data centers consume 416 TWh annually, growing 8-10% within hard carbon budgets (420 GtCO2 remaining, 11 years at current emissions). Manufacturing one 300mm silicon wafer requires 70,000 liters of ultra-pure water—global chip production consumed water equivalent to 400 million people's annual domestic use. Training GPT-3 required 1,287 MWh and generated 552 metric tons of CO2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees every increase in technological complexity accelerates entropy production—no efficiency gain overcomes this fundamental constraint.
Material extraction: Rare earth elements require processing 20,000-30,000 kg of ore per kg of refined element, generating 75 cubic meters of toxic wastewater and 1 metric ton of radioactive tailings. China controls 85% of processing. Copper ore grades declined from 2-3% (1900s) to 0.5-0.8% (current), requiring 3-4x more ore processing per ton. Peak production likely 2035-2045. E-waste accumulation 62 million metric tons annually, only 17% recycled.
Structure Layer (Institutional Requirements): Platform capitalism requires monopolistic control through network effects creating winner-take-all dynamics. Venture capital demands 10-100x returns within 5-7 years, selecting for extractive business models. Military funding drives surveillance, autonomous weapons, control systems. Corporate structures create systematic pressures toward planned obsolescence—non-replaceable batteries, glued assemblies, software locks preventing repair.
The contradiction: Genuine sustainability requires repairability, sufficiency, democratic control. Institutions require extraction, expansion, monopolistic control for quarterly returns and exponential growth. They pursue technologies appearing innovative while concentrating power and externalizing thermodynamic costs.
Superstructure Layer (Cultural Narratives): Innovation ideology positions technical change as unquestioned good regardless of consequences. Technological solutionism reframes structural problems as technical problems awaiting innovation. Neutrality myth claims "technology is neutral—it's all about how we use it," obscuring power relations embedded in technical architecture. Progress narrative makes current trajectories appear inevitable. Dematerialization fantasy denies thermodynamic reality of massive physical infrastructure.
PAP exposes the misalignment: Base layer physics dictates energy and material constraints → Structure layer institutions demand extraction and control → Superstructure layer narratives deny both realities. The system accelerates toward thermodynamic limits while preventing coherent response.
2. TERRA (Tool for Existential Risks & Response Assessment)
How much flows toward viable alternatives versus accelerating collapse?
TERRA scores initiatives on two axes:
X-Axis (Systems Integration, 0-10): Does it understand interconnected predicament—that technology connects to energy descent, economic extraction, ecological destruction, governance erosion—or treat technology as isolated technical problem?
Y-Axis (Paradigm Alignment, 0-10): Does it reject growth paradigm and demonstrate operational alternatives building collective capacity within thermodynamic constraints, or pursue expansion-compatible approaches?
This creates four quadrants:
Quadrant I (Q-I): Unaware, growth-maintaining. Surveillance infrastructure, planned obsolescence, proprietary lock-in, extractive platforms. Allocation: $2.1 trillion (66%)
Quadrant II (Q-II): Aware, impossibility-pursuing. "AI for climate," "green data centers," electric vehicles, "sustainable" smartphones. Sophisticated greenwashing—high paradigm alignment rhetoric masking structural continuity with extraction. Most dangerous quadrant. Allocation: $900 billion (28%)
Quadrant III (Q-III): Unaware, paradigm-shifting. Individual repair efforts, isolated tool libraries, fragmented open-source projects. Genuine alternatives lacking systems integration. Allocation: $184 billion (5.75%)
Quadrant IV (Q-IV): Aware, paradigm-aligned. Community mesh networks, repair cafe networks, open-source hardware ecosystems, cooperative technology development. Only viable pathway. Allocation: $16 billion (0.5%)
Misallocation ratio: 200:1 toward impossibility.
3. IvLS (Islands via Lifeboats Strategy)
Navigation framework through technological transformation:
Lifeboat Phase (2025-2030): Build community technology infrastructure—mesh networks, repair cafes, tool libraries, open-source hardware documentation, offline knowledge archives—while resources accessible.
Navigation Phase (2030-2040): Maintain functionality as dominant systems fail. Cooperative governance, distributed manufacturing, knowledge commons, resilient communication.
Islands Phase (2040-2055+): Communities maintaining technological capacity through convivial tools—appropriate scale, democratic control, repairable design, local manufacturing—within simplified technological landscape.
Guifi.net (Catalonia, Spain): 37,000+ nodes serving 70,000+ users through community-owned wireless infrastructure. Democratic governance—network participants collectively decide policies through foundation board. Open participation—anyone can join by deploying compatible equipment. No surveillance, no traffic monitoring, no data monetization. Cost: $20-30/month versus $60-80 commercial ISPs. Result: digital divide reduced in rural areas, democratic capacity building, technical literacy across diverse population, proof that internet access doesn't require corporate or state control.
TERRA Score: X:9/10, Y:9/10 (Quadrant IV)
Repair Cafe International: 2,500+ repair cafes in 39 countries prevented 420,000 kg waste in 2023 while building repair skills across tens of thousands of participants. Monthly community events—participants bring broken items, skilled volunteers provide tools and expertise. Social gathering combining functionality with community building. Resources: $5,000-15,000 startup costs, volunteer coordination. Result: intergenerational knowledge transmission, normalized maintenance over consumption, local technical capacity independent of corporate systems.
Resource requirement: 0.6-1.3% of typical community technology spending
Mondragon Cooperative Corporation (Basque region, Spain): 80,000+ worker-owners across 257+ cooperatives. Annual revenue $11+ billion in manufacturing, retail, finance, education, research. Democratic governance—one worker one vote, 6:1 maximum pay ratio (versus corporate 300:1+). Technology development serves worker and community benefit rather than shareholder extraction. Result: 70-year track record proving cooperative economics viable at industrial scale, technology serving genuine needs, democratic workplace governance.
Worker outcomes: Superior pay equity, job security, democratic participation
Framework Laptop: Modular design enabling user repair and upgrade—battery, RAM, storage, WiFi, screen, keyboard all user-replaceable with standard screwdrivers. Complete repair documentation publicly available. Parts sold directly to consumers. Result: device lifespan 2-3x industry standard, operational proof that repairable design is commercially viable, demonstrates manufacturer opposition to repair is deliberate choice not technical necessity.
Lifecycle impact: 75% reduction in manufacturing energy when lifespan extends from 3 to 10 years
Low-Tech Magazine Solar-Powered Website: Operates entirely on 50-watt solar panel and 168 Wh battery with no grid connection. Static website, dithered images (80-90% file size reduction), no tracking or advertisements. Consumes <1% typical website energy. Goes offline during extended cloudy periods (displays battery status). Result: demonstrates digital infrastructure can operate at 1-2% typical consumption, proves sufficiency maintains functionality, challenges dematerialization narratives through operational example.
Common Pattern Across All Quadrant IV Examples: Democratic governance, cooperative/community ownership, thermodynamic alignment (appropriate scale within energy constraints), transparency replacing proprietary control, repairability over planned obsolescence, sufficiency over expansion. These aren't marginal experiments—they're operational demonstrations proving alternative pathway exists.
Immediate Capability (After Reading Full 17,500-Word Paper):
The GCF 60-Second Scan—evaluate any technology announcement instantly:
-
Translation: What's actually being proposed beneath innovation rhetoric?
-
Base Layer Check: What are thermodynamic costs (energy, materials, waste)? What EROI required?
-
Structure Layer Analysis: Which institutions benefit? What funding sources? Do they depend on extraction and control?
-
Superstructure Recognition: What consciousness reinforced? Innovation ideology? Solutionism? Or genuine alternatives?
-
TERRA Placement: Which quadrant? Which red flags triggered?
-
Navigation Response: What should I do with this information?
Example Application:
You read: "City announces $200M smart infrastructure deployment for sustainable urban development—sensors, cameras, AI optimization across city systems."
60-Second Scan:
-
Translation: Installing surveillance networks throughout public spaces, centralized data processing, continuous electricity requirements
-
Base Layer: Sensors require rare earth magnets, continuous power, replacement every 3-5 years. Data processing in remote centers consuming additional energy. Embodied energy payback 5-8 years—during which replacement cycles often occur
-
Structure Layer: Enriches tech vendors (Cisco, IBM, Microsoft), increases municipal dependency on proprietary systems, extends state surveillance capacity. Zero community benefit
-
Superstructure: Reinforces technological solutionism ("smart" cities rather than livable cities), naturalizes surveillance, frames citizens as data points
-
TERRA: Q-II (X:3/10, Y:2/10)—sophisticated greenwashing with sustainability rhetoric masking increased extraction and control
-
Red Flags: Energy Parasite (claiming sustainability while increasing energy burden), Surveillance Extension, Proprietary Lock-in
-
Navigation: Oppose publicly, expose misdirection, redirect $200M toward: public transit expansion, protected bicycle infrastructure, community tool libraries, public mesh networks, repair infrastructure
After the full paper, you perform this analysis automatically.
Long-Term Capacity:
Strategic Planning: Identify high-leverage interventions (community mesh networks deliver communication + democratic governance + reduced costs simultaneously). Avoid low-leverage traps (individual consumption changes, corporate sustainability pledges, regulatory reform without structural transformation).
Resource Allocation: Redirect personal time/money from Q-I/Q-II systems (corporate platforms, planned obsolescence devices) toward Q-IV alternatives (repair cafes, tool libraries, cooperative technology, open-source hardware).
Community Organizing: Build lifeboat infrastructure (mesh network nodes, tool libraries, repair skills, offline knowledge archives) while resources accessible. Prepare for dominant systems failure by creating alternatives functioning regardless of corporate or state infrastructure.
Technical Capacity: Learn repair, fabrication, network administration—skills enabling technological autonomy. Document knowledge in offline formats. Build community expertise resistant to platform dependency.
-
2025-2027: Semiconductor supply chains face increasing stress—climate impacts on Taiwan fabs, water scarcity in Arizona facilities, geopolitical tensions over rare earth access. Data center electricity growth collides with grid stability and carbon constraints. Platform monopolies face legitimacy crisis as extraction and surveillance become undeniable. Observable indicators: chip shortages, electricity price volatility, right-to-repair legislation spreading, community technology initiatives multiplying.
By 2030: Energy constraints begin binding—8-10% annual data center electricity growth incompatible with renewable deployment rates and carbon budgets. Material limits tighten—copper peak production, rare earth concentration risks, water stress affecting fabs. Clear divergence between extraction zones (corporate platforms degrading, proprietary systems failing) and community-managed alternatives (mesh networks expanding, repair cultures thriving).
2030-2040: Dominant systems experience cascading failures—supply chain disruptions, energy shortages, geopolitical conflicts over resources. Communities that built lifeboats early maintain technological capacity through appropriate-scale alternatives. Mesh networks provide communication when corporate infrastructure fails. Tool libraries enable repair when replacement parts unavailable. Open-source hardware documentation enables local manufacturing when global supply chains fragment.
2040-2055: Islands emerge—communities maintaining essential technological functions through convivial tools aligned with thermodynamic constraints and democratic governance. Repair knowledge, offline archives, local manufacturing capacity, cooperative coordination enable preserved functionality within simplified technological landscape.
Physics doesn't negotiate. Thermodynamics doesn't compromise. But communities building appropriate alternatives create technological capacity that persists when extractive systems collapse under their own contradictions.
Not between technology and no technology—that framing conceals the fundamental question of which technologies under what governance serving whose interests within what constraints.
Path A (Current Trajectory): Maintain growth paradigm. Expand AI requiring exponential computational resources. Deploy smart infrastructure extending surveillance and control. Accelerate planned obsolescence ensuring continuous replacement cycles. Concentrate platform power through network effects. Extract resources regardless of planetary boundaries.
Timeline: 2025-2040
Outcome: Thermodynamic collapse, supply chain failure, democratic erosion
Current allocation: 94% ($3.0 trillion annually)
Path B (Alternative Trajectory): Build community technology infrastructure under democratic governance. Establish repair cultures and tool libraries. Deploy mesh networks independent of corporate control. Document open-source hardware enabling local manufacturing. Transition to convivial tools—appropriate scale, user-repairable, thermodynamically sound.
Timeline: 2025-2055
Outcome: Maintained technological capacity through energy descent
Current allocation: 0.5% ($16 billion annually)Resource allocation: 200:1 toward impossibility.
But allocation can change. Policy can redirect subsidies (currently flowing to corporate platforms) toward community technology infrastructure. Communities can organize cooperatives. Individuals can learn repair skills. Knowledge can be documented offline. Mesh networks can deploy. Tool libraries can establish. Alternatives can build.
17,500 words providing:
-
Complete Framework Training: Master PAP three-layer analysis, TERRA assessment methodology, IvLS navigation strategy applied specifically to technology
-
Thermodynamic Foundations: Why technology is not neutral—energy requirements, material bottlenecks, entropy debt, Second Law constraints no innovation eliminates
-
Five Technology Domains Decoded: Digital infrastructure (cloud, data centers), AI development (exponential growth collision with limits), semiconductors (supply chain fragility), planned obsolescence (deliberate destruction), platform capitalism (extraction without production)
-
Cross-Theme Connections: Technology-energy (metabolic bind), technology-economy (concentration mechanisms), technology-food (precision agriculture traps), technology-governance (surveillance erosion), technology-ecology (material extraction externalization)
-
Detailed TERRA Assessment: $3.2 trillion allocation mapped across four quadrants, red flags identified (Energy Parasite, Surveillance Extension, Greenwashing), misallocation quantified
-
9+ Case Studies: Guifi.net mesh network, Repair Cafe International, Mondragon cooperatives, Framework laptop, Low-Tech Magazine, NYC Mesh, Kerala digital literacy, Cuba resource-constrained innovation—all with TERRA scores, operational data, replication frameworks
-
Implementation Roadmaps: Lifeboat construction specifics (mesh network deployment, repair cafe launch, tool library establishment, open-source hardware documentation, offline knowledge archives), navigation strategies, island emergence pathways
-
Strategic Recommendations: For community organizers (form cooperatives, launch right-to-repair campaigns, establish skills networks), technology workers (exit extractive companies, contribute to open-source, build worker cooperatives, refuse harmful projects), policymakers (enact right-to-repair, redirect procurement, establish public infrastructure), researchers (document alternatives, challenge paradigms, transform institutions)
-
75+ Authoritative Sources: Thermodynamic analysis, semiconductor supply chain research, platform economics studies, surveillance capitalism documentation, cooperative economics evidence, repair culture assessment
75 pages | 17,500 words | 75+ sources | 9+ case studies | Framework training included
You'll never see technology the same way again. The framework—grounded in thermodynamics, documented with case studies, actionable through implementation roadmaps—cannot be unlearned.
-
-
While Reading (Sections 0-2, ~1 hour):
-
Identify which innovation narratives you've internalized
-
Recognize which platforms/devices embed control you've normalized
-
Note which corporate systems you depend on that have community alternatives
-
-
After Reading (Sections 3-8):
-
Research community mesh networks in your region—join existing or start organizing
-
Find local repair cafe or tool library—volunteer skills, donate tools, participate regularly
-
Switch from extractive platforms to open-source alternatives where viable
-
Document one repair process—video/photo tutorial contributing to knowledge commons
-
Contact worker cooperatives or platform cooperatives—offer support, learn models
-
-
This Month:
-
Learn to repair one category of devices (electronics, appliances, bicycles)—YouTube tutorials, repair cafe mentorship, iFixit guides
-
Redirect technology spending from planned obsolescence to repairable alternatives
-
Join or organize right-to-repair advocacy in your jurisdiction
-
Establish tool-sharing arrangement with neighbors—build toward tool library
-
Install mesh network node if infrastructure exists, or begin organizing if not
-
-
This Year:
-
Achieve 50% reduction in corporate platform dependency through open-source alternatives
-
Develop competence in one technical domain (network administration, electronics repair, fabrication)
-
Participate in building one piece of community technology infrastructure (mesh network, tool library, repair cafe, hackerspace)
-
Document knowledge in offline formats—backup critical information, archive locally
-
Build social capital through technology cooperative participation
-
The window remains open—but narrowing daily.
Physics doesn't negotiate. Thermodynamics doesn't compromise. But communities building convivial technology aligned with energy constraints and democratic governance create infrastructure that maintains functionality when extractive systems fail under their own contradictions.
Time to build different technological relationships.