Autarky
Implicit in many discussions on digital autonomy is the quest for ‘autarky’, being completely independent from other actors, for example those actors whose objectives may be in conflict with ours. This is driving the call for national cloud providers, local manufacturing, and more open source, to name just a few.
Autarky, however, is just one tool for establishing autonomy, and a very difficult one as well.
Economic history shows that no well-developed country is in a state of autarky. For example, in World War II, England was heavily dependent on transatlantic shipping convoys for its supplies, including food. This should be familiar to anybody who has studied the role of Alan Turing and others at Bletchley Park in deciphering the German military code (Enigma) that threatened those convoys.
Even the US is dependent on the rest of the world for its wealth: to finance its ever-growing debt, host its worldwide military presence, and manufacture most of its electronics.
It is therefore an illusion to think that any country can achieve total autonomy, and by extension, total digital autonomy. There isn’t, and never will be, total autarky, and therefore there isn’t, and never will be total digital autonomy.
From that conclusion, where do we go, in order to protect what we deem valuable?
One approach finds its roots in the prisoner’s dilemma, which is the topic of an upcoming text.