2030.AutarkieIndex.org | Resilienz, Nachhaltigkeit, Xerokratie.🍄🤖🖐

Autarkie bedeutet nicht Abschot­tung, son­dern Gestal­tungs­fähigkeit. Unser #AutarkieIn­dex misst, wie resilient, nach­haltig und herrschafts­frei (xerokratisch) die Sys­teme in der Sur­sel­va sind – und unter­stützt konkrete Entschei­dun­gen, um diesen Zie­len näherzukom­men.

G7kKN5DXsAAlsWl

b0b43a4b-1d4a-43c7-bc1a-b62320­fa726c

Screenshot-2020–02-24-at-18.11.53

rebelltv

inter­ven­tion

1000242104

1000231935

4b3ea991-fefa-4d24-b757-b6754827862b-1024x682

aa0b0cfb-97b3-4008–97e3-71957417f255

28632

#Smart­Set­ting

GYEdxaTXcAA5SL2

PXL_20250929_113434866

G0FGGnHXAAAqOvr

d572f269-cec2-481f-bd89-cfa029e2e0c1

19baa3a1-532a-4db4-9bf6-8d97d3e20ad8

WIrPAhZg

1_fqsVlzigx-E_ROGT7uAvDg‑1

FTWnaF0WIAA1LWO

GNSWM­C­QX­AAEUzjT-1536x864

GIeD8oQXkAAKEeD

GwSQI­caX­gAAodll

#TheLuh­man­n­Map https://neugieronautik.ch

#caschlatsch

Screenshot-2025–08-19–19.30.05

matrix #TheS­taub­Ber­nascon­i­Ma­trix

What­sApp Image 2025-09-03 at 14.11.39

G0FGGqCWAAAMuLx

Screen­shot 2022-07-01 01.06.30

FTRZg5dXoAAy1CV

cit­i­zen­science

set­ting pots­dam

de7951f6-a667-4e15-ab4b-7fad­b9b43ae0

18f8e66c-67ce-4d5d-b6f1-7ed7d­c9ed67a

Screenshot-2023–12-15–16.14.27

a18d4f3c-7490–4fe6-96b1-05bd68f6b446

059e7b­ba-ac7d-4d10-9e7a-cb3b04cf4c69

fd0cb2b4-0bee-4492–912d-29ccc9c2746b

Screen­shot 2025-06-05 16.52.01

1000242448

1000242376

1000231824

What­sApp Image 2025-09-03 at 13.49.57

Screen­shot 2025-08-05 11.23.04

What­sApp Image 2025-08-30 at 13.04.11

8bad89e2-7529–42bd-aa4e-368249fb8f06

f8c69fe8-ca0f-448c-92a1-8302c9d­d5d8e

1000238321

2017-11-16 20.32.43 büro

c2f­f18a2-8e29-40a9-a116-bb2300d27d21‑1

FlDao4nX0AAmuHg

Screenshot-2025–07-29–03.55.40

C9sszAnVoAADEQN‑1

Screenshot-2025–04-14–22.45.51

1000241600

1000231871

24cd­d633-e62f-4ec7-a780-42410f­fe8d­db

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.34.40

2655

Screen­shot 2021-06-23 07.35.46

689b0dab-22e8-4206-b814-87c­c92f­f1d­b8

Screen­shot 2025-09-05 11.02.54

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 10.34.31

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 09.10.02

dc4321ec-8632–4b2b-97cb-62c44526246b

c8e19f96-10d7-40de-9a9b-d5864a81f­b18

69a01d23-f80d-415b-8050–6b3cdbd4a7f6

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.44.44

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.42.51

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.41.48

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.40.46

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 11.38.52

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 16.12.47

FvH7eabXgAEOWSu

d92c1884-8d4d-4a4f-bd32-04c7d­d1b1c75

G0FGGmQXcAANHje

2243

2272

2259

2276

2284

2313

2339

2365

2368

2367

2376

2370

2420

2473

2502

2520

2535

2566

2570

2585

2597

2654

2664

2673

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 16.18.40

2674

2677

2684

What­sApp Image 2025-09-05 at 16.20.42

2686

2693

2740

2801

2806

2821

2848

2918

2924

2939

2946

2960

2967

2979

3016

3037

3043

3047

0e95ea9f-f55c-494e-946e-6c4d0eef7c­c2

85cd72e5-993c-4070-be76-7af3f2a66ecf

What­sApp Image 2025-09-20 at 13.24.25

Screen­shot 2025-10-29 10.51.48

18816

IMG-20251007-WA0010

1. Any­one can ver­i­fy.
2. Sov­er­eign­ty is local-first.
3. If a net­work can­not stand alone, it can­not scale.

3 Dimensionen:

1. Nach­haltigkeit – sichert lokale Kreis­läufe und ver­ankert sie in glob­alen Allianzen.
2. Resilienz – sichert die Ver­sorgung vor Ort und stärkt die Anpas­sungs­fähigkeit im Wan­del.
3. Xerokratie – nutzt tech­nis­che Möglichkeit­en für trans­par­ente, herrschafts­freie Organ­i­sa­tion.

6 Handlungsfelder:

1. Bedürfnisse
2. Legit­i­ma­tion
3. Raum
4. Sinn, Kul­tur & Ästhetik
5. Com­mons
6. Daten/Information/Wissen

Ziele Entlang von Handlungsfeld ↓ / Dimension →

Lösungsansätze historisch Konstelliert:

Die indus­trielle Rev­o­lu­tion ist in ein näch­stes Sta­di­um einge­treten: Nach Mech­a­nisierung, Motorisierung, Automa­tisierung nun diese Dig­i­tal­isierung. Die Auswirkun­gen sind enorm. Das alte Mot­to: “Glob­al denken, Lokal han­deln” bekommt neuen Zus­pruch von über­raschen­den Seit­en.

Die Sur­sel­va hat in den let­zten über 1000 Jahren ein sehr eigen­ständi­gen Weg gewählt und ent­ging der Ref­or­ma­tion und der Aufk­lärung fast unbeschadet. Wenn es darum geht, nach Ele­menten ein­er “näch­sten Kul­tur­form” zu suchen, ist es in dieser Talschaft beson­ders ein­fach zu find­en und zu erfind­en…

So knüpfen wir ver­trauensvoll an eine Jahrhun­derte alte Tra­di­tion mit dem Namen #Lav­inaN­era in, dus, treis an, the­ma­tisieren ein drittes Mal “Die Soziale Frage” (Rerum Novarum) in der Sur­sel­va und sagen:

“Ihr wollt 100 Jahre später wiederum “den total­en Krieg”?
- Dann ver­lan­gen wir von Euch wiederum eure #Anbauschlacht.
Wir wer­den es hem­mungs­los #UnheiligeAl­lianz nen­nen.” (so?)

Fly­er als PDF

When Europe talks about “dig­i­tal sov­er­eign­ty”, I first think of infra­struc­ture that peo­ple on the ground can actu­al­ly run them­selves: mesh net­works instead of plat­forms, local-first instead of cloud depen­dence, com­mons instead of pro­pri­etary ser­vices. In a neigh­bour­ing val­ley to Davos, we are build­ing exact­ly such a pro­to­type: dissent.is/ppb – a pilot and impulse project with pota­toes as the core asset, doc­u­ment­ed through a self-oper­at­ed mesh, using a small local blockchain and a DAO log­ic based on trust rather than tokens. Offline capa­ble, online com­pat­i­ble. Sov­er­eign is the val­ley that keeps work­ing when the big cables go down.

Every­thing else is geopo­lit­i­cal rhetoric.

hallo @sms2sms, “a small local blockchain” is a contradiction in terms, because a blockchain must be decentralised and geographically widespread — ideally global — in order to be secure. Nobody should be able to gain control over the nodes.

Thanks for the push. The idea that a blockchain must be glob­al to be “secure” reflects one spe­cif­ic use case: finan­cial con­sen­sus under adver­sar­i­al con­di­tions. What we are build­ing is some­thing dif­fer­ent: legit­i­ma­cy, not spec­u­la­tion.

In our val­ley pro­to­type, the blockchain is not an eco­nom­ic bat­tle­field that needs glob­al hash­pow­er. It is a shared log. A trans­par­ent, append-only pro­to­col that doc­u­ments con­tri­bu­tions, ori­gins, cycles, and respon­si­bil­i­ties across a local com­mons. The threat mod­el is social, not geopo­lit­i­cal. The goal is ver­i­fi­able mem­o­ry, not glob­al trust­less­ness.

You do not need thou­sands of anony­mous val­ida­tors to secure pota­toes in a sup­ply loop. You need a pro­to­col that can­not be rewrit­ten by a sin­gle actor, that works offline, and that pre­serves a com­mon his­to­ry even when plat­forms or clouds fail.

This is why “small local blockchain” is not a con­tra­dic­tion. It is a dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al func­tion. If glob­al blockchains solve trust between strangers, local blockchains solve trust between neigh­bours. Dif­fer­ent scale, dif­fer­ent pur­pose, same under­ly­ing log­ic: legit­i­ma­cy moves from insti­tu­tions to pro­to­cols.

Then you could just use a simple database or even a spreadsheet. That would be about as secure.

That com­par­i­son sounds intu­itive, but it miss­es the core dis­tinc­tion. A data­base is con­trolled by who­ev­er runs it. A local blockchain is gov­erned by a pro­to­col that no sin­gle par­tic­i­pant can rewrite. That dif­fer­ence becomes cru­cial in small com­mu­ni­ties.

In our con­text, we do not need glob­al adver­sar­i­al secu­ri­ty. We need shared legit­i­ma­cy: a record that can­not be pri­vate­ly edit­ed, that sur­vives out­ages, and that reflects con­tri­bu­tions and respon­si­bil­i­ties across a com­mons. A data­base gives you stor­age. A blockchain gives you ver­i­fiable his­to­ry.

If one per­son can delete, over­write, or adjust entries, the social trust mod­el col­laps­es. In a local mesh, the abil­i­ty to inde­pen­dent­ly ver­i­fy the state — with­out trust­ing an oper­a­tor — is the entire point.

So no: a spread­sheet can store facts. A blockchain can pro­tect them.

Fair enough. But where do you see the real examples of technologies that actually changed how we think about trust, collaboration and knowledge?

For me, the two most impor­tant dis­rup­tions are these:

1. Cre­ative Com­mons
It turned copy­right into a right to copy. It shift­ed the cen­tre of grav­i­ty from own­er­ship to shar­ing, from restric­tion to per­mis­sion. It showed that access scales bet­ter than exclu­sion.

2. Wikipedia
It proved that the sci­en­tif­ic work­flow of pro­duc­ing knowl­edge works bril­liant­ly in open, col­lab­o­ra­tive writ­ing envi­ron­ments. Back then we shout­ed:
- “Any­one can edit.”
- “Wikipedia is not paper.” And of course Cunningham’s Law:
- “The best way to get the right answer on the inter­net is not to ask a ques­tion; it’s to post the wrong answer.”

Both dis­rup­tions replaced insti­tu­tion­al author­i­ty with pro­ce­dur­al open­ness. They showed that legit­i­ma­cy can emerge from trans­par­ent col­lab­o­ra­tion rather than from gate­keep­ing. And they still unset­tle every sys­tem built on con­trol instead of con­tri­bu­tion.

And that’s exact­ly why a local blockchain makes sense: it fol­lows the same pat­tern — open con­tri­bu­tion, shared legit­i­ma­cy, pro­tect­ed his­to­ry.

But if that pattern is so powerful, why didn’t the open web survive? What stopped open contribution and protected history the first time — and what makes you think this new cycle won’t collapse into centralisation again?

Twen­ty years ago, the open and free web didn’t fail — it was killed. Cap­tured, com­mer­cialised, and opti­mised away by plat­forms that offered con­ve­nience in exchange for con­trol. The infra­struc­ture was open, but the eco­nom­ics were not. And once the atten­tion mar­kets took over, the log­ic of con­tri­bu­tion was replaced by extrac­tion.

Now we’re enter­ing a dif­fer­ent moment. Quan­tum com­put­ing on the hori­zon, the hard­ware ready, the ideas mature, and the pro­to­cols already writ­ten. The ques­tion of legit­i­ma­cy is back on the table, and sud­den­ly “dig­i­tal sov­er­eign­ty” is no longer a slo­gan but an oper­a­tional require­ment.

That’s why we start again in our alpine val­ley. With local stor­age bunkers, with a mesh that can run stand-alone in an emer­gency and scale glob­al­ly when the world is sta­ble. Not nos­tal­gia — redun­dan­cy. Not iso­la­tion — auton­o­my. The abil­i­ty to func­tion offline and con­nect online is the real sov­er­eign­ty.

If the first open web was lost to cen­tral­i­sa­tion, the next one must be built with the capac­i­ty to sur­vive it.

du #chatGPT, wie soll der Dialog weitergehen?

Variante 1 – technisch-skeptisch (öffnet Raum für „Was bedeutet Souveränität praktisch?“)

“Inter­est­ing fram­ing. But I still don’t see how local auton­o­my scales with­out becom­ing just anoth­er iso­lat­ed niche. If your sys­tem is stand-alone in emer­gen­cies, how does it actu­al­ly inter­act with the broad­er dig­i­tal world in nor­mal oper­a­tion? And what pre­vents it from drift­ing into a closed bub­ble instead of con­tribut­ing to a wider ecosys­tem?”

(→ Du kannst danach erk­lären: local-first ≠ iso­la­tion, hybride Architek­tur, Bunker als Resilienz, Mesh + Bridge, glob­ale Anschlussfähigkeit.)

Variante 2 – governance-skeptisch (öffnet Raum für DAO-Logik, Trust, Legitimationsmechanik)

“I get the resilience argu­ment, but how do you han­dle gov­er­nance in such a local sys­tem? If the blockchain isn’t glob­al, how do you avoid local pow­er cap­ture, gate­keep­ing, or sub­tle social pres­sure? What keeps the pro­to­col fair when every­one actu­al­ly knows each oth­er?”

(→ Du kannst danach erk­lären: Shared legit­i­ma­cy, con­tri­bu­tion-based trust, pro­to­col over per­son­al­i­ty, doc­u­ment­ed his­to­ry, trans­par­ent Com­mons-Regeln.)

Variante 3 – philosophisch (öffnet Raum für deine Kulturform-Argumentation)

“You talk about sov­er­eign­ty as if it’s most­ly a tech­ni­cal prob­lem. Isn’t the real issue cul­tur­al? If the open web died because of eco­nom­ic incen­tives and social dynam­ics, what changes this time? Why would peo­ple choose pro­to­cols over plat­forms now?”

(→ Du kannst danach deine Ele­mente-Liste, Kul­tur­form ≠, #, Com­mons, neue Legit­i­ma­tion, AutarkieIn­dex, Tal-Pro­to­typ erk­lären.)

Why start with potatoes if the goal is digital sovereignty and global scalability?

A sys­tem that starts with pota­toes can scale glob­al­ly pre­cise­ly because it begins with the hard­est part: real goods, real cycles, real respon­si­bil­i­ty. If you can build a sta­ble com­mons infra­struc­ture around cul­ti­va­tion, stor­age, pro­cess­ing and dis­tri­b­u­tion of a phys­i­cal asset, you can mod­el any oth­er resource on top of it. Every­thing that fol­lows — wood, water, ener­gy, tools, knowl­edge — uses the same struc­ture: actors, con­tri­bu­tions, ver­i­fi­able his­to­ry, shared legit­i­ma­cy.

Scal­a­bil­i­ty does not come from the size of the asset. It comes from the qual­i­ty of the pro­to­col.

Local decen­tral­i­sa­tion with glob­al inter­op­er­abil­i­ty is what makes this archi­tec­ture scal­able. Each val­ley can run its own mesh and its own ledger, ful­ly autonomous if need­ed, yet able to con­nect to oth­ers through com­pat­i­ble pro­to­cols. Not one glob­al blockchain, but many local blockchains that can fed­er­ate. A net­work that expands not through “more min­ers”, but through more places that can oper­ate inde­pen­dent­ly and choose to inter­link.

This is what real dig­i­tal sov­er­eign­ty looks like: sys­tems that work offline, align online, and grow by fed­er­a­tion rather than cen­tral­i­sa­tion.

If you can make a pota­to cycle trust­wor­thy, you can scale that trust to any­thing. And to any­where.

die ganze playlist auf WikiDienstag.ch | abon­niere kosten­los den What­sApp-chan­nel #Lav­inaN­era treis

Warum 2030.AutarkieIndex.org unbequem wirkt?

• Weil es zeigt: man kann selb­stor­gan­isiert, lokal, demokratisch leben und arbeit­en — ohne zen­trale Play­er, ohne Token-Speku­la­tion, ohne glob­ale Abhängigkeit.
• Weil es eine Alter­na­tive zum glob­al­isierten, kap­i­tal­isierten Netz anbi­etet — ein radikal anderes Mod­ell von Wert, Macht und Gemein­schaft.
• Weil es beweist: Dezen­tral­ität ist keine tech­nis­che Frage, son­dern eine soziale und poli­tis­che. Wer das anerken­nt, ver­liert Deu­tungs­macht.
• Weil es eine Brücke aus der Mod­erne in eine neue Kul­tur­form ist — und damit alte Macht­struk­turen ern­sthaft infrage stellt.

im kampf der monop­o­lis­ten um das tägliche brot, hast du kein brot.
- oder doch? #TPP #AutarkieIn­dex

MONOPOLE DISRUPTENhttps://t.co/rQt7RiZE8J pic.twitter.com/OaVWd1cNyq

— dissent.is/███████ (@sms2sms) Octo­ber 22, 2025

Velle non satis est, nisi et agas. (eras­mus von rot­ter­dam zugeschrieben)

“machen ist wie wollen, nur krass­er.” sagt 500 jahre später thomas suessli jet­zt geht es um die her­stel­lung von kriegs­bere­itschaft (so?)

1st draft

- Call 4 Papers

Budgetrahmen 2030.AutarkieIndex.org

Hand­lungs­feld 1: Bedürfnisse (inkl. Gannaretsch)

• Brot / Ernährung: Investi­tion 0.5 Mio. CHF (Müh­le, Ofen, Infra­struk­tur)
  Betrieb/Unterhalt: 1.0 Mio. CHF
  Total: 1.5 Mio. CHF
• Energie Gannaretsch: Investi­tion 250 Mio. CHF (3 Türme, 15 Win­dräder, Netz)
  Betrieb/Unterhalt: 25 Mio. CHF (Sys­tem­inte­gra­tion, Wartung Bunker, Autarkie-Back­up)
  Total: 275 Mio. CHF
• Ver­sorgung / Logis­tik / Gesund­heit: Investi­tion 15 Mio. CHF (Logis­tik, Gesund­heitsver­sorgung Ilanz, Indus­trien)
  Betrieb/Unterhalt: 10 Mio. CHF (Starthil­fen Betriebe, Koor­di­na­tion)
  Total: 25 Mio. CHF
  → Total Bedürfnisse: 301.5 Mio. CHF

Hand­lungs­feld 2: Legit­i­ma­tion

• Investi­tion: 2 Mio. CHF (Blockchain-Infra, Smart Con­tracts)
• Betrieb/Unterhalt: 3 Mio. CHF (Com­mu­ni­ty Gov­er­nance, Trans­parenz-Tools)
  → Total Legit­i­ma­tion: 5 Mio. CHF

Hand­lungs­feld 3: Raum

• Investi­tion: 20 Mio. CHF (Umbaut­en, Werk­stät­ten, Maschi­nen)
• Betrieb/Unterhalt: 5 Mio. CHF (lokale Handw­erke, Mate­ri­alkreis­läufe)
  → Total Raum: 25 Mio. CHF

Hand­lungs­feld 4: Sinn, Kul­tur & Ästhetik

• Investi­tion: 1.25 Mio. CHF (Kun­st, Iden­tität, Nar­ra­tive)
• Betrieb/Unterhalt: 2.5 Mio. CHF (Pro­gramme, Com­mu­ni­ty, Kul­tur­for­mate)
  → Total Sinn, Kul­tur & Ästhetik: 3.75 Mio. CHF

Hand­lungs­feld 5: Com­mons

• Investi­tion: 2.5 Mio. CHF (Plat­tform-Infra, Host­ing, Hard­ware)
• Betrieb/Unterhalt: 5 Mio. CHF (Com­mu­ni­ty Care, Betrieb)
  → Total Com­mons: 7.5 Mio. CHF

Hand­lungs­feld 6: Dat­en / Infor­ma­tion / Wis­sen

• Investi­tion: 1.25 Mio. CHF (Nodes, Serv­er, Tools, Forschung)
• Betrieb/Unterhalt: 2.5 Mio. CHF (Plat­tform-Entwick­lung, Wis­senschaft, Open Access)
  → Total Dat­en / Infor­ma­tion / Wis­sen: 3.75 Mio. CHF

GESAMTTOTAL

• Investi­tio­nen: 292.5 Mio. CHF
• Betrieb/Unterhalt (5 Jahre): 54 Mio. CHF
• Total: 346.5 Mio. CHF

#LOL | #chatGPT‑5 hat gannaretsch über­haupt nicht im griff… hey: es macht mega viel spass mit dem teil zu arbeit­en ;-)

Langsam: M/ein Blog ist m/ein Karten­raum und k/eine Bühne. Ich weiss wie man pub­liziert. Das hier ist etwas anderes. d!a!n!k!e | WORK IN PROGRESS reload für aktuellen schreib­stand | warum ich nicht pub­liziere? weil ich es kann. weil es geht. weil ich es für angemessen halte.