I fully expect that as the 'traditional' internet becomes increasingly monopolised, locked down and regionally fragmented, solutions similar to Othernet [0] will become more common. Personally I can't wait to be able to select between a multitude of networks all serving different content and services.<p>[0] - <a href="https://othernet.is/" rel="nofollow">https://othernet.is/</a>
> The analysis concluded that unless people took immediate action to counteract growth, global resources would be exhausted by the first few decades of the 21st century. In other words, civilization as of 1972 was projected to reach a total collapse by what is increasingly becoming our present day.<p>I've read it quite a while ago, but I certainly remember that the first few decades of 21st century, and 2015 in particular, was projected to be the "top" point in terms of overall life quality, and after that point, the humanity would slowly, but inevitably, turn backwards. "Total collapse" by this model wouldn't occur until the last quarter of 21st century, and "our present day" would be just the almost unnoticable beginning of stagnation.
While I appreciate the lightening of the load of websites to something more manageable and reducing overprovisioning, it should be stated that data centers are more efficient, in that they spend fewer watts for the same number of gigahertz, compared to at-point computer rooms or even personal computers. Clouds reduce energy consumption, not increase it.
> Fukuoka recognized that many of our celebrated technological advancements would be unnecessary had humans not created an ecological crisis in the first place.<p>Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. I suspect there is some truth in this and some over-simplification as well.
While I agree that many websites are needless bloat in a game of chasing ad revenue that drives people away or to block them back to the land is fundamentally a silly regression based on fantasies of a past that never was. Where do they think industrial labor came from? Farmers. Agriculture for reduced growth is counter effective.<p>Agricultural efficiencies were too high for that sort of thing centuries ago and density is actually the lower in environmental impact option. It seems an idea pushed more by memes and ideology than anything practical.