Re: Proposal for a new W3C CG: "Web We Can Afford"

Hi Henry,

Le Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:58:13 +0100, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>  
a écrit:

>
>> On 21 Jan 2016, at 17:10, alexandre.monnin@web-and-philosophy.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is the description of the group:
>>
>> Most scientists now seem to agree that we've entered a new epoch dubbed  
>> the "Anthropocene", where the environmental consequences of human  
>> development have a tremendous impact on Earth's equilibrium. Those  
>> effects are already set in motion and will have far-reaching  
>> consequences in the coming years despite all the measures we could take  
>> to mitigate them (considering we simply do not fail to take action).  
>> While trying to avoid some of the consequences of the Anthropocene is  
>> an issue that is well-worth striving for, another task would be to  
>> reconsider the design of things at the time of the Anthropocene and  
>> that includes the Web. For instance, a 2008 study by the University of  
>> Dresden stated that if no measure was taken, the energy needed to power  
>> the infrastructure of the Web in 2030 would be tantamount to the energy  
>> consumed by humanity in 2008.
>
> Is there a link to the study?

I quote a study from Ademe (the French angency for the environment) which  
mentions it:  
http://www.presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Web-Energy-Archive-Note-de-synth%C3%A8se.fr_2.doc

>> The agendas of the stakeholders who are trying to set the Web forward  
>> in motion are mainly focused on adding new technological layers to the  
>> existing ones. Yet, the logic behind these developments remains that of  
>> tapping into unlimited resources, not limited ones.
>
> It is true that the PCs behind Google running Linux were built for the  
> PC industry and have been well known to be the least energy efficient.  
> Still in this space there is huge opportunity for improvement.

True. The question regarding improvement is whether you improve to do less  
or more (so that it may eventually lead to negative results).

> When I was working at Sun Microsystems, we developed the T series of  
> microprocessors that were very efficient in energy
> consumption. Sun argued that the energy saving alone could pay back for  
> these very expensive computers within one year
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_T-Series  
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_T-Series>
>
> The latest of these now have 32 cores, 256 threads
> https://www.oracle.com/servers/sparc/silicon-expression-of-oracle-strategy.html  
> <https://www.oracle.com/servers/sparc/silicon-expression-of-oracle-strategy.html>
>
> The large cloud providers consume a lot of electricity, but they also  
> have staff to measure that electricity consumed, and the
> money to optimize as much as possible out of it. Those optimizations  
> then find their way into software architectures that
> can be more widely used in more distributed networks which can use solar  
> engergy, heat, etc to power the IoT of a home.

Henry, please note that this group is not about energy optimization in IT.  
It's about assessing the impact of IT but more than that, about the kind  
of IT we need (if any) in a world that will be forever changed in just a  
few years, facing effect that are already set in motion.

I was happily surprised yesterday to discuss with lots of Inria  
researchers who are more interested in this issue, which has to do with  
notion of imminent collapse, that with the so-called ecological  
"transition".

>> Lots of endeavors are currently focused on reshaping the Web into a  
>> "Web we want", a redecentralized open Web fit for an enlightened  
>> digital age. Those who advocate such an agenda and those who oppose it  
>> generally both share a common assumption: that enlightened or not, the  
>> future will be even more digital than the present. Yet, life at the  
>> time of the Anthropocene, at least in the coming decades, might not  
>> remain as pervasively digital as it is today. Other efforts that see  
>> the ongoing battle for the decentralization of the Web as an  
>> opportunity to “downscale” it (in particular in Africa) seem to be  
>> aware of that. Maybe it's time to take into account other perspectives  
>> on the future and concretely act towards building a sustain-able (Tony  
>> Fry) Web. In other words, a Web We Can Afford. This group would like to  
>> reconcile the development of the Web and an awareness to the  
>> environmental issues by appealing to Web architects and designers,  
>> eco-designers, activists, philosophers, social scientists, etc., so as  
>> to make the issue a public one to begin with, before devising a set of  
>> guidelines as a first step towards concrete action.
>
> I think it's interesting. This may actually be a topic for the Web  
> Science group ( see Southampton ) to investigate.

Let's ask Les then! ;)

> I have a feeling that this is a very holistic type of problem. Because  
> one cannot just look at the electricty consumed one has to look at the  
> efficiencies gained through that consumption. One has to consider  
> exponential improvements in efficiency at all levels, from moving stuff,  
> to capturing and transforming energy, to knwledge sharing, which itself  
> can advance even further the improvements in the other areas.

Odds are, for such improvements to have a positive effect, you'll need to  
tackle difficult political issues. Optimization (which is not a silver  
bulet) is not all there is to these complex questions.

Best,
A.

Received on Saturday, 23 January 2016 15:49:36 UTC