Page 1

A Matter of Autonomy? Julia Laporte


Abstract As individuals a society, we are As individuals livingwithin in a society organized dependent on that industries that move and process into industries shift around massive quantities massive quantities resources sustain us.that of resources, we are of dependent. Wetocould agree Human history has always been the phenomenon of dependency hascharacterised also been present by the phenomenon of dependency—first on on throughout human history either being dependent the ofnature nature, on stage the supermarket—so the will of in now the first of humanity, or now dependency itself may not be problem. on the supermarket to deliver thethe food we want Today, and however, dependency no longer or therefore we could push is away the ideaaofchoice dependency aasposition weBut canthe consciously take, butthe rather a problem. more society grows, morea state of being—an model that causes it creates a complex imposed structure. The dependency, no alienation. longer becomes a choice or a posture but a state of being; an imposed model that creates alienation.

explores logicautarkies. behind ThisThis workfiction explores the logicthe behind autarkies. Rural and remote have If remote autarkies have alwaysautarkies been linked to always been linked to counterculture resistance, countercultures and resilience, byand rooting one autarkicbut this speculative fiction focuses instead on an community in the context of the city, this speculative autarkic community in the middle of the city. In fiction highlights the paradoxes between a highly this context, a paradoxical technical environment, held intension frictionarises with abetween desire an of advanced technology, desire of aenvironment hands-on mentality and a complex globalthe system for self-sufficiency, the complex withhands-on which it still needs to deal; and this global system is global system the development of weighing downthat localshapes networks.W local Using networks. As technologies communication the gauge of autonomy of as its main criteria, redefine the way interact individuals, they the narration of thewe thesis plays as here with the cursor, also allow us to rethink the construction of our in order to question if autonomy is rather a status communities, technologies to acquire or anwhile attitude to maintain. of Theautomation presence enable new scales of growth. of technology that enables individual-to-individual connections, asks us to rethink the way we envision

of communities, while technologies of the construction Is autonomy a status to be acquired automation question the possible scale of them. or an attitude to be maintained? Recognising Going beyond understanding of of our that dependency is our an inevitable quality “dependence” associety, an issue,this A Matter Autonomy interconnected thesisofinstead looks proposes as atotool to democratize knowledge at design design as a tool democratise knowledge and and reveal embedded logicofofinfrastructure—a infrastructure, reveal the the embedded logic tool in revive order tothe wake up the investigator living in eachspirit to investigative and experimental individual. within each individual.


A matter of autonomy?

Julia Laporte

Printed at Design Academy Eidhoven Book design by Julia Laporte Illustrations by Julia Laporte




Table of content



Chapter one: First years Premise Autonomous individuals Automated autonomous individuals Chapter two: Establishment Automated networks of autonomous individuals Autonomous automated community in the city Autonomous automated city

11 11 16

Reflection Afterword Resources Inspiring projects

79 85 89 93

⇣ 2018

26 41



53 70

2025 2027





Hi there! I am Robin Hoekstra; this story is a story of hopeful change. It traces back my experience from 2018 to 2060 with this obsession to reach autonomy. During the last sixty years, I have been exploring the environment we live in, and trying to understand the logic of our global infrastructure –the implications, and how we could bypass them to reach a dwelling that fit my beliefs? I have developed the concept of autonomous automated homes, based on the ideas of circularity and a self-sustaining of a living unit; through reorganizing the inner structure of the home without rejecting the surrounding. Navigating between local and global, individual and societal, I am looking for room for personal choice and tangibility of infrastructures. 7


If nowadays, this autonomous automated dynamic seems to be embedded in the society, my call for tangibility and room for choice seem to be unsolved. In the year 2072, we are living in a completely machine populated society, struggling to remain human-centered. This story is my intimate inside on the evolution towards the autonomous automated house. Through my perspective I propose you to embody and highlight theses momentums of change at a personal level, to question our relationship with technology, and to defend a critical attitude towards given structures. I hope to recall or keep the inventor flame alive in you, and your critical minds on, in order to prevent the future from falling into alienation and inaction.

We have all the technology we could dream of, now it is time to invent a society reflecting the harmony of humankind, but we should never forget to question.



Chapter One: First years

Premise I grew up with the obligation to take part in politics as a citizen because it is a right and a duty to the society, whilst hearing a pessimistic discourse about how politics and political infrastructure of our Dutch and European society could never positively change for a better world. This dichotomy led me to another belief; if political representatives can’t change the world for us on a global scale, we could maybe do it ourselves on a daily base. Inhabited by this feeling I was looking at our society1 with wonder. 1. Editor note: the author refers to the society of the year 2017.


Chapter one: First years

Why is it that in an epoch of sudden abundance of ways to connect people and endless possibilities to create parallel smallscale networks I was feeling helpless and reduced to contemplate society’s malfunctions? I started to investigate the associative network of my cities, and explore initiatives made by citizens. The more I discovered the more it gave me the feeling that in the big machine that was our globalized society, the head (government) was completely disconnected from the body (population). I started to wonder how we could give back power to the individuals, how the diffused and unclear responsibility of our system could be given back to everyone? In the meantime, I was realizing how the technologies of information were transforming the lives of individuals. The Internet - and Smartphones were bringing the possibility of change by allowing the individual to speak out, the amateur to access all the knowledge available, and people to connect all over the Earth. It was also creating the 24/7 available employee, swallowing personal information 12


in order to create groups under filter bubbles. These amazing tools that were supposed to empower the localities and individuals by decentralizing the means of exchange were instead used for economical reason and the survival of the existing infrastructure. If those technologies were offering possibilities of individual empowerment, they weren’t the answer by themselves. The technological revolution was changing our way of living but was not empowering the individual yet. Makers or Hackers were seen as creators of new possibilities, but were used to generalize a technique of “more-betterfaster.”1 Titles like “hacking your education, or “reality hacking” were used by marketing firms, drawing action from the consumer by proposing that we become the change maker by buying. This systematic market appropriation of the means and tools of revolution, twisted them from individual empowerment, towards hidden alienation. 1. Morozov, Evgeny. (2013) Making it, pick up a spot welder and join the revolution. [online] The New Yorker. Available at: https:// [Accessed 22 Nov.2017]


Chapter one: First years

In this highly automated and technological society, the question of our room for choice, when the society became so complex that we could not grab even a hint of it, started to bother me. If our tools alone are not a liberator and the diverse entities driving the global structure of our society were overwhelming them, how could we make the things happen? That is why I started a journey of understanding the infrastructure of our global society, starting with a reflection, around our tools and devices. I investigated how an individual could engage to create a bottom-up dynamic of change.1 In 2018, which I like to take as starting point for my own explorer practice, I was left with all my reflections, and decided to start with my individual day-to-day way of living. What were the things I felt tied to? What object or infrastructure didn’t give me a choice, or did I not understand? I started to list objects, 1. Mazini E. (2013) Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design. Design Issues [online] p 57-66. Available at: 43 http://www. [Accessed 21 Dec. 2017]



systems, and question. How to reconnect with the infrastructure ruling my life? Were the dynamics behind those infrastructures allowing me to live in a more responsible way? For me, the idea of exiting society to build a parallel utopian society was not conceivable. I have always been a dreamer, and I thought that if I could prove that changing my way of living from within the society was possible it could have more impact than from outside of it. For me, the idea of denying an existing structure instead of questioning it, indeed seems on paper like a faster way, but in fact it simply leads to a repetition of mistakes. I hoped that by trying and showing that a simple citizen such as me could create change, and by sharing knowledge about it. It would send a powerful message to the whole society. But how could I initiate these dynamics within the city, far from the free gifts of nature? What range of choices and freedom could I create within the city?


Chapter one: First years

Autonomous Individuals 2019

The first step was to decide to liberate myself from consumption. I could no longer stand feeling guilty and depending on a big and mysterious infrastructure for each of my actions. My flat became my laboratory for hacking the infrastructure. For me, starting from scratch without acknowledging the existing would be the way to repeat the mistake. Instead, I chose to analyze the infrastructure gaining two types of knowledge: awareness about the infrastructure on which our society was built, and proposed adaptations and clues to understand my own habits and consumption patterns as I’ll describe later on with the plumbing system. It is quite funny to look back at how these steps out of overconsumption have proven to be the most difficult of all. I was unable to distinguish what was a necessity or a created need by the society. Let’s take as an example, a good that has almost disappeared today; the extra soft toilet paper, with its three thick layers 16

Autonomous Individuals

of compact cotton in order to cuddle our butts. This product was common in the Netherlands and what was my surprise when I discovered that in India, the custom was to use a small shower head adapted for the toilets, or simply a bucket. A bit of water and a left hand was replacing sheets and sheets of toilet paper. In the Netherlands, the installation of a common infrastructure to treat the water, instead of releasing it directly into the rivers, allows for people to flush anything down the toilet.. From this we gained the luxury of not touching our dirty secretion. This luxury was so embedded in the DNA of society, that the potentiality that toilet paper was a comfort and not a necessity was radically offensive. However, the combination of the increasing amount of chemicals needed to clean the water, along with the resources used to produce the toilet paper, has pushed organizations and individuals to promote a return to the paperless toilet. It is quite hilarious to look back at it now and remember people protesting for the right to toilet paper, and other radical activists burning the stock of rolls to pressure the industry. 17

View of my flat in 2020.



Chapter one: First years

Finally, it is by virtue of organizations presenting the paperless toilets in festivals, or in private institutions, that the toilet-shower started to gain in esteem, and what was considered as an unhygienic act slowly became a symbol of reconnecting to the self and a respect for nature. It took a decade before the majority of the population start to agree. The water elements were the first I revisited in my flat. One day I was looking at the sink in my kitchen and I realized how this object itself was implying a blind consumption. It has something magic about it, an infinite fountain. The water was flowing from nowhere and disappearing without disturbing anyone. I started to question whether my sink, toilet or shower could raise awareness of wastefulness. Furthermore, what if the water, instead of flowing only one-time trough the house was instead reused before treatment? Children of today will never get it. I started to question how a circular system with the resources within my home could work. Could I use the water in the shower, to then clean my dishes, and then flush my pee away? Besides using 20

Autonomous Individuals

the well-known dry toilet widely installed now, I installed a rainwater tank, and tank underneath each water device to start to reuse. But that was a lot of work; I had to move around the tanks and buckets depending on my need and I had to always be checking that the container underneath the water device wasn’t overflowing. Slowly I began to hack the existing plumbing system and adapted it to make it easier for my use, for example by adding pipe connections and small low-tech pumps to have the tank at eye view. Later on, I automated the detection of water, and when a tank was full it automatically went to the tank on the roof to be stored for later. Nowadays, of course, new houses are built with such circular systems directly integrated into the construction and the water rooms are gathered together in order to facilitate the storage. Most of the time, the water storage remains visible, to ensure that we never forget that it is a limited resource. I decided to stay in my adhocracy home where the layers of evolution are visible and magnificent to me. The pipes and circular network are like roots running around the flat’s initial structure, 21

Chapter one: First years

reminding me that infrastructures are always indicating a design choice and the politics of consumption. The shower-toilet-sink was one of my first prototypes of a circular object. It was a circular system including, as the name suggests, a toilet, a shower and a sink; the water was flowing in between the different uses and was filtered in the middle. This system was at that time really raising the question of our limit of acceptation. We are and were already living with a very clear vision of hygiene, and comfort, what are we ready to accept? This was the starting point of a complete reshaping of my surrounding through by fully using the resources in circular systems. When I started to research on the Internet for tools and techniques to live in a more selfsufficient way I got completely overwhelmed by the quantity and possibilities. Platforms such as Youtube, WikiHow or Wikipedia were offering an enormous quantity of information with no prioritization. Those tips and tricks coming from all over the Earth in a completely decentralized way were a great opportunity to learn, but at the same time a complete trap for the novice 22

Autonomous Individuals

like me. I spent hours looking at tutorials and instructions before finding my way. As I was exploring the sink I got fascinated by how, once again, a daily object such as a sink was so mysterious and complex. If the basin, pipes, or system (with or without electricity) to pump up the water were very easy to understand, the tap as we have it in our home was impossible to understand. Did we need such a complex tap, or was it maybe more in order to fit to a global system that we forgot how it was working? To finally make us depend on the plumber, the only holder of this knowledge. While trying to build by following DIY tutorials, I understood that more than building the thing myself, and ending-up with a series of more or less working collages of objects, the important objective was to understand how my objects were working, which system they were based on and to have a better interaction with them. If the construction of a desk water dispenser out of a Pringles box, a Nutella jar, a tooth paste tube, and a straw wasn’t making sense as an object, it was interesting to understand the simple physics behind it. I 23

First Shower-Toilet-Sink.



Chapter one: First years

started to use DIY tutorials as a tool to learn about easy low-tech systems to understand the complex infrastructure I was living in, and to test if the power of low-tech could be an answer to our hyper complex technology. In a countermovement to the idea of progress, low-tech could allow each to understand their objects and the structure behind. What if we will put back our hands in our machines?

Automated Autonomous ⇣ Individuals 2020 After two years of experimentation, I started gaining some resource autonomy. The water was collected and reused, the electricity was partially produced, and food was my next target. My way of life was at this time quite inconvenient, because my entire house constantly required maintenance. Facing the reality of a daily life where I had to take care of on my own of my needs 26

Automated Autonomous Individuals

and comfort, I was looking for alternatives. That’s when I found the story of Frances Gabe, who I must say, to this day is my hero from the past. Gabe in the 70s had a dream; she wanted housework to vanish from her daily life. To fulfill this dream, she had to think and redesign her whole household. In the 1980s, after ten years of work, her cinderblock bungalow of about a thousand square feet was ready to welcome her. The system of her house was quite simple, it was basically a dishwasher. Every room was equipped with a sprinkle in the ceiling. When the system in the house activated, the cleaning took about an hour. I have been amazed by what I like to call her inventor attitude; beside the globally used system of drainage and sprinklers, she invented around sixty-eight individual inventions, such as a cupboard where dishes were washed and dried in situ. Everything from the laundry to the toilet was self-cleaning! If this project was very much questionable in terms of waste and energy consumption in the 1980s, such a system was also for her a liberation of women, who were tied up to housework as homes are “still designed so women have to spend half their 27

Chapter one: First years

time on their knees or hanging their head in a hole.”1 Gabe, through her invention showed how an automatized system that managed one task, could change her entire lifestyle. Of course in 2020 the challenges taking place will be different than in the 1980s, but if Gabe’s selfcleaning house represented her philosophy of life, what will be the house of my own dreams? While trying to step away from “the Kleenex society” as Victor Papanek called it, could I transform my flat and embed it with nonconsumerist aspirations? I started to question the radicality of my position, using only low-tech systems. If in the 80s Gabe was able to build a fully automatized system, shouldn’t it be possible for me to simplify the maintenance of my house through automation as well? Initially I believed systematization and automation to be a path leading to alienation and consumption, but could they in fact be a path to freedom? 1. Fox, Margalit, Frances Gabe, Creator of the Only Self-Cleaning Home, Dies at 101, New-York Times, 2017


Automated Autonomous Individuals

The debate about automatization and alienation was considered in depth by the 90s and early 2000s, and influenced my new understanding of the infrastructure. I decided to accept having automation in my house on the condition that I could understand it and handle it in case of a problem. Luckily for me, due to the growing movement against industrial and global agriculture ruining the soil and using pesticide, the question of the food production by individuals was long explored at the time. Aquaponics, vertical farming, indoor farming technique were all gaining a growing importance. I decided to study those industrial systems to see how I could then use them within the infrastructure of my flat. Along with that I was exploring the internet communities working on home automated tools, and open source work, to get an insight into how to build it myself. One example, the Farmbot, was an open source motorized home farm based on CNC (Computer Numerical Control), for farming without pesticide or treatment. It was a great project for debating how much I wanted to get involved in my food production. This automated farm was basically 29

Frances Gabe in her self-cleaning kitchen.



Chapter one: First years

doing everything for the plant even sending you a notification when the vegetables were ready. It was a small scale and low-cost tool that enable each to have a garden in their backyard. While the Farmbot was getting rid of the heavy labor normally required during farming, many argued that this project was completely nursing yourself by keeping away from the real matter of vegetable growing. At that time, the fear of being left helpless in the event of the technology’s potential collapse was part of the great fear. Personally, I saw it more as a great opportunity to bring back gardens into houses. Different way to connect people with the things, people or environment, were emerging through a digital layer, in this case the culture of food production. The relationship with plants and nature stayed available to each. This idea of returning food production to inside the house, reminded me of the Victory Garden scheme during the 2nd World War. While food scarcity and war matters were driving the global system to be unable to sustain everyone, an initiative arose to implant the garden in public spaces and in private individual houses. I started to picture a city where food 32

Automated Autonomous Individuals

could be found not only in the supermarket under plastic, but on actual trees, bushes, and plants. In the Netherland these kinds of movements were already under way. Phillips was experimenting with indoor farming, while Rotterdam was installing roof gardens, and designers were creating instructions accessible for all to grow food in public space. There was even a group of fruit lovers that pratice the "guerilla grafting". The action was to graft fruit bearing branche onto fruiless, ornamental tress across the city. According to their Facebook page , "it is a grassroots group that sees a missed opportunity for cities to provide a peach or a pear to anyone strolling by. Their objective is to restore sterile city trees into fruit-bearers by grafting branches from fertile trees. The project may not resolve food scarcity, but it helps foster a habitat that sustains us.” I remember this inspiring quote from interview of Tara Hui, member of the group since its creation:

“The hope is that through this one small act (of grafting) we can reconnect with a shared space and reconnect with each other,” 33

Chapter one: First years

Hui said. “Ultimately, I think codes and regulations should respond to the reality of people’s lives. Just taking an evening stroll, and then you see a fruit and you reach over and now you’re nourished.” This way of infiltrating the city with food, activism and automated systems on a small scale has been a regular case study to set up my approach for designing my own systems. I understood that instead of looking for a solution, I had to first look at the techniques existing and then slowly deconstruct them in order to fit my context. The discovery of automation as a solution to make me selfsufficient without having to spend all day working widened my field of possibilities. The Automated Autonomy movement as it is called now is mainly based on the Maker, Hacker, and DIY cultures. My statement was the following; without automatons and machines, I will never be able to maintain my lifestyle. I could never commit to being a full-time farmer. Thanks to my small automatons inspired by industry, I could manage my vegetable and 34

Automated Autonomous Individuals

water supply while doing others activities. My homemade machines were the bridge that allowed me to keep the control over the quality of my production without being fully dedicated to it, yet still being in touch with it. Born in 1990, I experienced the exponential apparition of technological progress slowly invading our lives, bringing with it the paradox of liberty and alienation. My wish for autonomy was increased by the presence of all those technologies, hidden behind black boxes and making themselves essential. To put my handson the issue, I visited Hackerspaces, and Fablabs to work with them on the democratization of technology. Those spaces were proposing workshops to fix, repair, and open the black boxes of technology, to enable individuals to understand. Through them I was introduced to 3D printing, and I realized how much the digitalization of fabrication was opening up possibilities for all. When 3D printers or other CNC machines started to be democratized they opened a full new range of possibilities. Now all across the planet, objects or parts of objects, could be reproduced with an exactness that had never existed before. Especially the 3D printer, 35

Chapter one: First years

with its ability to print a fully functional object, it was bringing to life the idea of the “universal constructor” outlined by Von Neumaann’s1 Theory of Self-Reproducing automata, in the mid-1940s. Adrian Bowyer from the University of Leeds illustrated this concept and invented RepRap, a 3D printer that could 3D print itself, and therefore never stop producing. The digital machine, affordable to individuals, brings back production to the scale of the desktop computer, to the office or the house. Anyone can dream to be able to produce more or less whatever they wanted, and whenever they wanted. Taken out from a consumerist perspective that simply allows having and producing more, these tools were giving back a certain freedom of making complex object to the individual. Thanks to open source templates, anyone could replace a complex, broken piece for his washing machine, or other device. A new dream was born, of a reachable, decentralized and on-demand production. 1. Jonh Von Neumaan, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966, docs/VonNeumann.pdf


Automated Autonomous Individuals

Despite the possibility being there, the real impact on society at this time was more an over production of small gadgets printed in 3D than an effective empowerment of individual. Numerical machines and softwares were complex to handle and manipulate, and required the user to gather a significant amount of knowledge in order to engage with them. Being too used to the simplicity of buying and replacing goods, not everyone was ready to dedicate that much time to it. Still, spaces like Fab-labs were growing in all the cities and actively trying to democratize these tools. They were proposing the digital space not only as a platform of exchange of information but also as an exchange of specific physical skills and knowledge, through distributed means of production. I used this remote access to specific knowledge during the building of my full-ofmachinery, self-sufficient flat. At that time things started to appear outside my home. Colorful water tanks and roof garden were slowly changing my flat into a UFO for the neighbors’ eyes. One of my neighbors calls out to me in the entrance hall: 37

Chapter one: First years

“I don’t understand what you are doing on the roof and your terrace. What are all those ugly containers and weird machines? I look at you every week fixing and fighting with these installations. Why are you not going to Albert Heijn to buy your vegetable as everyone else? We have a wonderful society that frees us from doing all this dirty work, why will you do this? I don’t get why do you impose this to yourself!” and he continued further – “Plus your installations are leaking into my garden, and from my kitchen now the only things I see is that huge container, it completely spoils my view. Could you please un-build it, and do as everyone else, I want to get back my peacefulness!” I tried to explain, but I wasn’t ready for a confrontation and he left nodding in disapproval. It reminded me how moving away from the norm was seen by most of my codweller as retrograde, a negation of the progress and quality of life we were offered. Therefore the reactions were sometimes very violent. It was similar, to Colin Beavan and his family in 2009, with the No Impact1 project in New38

Automated Autonomous Individuals

York. Abandoning their high consumption, they were arousing fascination but also hatred. The consumer felt aggressed by what sounded to them like a moralist experimentation. This altercation with my neighbor was soon followed by a petition to ask me to takedown my installations. I was summoned to the city hall. There I understood the importance of communicating about my initiative. It was not an option to do things in my corner without asking or talking to anyone, because by choosing to stay in the city I was still dependent on the acceptance of others. Luckily for me, the Netherlands are open to garden initiatives, so we finally came to an agreement; I adjusted my installation to the taste of my neighbors and also started to share with them some of what I was producing, a good pretext to connect with my surroundings and share my vision.  

1. Gabbert, Laura and Justin Schein, directors. No impact man. No Impact man, Mt0, 2009. Available at: watch?v=lU1rnoZgZkg [Accessed 4 oct. 2017]



Chapter two: Establishment

Automated Networks of Autonomous Individuals

⇣ 2025

While I was reaching a partial autonomy and stability with my neighbor, I became aware of the fact that the diversity of my goods was very restricted. . I realized that, ultimately having a flat that could only sustain my lone self in autarky wasn’t the end point, I wanted more. I desired to exchange with people, and build together new possibilities in order to influence my surroundings. There had to be other people around with similar dreams.. As I was grounded in Eindhoven, tied to my lab-flat, I couldn’t spend all my time traveling around to meet people, so I started to explore the online network. 41

View of the automated garden roof



Chapter two: Establishment

Thanks to Internet parallel networks were very common. Those systems, a quiet tremor in the global infrastructure in western society, were facing difficulty to step out from the Internet world to actively change society organization on a path toward autonomy of individuals or to propose a structure of organization between empowered individuals. It was hard for me to understand why such dynamic weren’t reaching out. The amount of platforms available for individuals to interact on was overwhelming. Adding to that people trusted the global infrastructure and didn’t understand the point; the accessibility of goods was so strong that borrowing from someone wasn’t rational, and finally these platforms missed out the humanistic aspect of exchange. Nevertheless, these initiatives have been essential for the shift towards local networks. While looking at the dynamic of those platforms, the image of ants or fishes moving collectively towards the same goal driven by an unknown force came into my mind. Did you ever look at them? It is striking how they seem to coordinate without leaders, there is no 44

Automated Network of Autonomous Individuals

a single fish that is telling the swarm to turn or which way to go, or no ant that says this is where the trail should. Instead there is a more self-organized process that emerges from lots of individuals, somewhat democratically running simple rule. An individual seems tiny in front of the challenge we were facing, and the idea that the individual can impact the global move seems to be forgotten. What if we could build our own collective, shape a swarm to defeat the problems coming? When two individuals on opposite sides of the planet are facing the same challenge, how could they organize themselves? Modern information technologies seemed to offer this possibility, by putting into question the supreme leader that makes decision for us, they propose more agency for individuals. While connecting the locality with the global in an alternative path they allow individuals to act together. At that time it seemed like a perfect territory for experimentation for future organization. I started to explore what types of network were available. The peer-to-peer relationship was emblematic of how computer-based systems way of thinking has migrated from the digital 45

Chapter two: Establishment

world to human-based network. The P2P protocol was a shift for computing technology from a system where individual servers were broadcasting information to be consumed by individual computers (centralized), to a network in which many individual computers were used to broadcast and produce information within the grid (distributed). This evolution proposed a more resilient infrastructure allowing the system to continue working even if a server goes down. At the start of our century, this protocol allowed socially motivated communities to create tools to share resources and ideas, as the BitTorrent protocol allowed anyone to get access to files (movies, or WikiLeaks files ...). Platforms for crowdfunding, allowed people to bypass the existing finance model to build an alternative project. Such initiatives started to connect immaterial protocol with tangible reality, allowing projects outside of the market to be founded through a worldwide community of support based on common interest. These initiatives allowed not yet the creation of a swarm of thought but the creation of a money swarm to create a project outside of the global market. 46

Automated Network of Autonomous Individuals

Whereas the Peer-to-peer is a protocol based on decentralization in order to maintain their availability, the Blockchain protocol was a distributed system. Each computer part of the network possesses the ‘files’ in order to save them from degradation. This protocol was behind services such as cryptocurrencies.1 They propose to relocate the trust on the bank on an algorithm swarm ensuring the validity. From this tool, the idea of digital consensus appeared and proposed new forms of coordination and governance, an autonomous horizontal organization supported at a global scale. The idea of a human-less self-sustaining made us reconsider the notion of trust and value. The early proof-of-concept that was Bitcoin,2 gave credit to a programmable and widely available trust infrastructure. By their principle, the technology based on Blockchain 1. Crypto currencies were digital money that combined block chain protocol with cryptography. The principle was that the ledger of this money is distributed on all the computer part of the network. Each coin possesses a unique name as well as each user, when a transaction is happening between two entities the name of each is added to the end of the coin’s name. During a transaction with a crypto coin the computers work collectively to validate if the transaction is valuable or not.


Chapter two: Establishment

challenged the way of organizing ourselves in groups, collaborating at large scale in a more ad hoc and informal dynamic. This distributed system beyond Blockchain is called distributed autonomous organization or DAO. While Blockchain was based on a set of decisions made by individual actors, it had no formal way of recognizing them, and neither the functional consensus, but just ability to validate transactions. The DAO open the door for collective behavior and open the idea of ad hoc gathering. These distributed protocols created a circle of trust within the fish swarm. Our trust in computer as a neutral judge was leading us to entirely automated managed network. These automated protocols inspired how a collective intelligence of the swarm could appear on the digital space. The internet redefined mass collaboration, with platforms such as Wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia ever written, with over 4 million entries written by volunteers. Surprisingly enough, in an area where money and growth were the fuel of the society, individuals were sharing and building together a platform of knowledge without any directive or reward. The management of 48

Automated Network of Autonomous Individuals

the platform was entirely automated. Run by bots verifying accuracy and repetition. If the knowledge of individual was valued, I was missing a collective action. At that moment of my research I found, Edgeryders . This corner of the internet was gathering Changemakers instead of consumer or user benefitting passively from a service. As they wrote on their web page they aimed for “a world in which every human can live up to her full potential as a creative, responsible being.� The idea behind it was to co-create projects for the common good. The community worked as an open Wiki where anyone can see the content and log in to participate. This will of transparency to benefit everyone, generated an ungraspable cloud for a newcomer. When I first arrived on the platform, I faced an unclear list of categories, leading to an indigestible list of conversions. As on any forum, it was difficult to find a way through the topics and voices, but when you log in, on purpose or not, everything became clearer. Warmly welcomed by Hazem the community manager, I was introduced to the ongoing projects, and an upcoming gathering, followed by a suggestion to introduce myself to 49

Chapter two: Establishment

the community. At this point I remembered how welcomed I felt while reading this. I was ready to inhabit this exciting space of creation, finally offering me the possibility to connect and build together with people that shared my interest! But how will I navigate this overwhelming amount of information and possibilities? Edgeryders was part of the precursor thinking ahead the idea of the computational swarm. As all platforms, the think-tank open to everyone faced the difficulties of the scalability of an open network, and the challenge to perform person-to-person interaction in the swarm. Alberto Cottica, one of the first Edgerysders, claimed that more than a platform it was a tool for thinking about social interaction and social structure because they could measure the social structure emerging naturally and learn from it. How would they scale down the interaction but remain global and accessible? Instead of forcing an imposed dynamic they decided to respect the organic growth of the platform. Through an experimental approach, they observe the emerging property of interaction. When Edgeryders was launched an algorithm observed the interaction between the 50

Automated Network of Autonomous Individuals

participant and the topic. The design choice was to release the different discussion topics at four weeks intervals. The intention was that when a topic was active the individuals interested in it could find each other and start to collaborate. When the main topic will move on, these individuals remain connected and can continue to talk about the previous topic. It appeared quickly that sub-communities where emerging around interest. Those sub-communities where not growing following a linear pattern but rather freely. This allowed the global network to grow without increasing the noise. Each community started to specialize and work in a sort of parallel computing. The appropriate allocation of people allowed several discussions to be managed at the same time. The design choice of management resulted to be a pretty scalable environment. Edgeryders was definitely aiming for shaping a fish swarm at the scale of the challenge faced by society. Whilst using the platform I got attracted to the Unmonastery sub-community. If Unmonastery is nowadays a well-known methodology of building changemakers community, that has proven, by its multiple 51

Chapter two: Establishment

repetition and adaptation, it’s interest; at that time the methodology was just been prototyped. The project that aims to match needs of empty space with skilled individuals. In spring 2026 I joined in with Astako which was already in its third version of the project, as I was interested in challenging my wi-fi network in my neighborhood, this was the perfect hands-on momentum. It this city the infrastructure supposed to be sustained by the government had been left alone, and the internet network was almost absent. The access to the internet was restrained small coffee and lucky houses still connected to a part of the remaining network. Driven by Roel Roscam Abbing, a Dutch artist researcher, we built self-made Wi-Fi-antenna in order to create a decentralized multi-owner network. With locals we set up a network for the whole city , allowing everyone to have access it from their homes. After a full month out of my flat-lab everything seemed different to me, and filled up with this new experience and people I could feel the energy to continue my exploration. After seeing the power of a platform and a 52

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

group of people such as Edgeryders I was strongly convinced that we could build the swarm and that technology at large but more precisely technology of information, were the tools to manage and review networks of people, knowledge and actions that could be both, global and local, specific but useful for all.

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

⇣ 2027

After this hands-on experience of how to connect change maker with a place and its specific will, I decided to intend to start up my own project in my city Eindhoven to the platform, to get support, people, and outside point of views. The project was first built on the platform connecting Changemarkers from everywhere helping me to draw the line of the project. Concurrently I started to document on my side, individuals, makers, and institutions that could be interested in the idea of creating 53

Wifi Antena made in Atasko.



Chapter two: Establishment

a flexible network of autonomous flat and local producer in order to create a community that produces locally and barter goods rather than using the actual abstract financial structure. The challenge was huge, how could we connect people in a humanistic way and avoid the impersonality of a platform of exchange, how could the community agree on the value of goods, and also what specific commodity was already available on Eindhoven’s territory. My main idea was along with the development of this network, to open source my instruction to create a partially-autonomous automated home, in order to create a common basic-income of first necessity, food, and water, for the community. It took us five years to form a strong base for the community. The first year was dedicated to debate on the platform about how to organize such community, and an exploration of Eindhoven meeting people. I spent the second year and the third mapping out, the people the resources the community could gather, (food by flat, water quantity, electricity, craftsman, maker, etc.), and to share with people my 56

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

idea of automated-autonomous-flat. In the fourth year the group was growing stronger and willing to start, we took time to draw the rules and principles of our community, and to help each other out in the transition towards autonomous living. In 2032 we were around 55 individuals, all were living or ready to live in an autonomous automated home based in Eindhoven. The ability to build our machinery was for the community, the key to freedom in a technological society. “Automation and technology free you as long as you can fix it or still possess the knowledge to do without,� is part of the early statement made by the community. From the autonomous attitude four principles of behavior emerged:

Understand, as the start of autonomy, they believe in the power of knowledge. Power is for them not understood as a tool to dominate the other, but as a self-empowerment solution, if you have the knowledge you have the power to act and choose. That's why; all productions or techniques, and their evolution were available freely, to enable knowledge to carry on. In 57

Chapter two: Establishment

the community the knowledge wasn’t seen as something static, not only the final techniques were kept and free to access but also the full process. The community truly believed that by showing the mistakes or dead ends already taken, it will avoid the next generation to re-invent the wheel. The education system within the community also shifted from a distribution of information to learn towards the understanding of logic and method behind the information.

Re-use, as the pillar of the logic of consumption, circular system of resource and re-use of the waste from society management. Fix and Hack were methodologies in the personal relationship with items. The ideology of fixing was to always try to repair before using new items, and finally hack was the behavior of twisting the use of objects and materials, and always tries to figure out a solution with existing elements rather than buy an already made object. As when I wanted to produce a series of cups for an event with the rotational molding technique but didn’t have 58

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

the machine. I hacked my egg better to change him temporally into the machine I needed. I just replaced the whisk by my mold. These for world were our four consumption rules. At the beginning the bartering between us to exchange goods and food was going well, the trust in each other, thanks to our reduced number, was there. The entire surplus from the community was stored and shared, and selfservice was the rule, everyone knew that the other will take what he needs and not more. But growing equally than the number of participants the difficulty to organize the goods in order to manage to sustain only on our network was increasing. How were we to distribute and manage the goods? This question was growing in the community and a sneaky suspicion started to install itself. I was upset by this growing feeling in the community and already seeing it ending right before its tenth anniversary. There I remembered Alberto and how he was using algorithm to look and manage the growth of the Edgeryders platform. After a friendly conversation with Alberto debating whether we 59

Chapter two: Establishment

should keep communities small or find ways to make then bigger but durable, he talked to me about Mathias Ansorg’s life time project, EarthOS. The computer scientist’s initial thought was that it will force us to minimize waste by also enabling us to maintain both economic independence and a decent standard of living. If EarthOs was at the beginning an endless documents combining resources and tips, throughout the years Matt made it evolve into a more readable format. It is in 2035 that I met Matthias Ansorg, who at this point had been building an operating system for the planet for already more than twenty years. He told me how thanks to bots and contribution of people the resources were automatically updated, and the format of the interface was as understandable as a game. When I told him about the challenges our community was going through, he responded:“I am actually using the Earth Os to prototype different type of operating systems for earth, and on smaller scales. I am looking for existing community to participate and test the OS. Do you think you could be up for that?”I could not have been more excited than that. 60

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

For me automating our management was appearing as the ultimate autonomy and freedom at that point. Our community had already seen the benefit of automation to take care of repetitive tasks and organization, so it wasn’t hard to decide together for an Automated Manager, but we debated days and days about which tasks the A.M. should manage, only the distribution of goods around or also the organization of the production? Or even what of economic logic to choose for the A.M. ? If some were for a communist application of distribution, as everyone gets the same thing no matter what you have produced for the community, others were more into a system rewarding the implication, a sort of reputation economy, the more you work for the community the more right you got. There were a lot of systems modeled already about sharing economy. After the digital revolution when the information age started it was the gold rush of the digital age, to imagine how this shift on an economical level to a political one will reshape our society. Those models had been more or less subject to experience, and for the one that didn’t evolve 61

Screenshot of EarthOs early prototype: modelizing hunting and gathering societies







Chapter two: Establishment

with the topic before it was a difficult to see the potential, we tried at least five models more. Mattias suggested a protocol to us to test and validate a system, it was a long process, but we learned throughout the year that taking the time to understand was often the most durable way, rather than jumping for an already made magic solution. The rules were that we should at least test it for one full year, but in case it was really too terrible, there was a backup solution. We could call for a vote after six months of experience. Through the years, the C&S had become the heart of the community. You can come and eat for free. The entire surplus from the community is stored and available. Food wise to avoid waste, if foodstuffs are going back, a special event is organized to eat or cook it before it goes off. It is also the place to be to find out about the tasks that need to be done in the community; the A.M was the Os of our community. We feed the system with our resources goals, and principles, and then the algorithm gives us the work to do for the community. Based on Blockchain distributed and DAO protocol, everyone autonomous 68

Autonomous Automated Community in the City

automated home, garden or space is a server where information is transmitted. We use the Os as a support, not a guaranty, debates were still organized and decisions made out of its range. In 2044 we were at our eighth years of experimentations, A.M.8.0, a kind of hybrid system, mixing free-sharing, equal distribution of first necessity. I remember Benjamin confessing to me: “I don’t know if we will ever stop experimenting. Honestly, I hope we never will, it is the only way to keep up to date.” I could not have agreed more with him, even more when I see Eindhoven today, but not everyone shared our views… If Matt was our advisor then, Benjamin was our network whisperer; he knew everything about it and he contributed massively to shape the actual Eindhoven network. Practicing network analysis and early activist of the impact of the digital network on our daily life, he spent his life visiting communities, participating in associations, creating networks, making experiments. Through his connection and knowledge he improved the AM8.0 by connecting it to other communities Indeed we weren’t the 69

Chapter two: Establishment

only ones who believed in the automated management, and through machine learning our AM was learning from the others AMs, and could suggest us solutions and other ways of organizing ourselves. This new feature was leading the community to update permanently and helped us to find our path in what we thought was at the time to be a cloud of endless information and possibility.

Autonomous Automated City

⇣ 2059

Automated Managed communities were growing everywhere. The accessibility of technology and all the wiki detailing how to make it happen, had turn what we thought as a prod of concept, in a establish functional system of management. The A.M was attracting more and more people. They were seeing it as an open door to step out of the established global system. People saw the automated 70

Autonomous Automated City

autonomous home as an opportunity to take over their own production without having to use too much effort. The new comers were less and less interested about the full system and understanding of it but more by the way freedom that this way of living was representing. In a Europe slowly recovering from the crisis of the start of the century, the idea of being autonomous was a necessity for many. We were after almost thirty years of existence, extending and balancing our level of automation and autonomy, and perfecting our A.M., and suddenly we were becoming weirdly trendy. It was 2059, I remember clearly, we reached 308 664 inhabitants in our community, so the entire city of Eindhoven was now the commune, every houses or flat, was an autonomous automated home. It was astonishing‌ We never aimed to take over the entire city. I remember closed faces during the discussion between the pioneers of the community. A mix feeling was growing, happiness to be finally recognized and have impact on the society, but a silent fear for the future of the commune. 71

Chapter two: Establishment

At that moment the dear A.M. 20 and his full enthusiastic voice, distributing tasks and need for the city in order to maintain the autonomy and abundance. He was keeping an eye on the storage, and announcing the task to be done for the common. The task and storage were accessible everywhere in the city via server, and any good could be withdrawn from them as well. The abundance and automation had allowed the citizens of Eindhoven to not work anymore, and our unique mandatory activities were to take care of the common. A.M. 20 was noticing an inhabitant that this task was to be done, if he didn’t do it, or failed at doing it, the A.M. 20 call another individual and so on. The inhabitants were assigned by the A.M. to certain tasks depending on their skills, their availability and their location. The idea for the community work dynamic was to have a kind of bucket organization, a system through which everyone could do whatever they wanted (within the system) at the speed they wanted to go. This dynamic promoted that any tiny action had a positive aspect and helped. 72

Autonomous Automated City

The landscape of Eindhoven was a colorful ad hoc construction, where food was growing everywhere in the public space It was like the city had merged with a very technological countryside. This impression was mostly due to the apparition of self-owning factories and production plots. Cows and sheep were running free in the parks to offer milk to the inhabitant. No one owned the animals except themselves. Our forests and gardens were equally selfowned and self-utilized pieces of land. To log trees one could buy a license through an automated process directly to the forest. In Eindhoven we choose a non monetary system so everything is basically self-service and a dynamic of return on services. Anyone could access any goods, but had to contribute to tasks for the common in order to maintain the city dynamic. In other cities the AM’s were built with reputation economy embedded the more citizens work for the community the more they get access to things, and factory and automate barter their work, tied under smart contract they use a reciprocity as a law. 73

Chapter two: Establishment

The self-owning system was what allowed us to be stable as an autonomous local city, and maintain a city size moneyless dynamic. Now I can see that this attracting shift was what unbalanced the dynamic of city. The inhabitants and even more the new generation were enjoying the system but completely disconnected from its method of proceeding. At the end, the food production was back at a local scale but citizen had no idea of how the food was managed; if the life was going smoothly and the community running well most don’t know how the AM20 works and what its management implies. If Eindhoven is autonomous from the global scale world, its inhabitants are highly dependent on the infrastructure of the system that allows the community to stay in balance. The few left that know could decide to shift the system around without anyone noticing, or the A.M. could start to unbalance our ecosystem and the city run down and every inhabitant will continue to follow the orders with blind trust, and sometime remarking with surprise: 74

Autonomous Automated City

“Our stock of food is getting very low this year no?” “Did you notice that this year we didn’t get to see the cows anymore?” Adding to that, if at first we had kept the access to the A.M. public, it slowly integrated the home, while the community was expending. We neglected the important of this moment were few had to gather around the server to access good or get information. In our hurry to find a better system and live in a more humanistic way and overwhelmed by the size, we forgot to communicate the rules and logic behind the system, we created yet another society of individuals dependent on a hidden system, allowing once again the specialist to be the decision maker of the logic of society. We thought that our open-source wiki publication that traced back all the evolution from the start of the commune till now would have thwarted this possibility from happening, by revealing the logic behind the construction of Eindhoven and to give clues to anyone to understand the infrastructure and interact with it. If it was a good base for sharing, we forgot the importance 75

Chapter two: Establishment

of pedagogy and stimulating the spirit of autonomy. I can only observe now the result of this omission. Everything was to be taught again. The winter of 2060, I was sat in the C&S looking at the back and forth around me with bitterness, that’s when I decided to write. How did we arrive here? How could I show the others that we are on the edge of something that could turn for the worst?





A will for autonomy and understanding in a blurry and overly complex society was what pushed me to find this alternative path. On my life automation and technology have appeared as perfect tools to support the self-sustaining way of living I was aiming for. Looking back at the different steps I can see the pros and cons of each step.

An autonomous individual life style asks for a complete dedication to maintain the level of resources and remain autonomous. In this time consuming stage the individual can afford only a low comfort of life and a lack of diversity of goods. It requires the acceptance of living in a minimalistic way.



An automated individual autonomy, liberated time, the individual is no longer tied to the heavy labor of survival and can spend time doing other activities. The notion of autonomy is there balance by the ability of the person to fix his automaton. The life style can be a bit more varied than the autonomous individual, but remain very functional. An autonomous network of automated autonomous individuals, extend the access to possibilities. An individual being part of a grid of exchange can access a wealthier life style but need to accept to create relationship with others. Therefore accept to slightly depend on others. An autonomous automated community, in this stage the community is tied to a locality, and individuals have to work together to establish an organization of exchange by the automaton. After agreeing on the system the individuals are autonomous from the difficulty of managing goods between themselves. This life style asks to accept to depend on the automated manager and to compromise with one another. The importance is to keep 80

the knowledge about how the automaton’s infrastructure is working, and still be able to challenge it to remain autonomous.

An autonomous automated city, proposes to the autonomous dweller to live in a situation of abundance were automatons take care of production, management and distribution. If this stage is proposing a true comfort of life, it is always the most critical moment for the notion of autonomy. Indeed in the autonomous automated city, the dwellers do not have to manage anything anymore, while we created this self-sustaining city, it is easy to forget about the autonomy of people rather than access to goods. An inhabitant can be considered as autonomous if he knows the logic behind the automaton and can debate about it. It is in this critical phase that in the city of Eindhoven we lost the focus. Our growth of autonomy and our establishment have led us to the end of the autonomy of the individuals. In a way we ended up where we started with dwellers blindly depending on a structure. Our utopian dream could quickly turn into a terrible 81


dystopia because we forgot to share with people the true matter of autonomy. During these forty years of my life I made an attempt to re-think our way of engaging with the structure of society. The importance of the investigator’s position is only appearing today to me. Our autonomy resides on our behavior rather than on the creation of a full new society. As the anarchist Hakim Bey said along with history approbation, in his book Temporary Autonomous Zone,1 the question is not about making a revolution to change the system, but rather consider an uprising as a better tool to spread ideas and create actual change. Indeed during an uprising, ideas are shared, people debate, therefore it keeps on putting the structure in question. While when during a revolution a new system is installed and keeps on putting the structure in question after a while doesn’t allow investigation.

1. Bey, Hakim. T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic terrorism. The anarchist library, 1985.


In a society where we live in city function on a global system, we all depend on one another. Autonomy is an impossible thing to reach. Therefore we should reframe the notion of autonomy itself, as an active posture of investigation of the world and its possibility always aware of the existing relationship between our individual self and our existence in a group, a structure. It is an attitude to develop towards the given, critical posture that empowers the individual by questioning and with knowledge. An autonomous individual is someone who explores and questions given structures to offer themselves room to acknowledge choice, and someone who remembers that they are capable of action and can impact with it environment.




What is next? You could ask, if we failed, is there no hope for autonomy? Learning from the omission we did, my first assessment is that, we often mistook open source and accessibility to information with pedagogical content. That is why I wrote this book as an introduction to our community, a demonstration of our alienation, and a way of sharing my vision of autonomy with you. I am looking for ways to awake the autonomous within others. My goal is to share my experience and awake the explorers and dreamers who are asleep in our automated society. In my research I found a branch of the design discipline that existed back at the start of the century. Designers were constantly working on empowering individuals, and engaging 85


people in the process of making. The movement wound up because it didn’t manage to step out of the design world and never completely reached its real goal. Using the knowledge of the old design field I am trying to develop tools and activities that connect a participative hand-on understanding of the world to investigate the possible, and a democratization of education. As knowledge and awareness are the keys to spread the active autonomous mind around, all my current and past researches are available and editable online. Follow and participate to my research through the wiki, the investigation continue!





Books, Magazines & Essays Bey, Hakim. T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic terrorism. The anarchist library, 1985. Doctorow, Cory. Walkaway. Tor, 2018. Colomina, Beatriz, Wigley, Mark, Are we human?, Lars MĂźller Publishers, 2016. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin Social Sciences, 1991. Frase, Peter. Four Futures, Life after capitalism. Verso Books, 2016. 89


Greenfield, Adam. Radical technologies: the design of everyday life. Verso Books, 2018. Helvert (Von), Marjanne, The Responsible object - A history of design ideology for the future, Valiz, 2016. Lanier, Jaron. Who owns the future? Penguin Books, 2014. Lauwaert, Maaike, and van Westrenen, Francien. Facing value: Radical perspectives from the arts. Astrid Vorstermans Valiz, 2017. MacGuffin, The sink, The life of things biannual magazine, MacGuffin, 2017. More, Thomas, Utopia, Verso Books, 2016 Wark, McKenzie. A Hacker manifesto. Harvard University Press, 2004. Wark, McKenzie, General Intellects, Twentyone Thinkers for the Twenty-First Century, Verso Books, 2017 . 90

Various online content Fox, Margalit, Frances Gabe, Creator of the Only Self-Cleaning Home, Dies at 101, NewYork Times, 2017 Mazini, Ezio. Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design. Design Issues [online] p 57-66, 2013. doi/pdf/10.1162/DESI_a_00248 [Accessed 21 December 2017] Padnani, Asmisha. (2017) The house that did the housework. [online] NY Times. Available at: obituaries/the-house-that-did-the-housework. html [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017] Post Digital Cultures. (2013). Ben Vickers Learning from the Limits of Digital Space. 8 December 2013. Availabre from: https:// [Accessed:8 January 2018]. TEDx Talks. (2012). Designing Collective Intelligence: Alberto Cottica at TEDxBologna. 91

9 November 2012. Available from: https:// [Accessed: 2 January 2018].

Films Lo and Behold, reveries of the connected Worlds, 2016. Werner Herzog, Dogwoof. Surviving progress, Crooks, Harold, Roy, Matthieu, 2018. ONF-NFB. Tomorrow, 2017.Dion Cyril, Laurent Mélanie, Uneder the Milky way.


Inspiring projects

Projects Ansorg, Matthias, EarthOS, 2012 [ongoing project] - earthos Brand, Stewart, Whole Earth Catalog, 1968-1972 Bowyer, Adrian, RepRap, 2005 [ongoing project] - Eggers Anastasia, Roeder (Von), Ottonie, Cow & Co, 2017 - - Hampshire, Max, Kollng, Paul, Seidle, Paul, Terra0,2017 [ongoing project]- https://terra0. org/ LommĂŠe, Thomas, Rethink the modular, 2015 N55, Manuals, [ongoing project] 93

Nakamoto Satomi, (pseudonym) Bitcoin, 2008 Roscam, Abbing, Roel, Pretty Fly for a Wifi, 2016 Various, Guerilla Grafters, 2010. [on going project] GuerrillaGrafters/about/?ref=page_internal/ Unknown, Primitive Technologiy, 2015. [ongoing project] https://primitivetechnology. Van Lieshout Atelier, New tribal Labyrinth; object for imaginary tribes, 2013

Platforms Various (Cottica, Alberto), Edgeryders [ongoing project] - Various (Vickers,Ben), unMonastery, , 2014 [ongoing project] - Various, Global Village Construction Set, [ongoing project] wiki/Main_Page




Acknowledgment Head of department: Jan Boelen Special thanks to my tutors, especially Tamar Shafrir, Alorah Harman for the the English support, Pauline Libosvar and Marie Libosvar, for their last review, Noemi Biasetton for the graphic knowledge. I am grateful to the insight, solidarity, support and energy furnished, in vacirous ways, by Anastasia Egger, and Amandine David for answering all my double questions. Thanks to my dad, for listening to the storyline over and over, and my mom for feeding me with tales and dreams.


Social Design Master Design Academy Eindhoven 2018


Profile for julialaporte

A matter of autonomy?  

This fiction explores the logic behind autarkies. Rural and remote autarkies have always been linked to counterculture and resistance, but t...

A matter of autonomy?  

This fiction explores the logic behind autarkies. Rural and remote autarkies have always been linked to counterculture and resistance, but t...