If you considered that around three thousand years ago our precious planet Earth was infected with only fifty million copies (while, certainly, a single specimen would already have been too many) of the unfortunate human species; if you imagine having had at that time a pile of good H-bombs at your disposal and having used them to crumble the crust of this damned planet Earth and possibly to convert it into a second chain of asteroids, a first large ring of such little celestial bodies being located between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter; and if you considered then what a litany of unspeakable horrors which still continue and are synonymous with humanity would not have occurred!! What philosopher would have dreamed, thirty-five years ago, of thus attacking the so sick matter which we all are? What philanthropist? What man of good will? However, now we absolutely must not miss the chance—and to have such a chance is too good to be true—finally to bring an end at last this infamous litany of abominations that we all are (collectively and individually); and I mean by that, obviously, in a complete atomic-nuclear way! The tragedy, the true catastrophe—is that humanity continues while the divine benediction would be qualified as thermonuclear or some equivalent thereof. If not stark mad, not to be of this opinion is to be selfish, criminal, monstrous. Now, Rousseau, for all the adaptations made by the legislator, in order for his legislation to sit particular times and places, was still pursuing the same universal goal as were the thinkers of the Enlightenment: to secure the equal natural rights of all men within civil society. He simply argued that Hobbes and Locke did not succeed in doing so, that self-interest is not enough to found political morality on. The political solution was more complicated and demanding.

Kant, who invented culture as part of a historical teaching, also had a similar universal goal. Although natural rights had become human rights in his teaching, those rights were the same ones, founded on a new basis; and the historical process he discerned in Rousseau’s teaching moved toward the effective establishment of those rights in civil society. Universality and rationality were the hallmarks of all these teachings. However, very quickly culture—which was for Kant and, speaking anachronistically, for Rousseau, singular—became cultures. That there were Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, and Chinese was clear. That there is a cosmopolitan culture, either existing or coming into being, is unclear. The various unions of nature with the acquisitions of civilization are rare and difficult enough; that they should tend to the same end is improbable; we should cherish these creations and be happy that there is any culture at all. A charm was discovered in this diversity. Rousseau introduced rootedness as a condition of attaining the simple rational human goal. His historicist and romantic successors argued that such a goal undermined rootedness; rootedness became the goal. Here again we live with two contradictory understandings of what counts for man. One tells us that what is important is what all men have in common; the other that what men have in common is low, while that they have from separate cultures gives them their depth and their interest. Both agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, id est, the interests of health and preservation, are what men share. The difference between them is the weight they give to being French or Chinese, Jewish or Catholic, or the rank order of these particular cultures in relation to the natural needs of the human body. One is cosmopolitan, the other is particularistic.

Human rights are connected with one school, respect for cultures with the other. Sometimes the United States of America is attacked for failing to promote human rights; sometimes for wanting to impose “the American way of life” on all people without respect for their cultures. To the extent that it does the latter, the United States of America does so in the name of self-evident truths that apply to the good of all humans. However, its critics argue that there are no such truths, that they are prejudices of American culture. On the other hand, the Ayatollah was initially supported by some here because he represented true Iranian culture. Now he is attacked for violating human rights. What he does is in the name of Islam. His critics insist that there are universal principles that limit the rights of Islam. When the critics of the U.S.A in the name of culture, and of the Ayatollah in the name of human rights, are the same persons, which they often are, they are persons who want to eat their cake and have it, too.  Why, it might be asked, cannot there be a respect for both human rights and culture? Simply because a culture itself generates it own way of life and principles, particularly its highest ones, with no authority above it. If there were such an authority, the unique way of life born of its principle would be undermined. The idea of culture was adopted precisely because it offered an alternative to what was understood to be the shallow and dehumanizing universality of rights based on our animal nature. The folk mind takes the place of reason. There is a continuing war between the universality of the Enlightenment and the particularly that resulted from the teachings of Enlightenment and the particularity that resulted from the teachings of Enlightenment’s critics. Their criticism appealed to all the old attachments to family, country and God that were uprooted by Enlightenment, and gave them a new interpretation and a new pathos. Such criticism provided a philosophic basis for resisting philosophy.

The questions is whether reasonings really take the place of instincts, whether arguments about the value of tradition or roots can substitute for immediate passions, whether this whole interpretation is not just a reaction unequal to the task of stemming a tide of egalitarian, calculating individualism, which the critics themselves share, and the privileges of which they would be loath to renounce. When one hears newly divorced persons extolling the extended family, unaware of all the sacred bonds and ancestral tyranny that it required in order to exist, it is easy to see what they think is missing form their lives, but hard to believe they are aware of what they would have to sacrifice to achieve it. When one hears men and women proclaiming that they must preserve their culture, one cannot help wondering whether this artificial notion can really take the place of the God and country for which they once would have been willing to die. The “new ethnicity” or “roots” is just another manifestation of the concern with particularity, evidence not only of the real problems of community in modern mass societies but also of the superficiality of the response to it, as well as the lack of awareness of the fundamental conflict between liberal society and culture. This attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores that fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental conflict between liberal society and culture. This attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores the fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental beliefs about good and evil, about what is highest, about God. Differences of dress or food are either of no interest or are secondary expression of deeper beliefs.

The “ethic” differences we see in the United States of America are but decaying reminiscences of old differences that caused our ancestors to kill one another. It has been thought throughout time that man is a killing organism. He must kill to survive. He must kill to advance for one must show the World who is the natural elite. Who is the World’s greatest killer? Man. Eve knew this when she described that aftermath of the Fall and Abel’s death. There was also a link between Eden and the Flood, a connection that is both moral and historical, as well as a symbol of the fate of humanity in the years to come. The animating principle, their soul, has disappeared from them. The ethnic festivals are just superficial displays of clothes, dances and foods from the old country. One has to be quite ignorant of the splendid “cultural” past in order to be impressed or charmed by these insipid folkloric manifestations (which, by the way, unite the meanings of culture—people an art). And the blessing given the whole notion of cultural diversity in the United States of America by the culture movement has contributed to the intensification and legitimization of group politics, along with a corresponding decay of belief that the individual rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence are anything more than dated rhetoric. No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear; for fear being an apprehension of pain or death, it operates in a manner that resembles actual pain. Whatever is terrible, therefore, with regard to sight, is sublime, too. This is the age in which our triumphant politicians and hopeful students boast of “slow but steady progress through science and education.” Thanks very much for such “progress!” The very sight of it is enough to confirm us in our belief in the immoral cyclic theory of history, illustrated by the myths of all ancient, natural religions (the Christians—borrowed the story of the Garden of Eden; perfection at the beginning of Time.)

It impresses upon us the fact that human history, far from being a steady ascension towards the better, is an increasingly hopeless process of bastardization, emasculation and demoralization of humankind; an inexorable “fall.” It rouses in us the yearning to see the end—the final crash that will push into oblivion both the worthless “isms” that are the product of decay of thought and character, and the no less worthless religions of equality which have slowly prepared the grounds for them; the coming of Kalki, the divine Destroyer of evil; the dawn of a new Cycle opening, as all time-cycles ever did, with a “Golden Age.” Never mind how bloody the final crash may be! Never mind what old treasures may perish for ever in the redeeming conflagration! The sooner it comes, the better. We are waiting for it—and for the following glory—confident in the divinely established cyclic Law that governs all manifestations of existence in Time: the law of Eternal Return. We are waiting for it, and for the subsequent triumph of the Truth persecuted today; for the triumph under whatever name, of the only faith in harmony with the everlasting laws of being; of the only modern “ism” which is anything but “modern,” being just the latest expression of principles as old as the Sun; the triumph of all those men who, throughout the centuries and today, have never lost the vision of the everlasting Order, decreed by the Sun, and who have fought in a selfless spirit to impress that vision upon others. We are waiting for the glorious restoration, this time, one a Worldwide scale, of the New Order, projection in time, in the next, as in every recurring “Golden Age,” of the everlasting Order of the Cosmos. The end of the World does not come suddenly and without warning. To imagine it does is to be fooled by popular misconception and thus fail to recognize the larger picture.

The end of the World is an ongoing process. It starts slowly, imperceptibly, and blossoms unnoticed in our very midst, until it has engulfed all that there is and none is free from its grasp. If life is to continue, all that humankind thinks is great and mighty is but a disease upon the life and must be made to perish. That which modern man has worshipped as being grand and noble is but an affliction. All that has given the appearance of granting freedom to humankind, has in fact ordained its enslavement, impairing and crippling from within while outwardly bearing the banner of liberty. The body of humanity has been poisoned, and even more as it strives for new horizons and constant advancement, rigor mortis has preceded the approach of death and the lives of men are dragged into the grave along with it. Seek now those motions that sow for humanity the seeds of death as they harvest for you the bounty of life. And man, self-castrated and self-frustrated, flees down the corridors of nightmares, pursued by monstrous machines, overwhelmed by satanic powers, haunted by vague guilts and terrors all created of his own imagination. He escapes into absurdity, drowns his spirit in pretence, worships tin gods of success. Then, shamed by his pretenses and frustrated by his self-denial, he frenziedly projects his horror on imagined enemies, seeks release in scapegoats and false issues, and propitiates anthropoid gods, the blacked and shattered eidolons of his spirit, with sacrifices of blood. Humanity is mean and corrupt, a liar blinded by its own deception, yet cunning within the confines of its ignorance. And humanity is weak, and yet strong in its weakness, for humanity by its cunning can suck the strength from the truly strong and bring them down with it. And humanity breeds death, the death of the soul, and gives life to the torturous conflicts of the mind in which the soul has trapped itself.

And humanity destroys all that promises to bring the spirit of purity and oust corruption. And humanity charms with a sweet façade which hides a treacherous heart. And humanity talks of love, and leaves the scars of hatred in its wake. And humanity cries peace, and brings war. And humanity speaks of glory and a magnificent destiny, and leads deeper into death and degradation. And humanity is brimful of promises and so-called good intentions, yet behind it is a trail of abject failure and betrayal. And humanity is afraid for it and is steeped in evil. And as with all things, by its fruits shall we know humanity. And humanity’s fruits are foul, bruised and bitter, and rotten to the core. And humanity’s home is the Earth, and the Earth is Hell. Now there is nothing more evil in the Universe than man. His World is Hell, and he himself is the Devil. Children’s games are largely based on their experiences. If they live in the country, their games will involve animals. If they go to movies, their games will reflect that. If they watch television, you can see it in their games. In all cases, the characters and creatures they are imitating are based upon the pictures of them which they carry in their minds. I have watched my kids after they have seen Star Trek on TV. Leo, the older, becomes Captain Kirk—efficient, “manly,” determined, in charge, unafraid, coplike. Annie, the younger, is second in command. She plays Lieutenant Nyota Uhura, affecting her behaviour: quick, intelligent, highly efficient, caring, and reasonable. The games continue for hours. Often they replay the same story a few times, as though they were rehearsing it or attempting to memorize it. This, of course, is exactly what they are doing—rehearsing it, to ingrain it in themselves.

Another day, I noticed that Leo was taking giant leaps around the garden and making a clicking sound with his tongue against the roof of his mouth. I realized that his noise was one he made frequently while doing something active and that it was an imitation of the electronic sound that accompanies all of the bionic acts of the Bionic Man. Later that week I watched the program with my kids. During one sequence the Bionic Man is shown running at bionic speed across a field, to the accompaniment of the clicks. The movements are shown in slow motion, so they become especially vivid. I asked my kids about this. Leo said that he runs around imagining that he is the Bionic Man and tries to run like him. Annie said she does, too. She also wanted to know if that was bad. How to answer that? Is it bad? It is bad for kids to do a natural thing—emulation, imitation—which is how children for millions of years have learned about the World? That is certainly not bad. However, in this case, they were imitating a mechanical person. I cannot tell them that it is bad because I do not want them to doubt their own learning processes, and yet the more they practice and maintain their bionic images, the more they imitate them. Slowly, they assume the role in real life. The role in real life. The Bionic Man slowly becomes real in the person of….my kids! I told them it was not bad and changed the subject. Emulation is a method used by human beings to understand and integrate nature into themselves. To get an idea of the naturalness of the process, just think of way in which you are like your parents or your children are like you. I believe that a parent may have less to do with the characteristics a child picks up from the parent than the kid does, because of simple evolutionary emulation processes that continue constantly.

We attempt to train children in one area, only to discover that they have picked up parts of ourselves that we had rather they had not noticed. My daughter Annie has begun to walk with her toes spread slightly outward, ducklike, as I do, and also as my father does. I can remember the moment as a child when I chose to imitate my father’s walk, out of a simple desire to be closer to him, to know how he is inside. Now, twenty-two years later, I walk exactly as he did at this age, even though it is not a desirable way of walking. One’s balance is not ideal, physical spontaneity is limited and movement possibilities narrow. The manner of walking amplifies a certain static emotional condition that my father had to struggle with and which, finding it also in myself, I do not much like. In retrospect, I can see that this way of walking is illustrative of an instinct to “hide” rather than “act,” and perhaps its roots go all the way back to his childhood in the Warsaw ghetto. Who knows? It hardly matters by now. And yet the walk has passed through four generations and is beginning to reappear in Annie. Therefore, imitation from generation to generation is automatic. The tool used is the image of the person being imitated. As I walk, I imagine my father’s walk. This makes it possible for me to repeat it. Without the image I could not repeat it. After many years, of course, the image has submerged though the walk remains. We tend to speak of image emulation as applicable only to children, as though at some fixed age one ceases to learn in this way. This is absurd. As there are way in which my children imitate me, there are also ways in which I imitate them. Annie, for example, has a gentle and efficient ways of speaking and moving, and I have often caught myself copying. Leo has an energy and enthusiasm—a brightness—which I have learned to call upon myself. He teaches me how by merely being that way. I copy him as the student copies the teacher. I become more like both of my children just as they also become more like me.

The same applies to husband and wife. It is a subject of scholars that husbands and wives (and even pets) begin to resemble each other after years together. I have seen countless examples of it, and I believe my wide and I are such an example. After living with someone over a decade, one picks up his or her mannerisms, facial expressions, even lines on the face and body attitudes. There is no way to avoid doing this. It is automatic. Humans are hopeless emulators. If we wish to, we cannot stop. We look around us, and whatever is there day after day becomes the environment for our ingestion whether it is the Bionic Man or one’s own family. We absorb it, take it into ourselves, turn into it. We become each other’s mirrors or reflections or mandalas. Slowly we turn into what we see. It is a basic way of learning how to be. The process goes on for our whole lives. San Francisco, unlike New York, achieves its primary cultural influence not from Europe but from Asia. An example of this occurs in many city parks from about six A.M. daily to eight A.M. I walk through one such park each day about seven-thirty A.M. The scene is this: about forty people, half of them Western, half Chinese, are facing a mature Chinese man who is doing Tai Chi. I have watched the way he teaches. He never speaks (he knows no English). He merely faces his “class” and moves. They copy his movements. If there is something particularly difficult, he does it several times. There is no discussion of theory; the movement itself is the theory. Once you have absorbed the movement inside yourself, the meaning of the movement invades your consciousness. So the teaching method is 100 percent imitation. After the class is over, the students practice with the image of him in their minds. The idea of culture was established in an attempt to find the dignity of humans within the context of modern science. That science was materialistic, hence reductionist, and deterministic. If their status is not special, if they are not essentially different from the brutes, humans can have no dignity.

There must be something else in humans to account for the fullness of their being and prevent political and economic arrangements that presupposed their brutishness from reducing one to it. Those who attempt to establish the dignity of humans did not hope of try to transform the new from natural science. It was a question of coexistence. They invented dualism with which we still live—nature-freedom, nature-art, science-creativity, natural science-humanities—in which the latter term of the pair is supposed to be of higher dignity, but the groundedness of which has always turned out to be problematic. Freedom is a postulate, a possibility in Kant, not a demonstration; and that remains the difficulty. Culture, although it claims to be comprehensive, to include all of man’s higher activities, does not really include natural science, which did not need the notion, which was doing just fine in the older democratic arrangement it has helped to found, and by which it was encouraged. Psychology today includes an important school for which man is nothing other than a brute, exempli gratia, B. F. Skinner’s behaviouralism; another in which the fact that man is an animal practically disappears, exempli gratia, Dr. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, which wants to found itself on biology and at the same time to account for spiritual phenomena, to the detriment of both. In general, everyone wants to be scientific and at the same time to respect the dignity of man. Therefore, may your refuge for “safety” in your Lord—you are sheltered in Him. And now, still turned to God, you will speak word about the task which is joined to all this, and which one has set oneself, which God has set him—“To tell of all Thy works.” Formerly one was provoked to tell of the appearance, and one resisted. Now one knows, one has the reality to tell of: the works of God. The first of one’s telling, the tale of the work which God as preformed with you.

The entire World watched awestruck as a half-century-old empire based on Soviet power in Eastern Europe suddenly came unglued in 1989. Desperate for the Western technology needed to energize its rust-belt economy, the Soviet Union itself plunged into a period of near chaotic change. Slower and less dramatically, the World’s other superpower also went into relative decline. So much has been written about America’s loss of global power that it bears no repetition here. Even more striking, however, have been the many shifts of power away from its once-dominant domestic institutions. Nearly forty years ago, General Motors (GM) was regarded as the World’s premier manufacturing company, a gleaming model for managers in countries around the World and a political powerhouse in Washington. Today, says a high GM official, “We have made a strong comeback.” Shares of General Motors Co. GM slipped 2.90 percent to $37.10 on Monday, May 16, 2022, and this proved to be an all-around mixed trading session for the stock market, with the Down Jones industrial Average DJIA rising 0.08 percent to 32,223.42 and the S&P 500 Index SPX falling 0.39 percent to 4,008.01. General Motors Co. closed $30.11 short of its 52-week high ($67.21), which the company reached on January 5^th, 2022. The stock demonstrated a mixed performance when compared to some of its competitors Monday, May 16, 2022, as Tesla Inc. TSLA fell 5.88 percent to $724.37, Toyota Motor Corp. ADR TM fell 1.13 percent to $159.21, and Honda Motor Co. Ltd. ADR HMC fell 3.86 percent to $24.64. Trading volume (16.3 M) remained 1.9 million below its 50-day average volume of 18.2 M. GM still have a market value of $55.7 billion; shares outstanding, 1.46 billion. GM sold 512,846 vehicles in the United States of America in the first quarter of 2022, with improved semiconductor supplies supporting higher production and market share in key truck segments. “Our ability to meet pent-up demand improved dramatically thanks to a tremendous effort by our supply chain and manufacturing teams to keep our plants operating at close to normal levels,” said Steve Carlisle, executive vice president and president, GM North America. “Supply chain distributions are not fully behind us, but we expect to continue outperforming 2021 production levels, especially in the second half of the year.”

According to GM Chief Economist Elaine Buckberg, industry light vehicle volumes will grow this year and top 2021 levels, thanks to a strong labour market, higher vehicle production and pent-up demand. “Ordinarily, a U.S. economy this strong would translate into light vehicle sales in the 17-million range,” she said. “Improvements in the supply chain should lift auto sales as the years progresses, despite headwinds from higher inflation and fuel prices.” About forty years ago, IBM had only the feeblest competition and the United States of America probably had more computer than the rest of the World combined. Today computer power has spread rapidly around the World, the U.S. share has sagged, and with its annual revenue decline of 6 percent since 2011, IBM faces stiff competition from companies like NEC, Hitachi, and Fujitsu in Japan; Groupe Bull in France; ICL in Britain, and many others. Industry analysts speculate about the post-IMB era. Nor is all this a result of foreign competition. Forty years ago, three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, dominated the American airwaves. They faced no foreign competition at all. Yet today they are shrinking so fast, their very survival is in doubt. Forty years ago, to choose a different kind of example, medical doctors in the United States of America were white-coated gods. Patients typically accepted their word as law. Physicians virtually controlled the entire American health system. Their political clout was enormous. Today, by contrast, American doctors are under siege. Patients talk back. They sue for malpractice. Nurses demand responsibility and respect. Pharmaceutical companies are less deferential. And insurance companies, “managed care groups,” and government doctors, who now control the American health system.

Across the board, then, some of the most powerful institutions and professions inside the most powerful of nations saw their dominance decline in the same twenty-year period that saw America’s external power, relative to other nations, sink. Lest these immense shake-up in the distribution of power seem a disease of the aging superpowers, a look elsewhere proves otherwise. While U.S. economic power faded, Japan’s skyrocketed. However, success, too, can trigger significant power shifts. Just as in the United States of America, Japan’s most powerful Second Wave or rust-belt industries declined in importance as new Third Wave industries rose. Even as Japan’s economic heft increased, however, the three institutions perhaps most responsible for its growth saw their own power plummet. The first was the governing Liberal-Democratic Party. The second was the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), arguably the brain behind the Japanese economic miracle. The third was Keidanren, Japan’s most politically potent business federation. Today the LDP is in retreat, its elderly male leaders embarrassed by financial and sexual scandals. It is face, for the first time, by outraged and increasingly active women voters, by consumers, taxpayers, and farmers who formerly supported it. To retain the power it has held since 1955, it will be compelled to shift its base from rural to urban voters, and deal with a far more heterogenous population than ever before. For Japan, like all the high-tech nations, is becoming a de-massified society, with more actors arriving on the political scene. Whether the LDP can make this long-term switch is at issues. What is not at issues is that significant power has switched away from the LDP. As for MITI, even now many American academics and politicians urge the United States of America to adopt MITI-style planning as a model. Yet today, MITI itself is in trouble.

Today MITI is a fast-fading power as the corporations themselves have grown strong enough to thumb their noses at it. Japan remains economically powerful in the outside World but politically weak at home. Immense economic weight pivots around a shaky political base. Even more pronounced has been the decline in the strength of Keidanren, still dominated by the hierarches of the fast-fading smokestack industries. Even these dreadnoughts of Japanese fiscal power, the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance, whose controls guided Japan through the high-growth period, the oil shock, the stock market crash, and the yen rise, now find themselves impotent against the turbulent market forces destabilizing the economy. Still more striking shifts of power are changing the face of Western Europe. Thus power has shifted away from London, Paris, and Rome as German economy has outstripped all the rest. Today, as East and West Germany progressively fuse their economies, all Europe once more fears German domination of the continent. To protect themselves, France and other West European nations, with the exception of Britain, are hastily trying to integrate the European community politically as well as economically. However, the more successful they become, the more of their national power is transfused into the veins of the Brussels-based European Community, which has progressively stripped away bigger and bigger chunks of their sovereignty. The nations of Western Europe thus are caught between Bonn or Berlin on the one side and Brussels on the other. Here, too, power is shifting rapidly away from its established centers. The list of such global and domestic power shifts could be extended indefinitely. They represent a remarkable series of changes for so brief a peacetime period. Of course, some power shifting is normal at any time. Yet only rarely does an entire globe-girdling system of power fly apart in this fashion. When all the rules of the power game change at once, and they so very often do, it is an even rarer moment in history.

Yet that is exactly what is happening today. Power, which to a large extent defines us as individuals as nations, is itself being redefined. As we have have seen, there are at least a dozen important channels through which prosumers and prosuming interact with the money economy, shifting value back ad forth. They will be more and more important in the days ahead. It helps, therefore, to recap them here, starting with the simplest. Prosumers perform unpaid work through “third jobs” and self-service activities. By using an ATM or checking themselves out in the supermarket, they reduce labour cost—and the number of entry-level jobs—in the money economy. The same, with minor adjustment, is true when they personally care for the ill or elderly or when they cook, clean house, home school and perform other tasks themselves, instead of paying others to do them. Prosumers buy capital goods from the money economy. They purchase everything from chain saws to computers and digital cameras that help them create value for themselves and others in the non-money economy. In doing so, they themselves constitute a market within the money economy. Prosumers lend their tools and capital to users in the money economy–another dish of free lunch. Examples, as we have seen, include allowing other the free use of excess computer capacity for medical and environmental research, astronomical observation and many other socially important purposes. Prosumers improve the housing stock. They raise its value in the national money economy. They do this every time they paint, reshingle their roof, make their lawns green, groom their yards, add rooms or plant trees, substituting their own labour for jobs in the construction industry. The value of the housing stock, in turn, affects mortgages, interest rates and other variables in the money economy.

Prosumers “marketize” products, services, and skills. They do this when, having developed a skill, a product or a services for their personal use, they put it up for sale—sometimes creating new companies and business sectors in the process. Linux, created by prosumers outside the market, generates important commercial piggyback products inside the for-pay marketplace. Prosumers also “de-marketize” products or services. They drive existing goods and services out of the marketplace by offering users all-but-free alternatives. The very threat from outside the money economy leads to new, often less expensive, products inside it. Check VoIp calling, iPods, and the like. Prosuming can accelerate the cycle of de-marketization and marketization. Prosumers create value as volunteers. They offer free help in emergencies. Less dramatically, on a day-to-day basis they work in senior centers, provide medical care and many other services to society. They fight youth gangs, for or maintain neighbourhood associations, churches and other groupings that contribute to social cohesion—the absence of which imposes huge money costs for additional police, prisons, and the like. Prosumers provide valuable free information to for-profit companies. Prosumers do this by beta-testing new products, by filling out surveys, by helping businesses identify new customer needs, by “viral marketing” and by performing other unremunerated services for them. Prosumers increase the power of consumers in the money economy. They do this by sharing information about what to buy or not buy. They share experiences with respect to various health problems and medications, for example, often empowering patients in their relationships with doctors.

Prosumers accelerate innovation. Serving as unpaid gurus, teachers, and consultants, prosumers train one another to use the latest technologies as quickly as they appear, thus increasing the rate of technological change and raising productivity in the paid economy. They are not merely productive but productive. Prosumers rapidly create knowledge, disseminate it and store it in the cybersphere for use in the knowledge-based economy. Much of the data, information and knowledge available in cyberspace has been contributed for free by software writers, financial experts, sociologists, anthropologists, scientists, technicians and others in all walks of life. The accuracy of this content varies widely, and much of it may someday be marketized, but it is routinely drawn upon by investors, businesspeople, managers and others at work in the money economy—another free input. Prosumer raise children and reproduce the labour force. Prosumers provide monumental contributions as parents and caregivers, dwarfing all these other interactions. By socializing their children, giving them the gift of language and by including values consonant with those demanded by the dominant economy, they prepare generation after generation to create wealth. Without the free lunch they provide, there would soon be no paid economy. In addition to this, it is not always clear, at least in the early stages of technology’s intrusion into a culture, who will gain most by it and who will lost most. This is because the changes wrought by technology are subtle if not downright mysterious, one might even say wildly unpredictable. Among the most unpredictable are those that might be labeled ideological. When he warned that writers will come to rely on external signs instead of their own internal resources, and that they will receive quantities of information without proper instruction, this is the sort of change Thamus had in mind.

Thamus meant that new technologies change what we man by “knowing” and “truth”; they alter those deeply embedded habits of thought which give to a culture its sense of what the World is the natural order of things, of what is reasonable, of what is necessary, of what is inevitable, of what is real. For example, if a number can be given to the quality of thought, then a number can be given to the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, creativity, intelligence, even sanity itself. When Galileo said that the language of nature is written in mathematics, he did not mean to include human feeling or accomplishment or insight. However, most of us are now inclined to make these inclusions. Our psychologists, sociologist, and educators find it quite impossible to do their work without numbers. They believe that without numbers, they cannot acquire or express authentic knowledge. That is peculiar. What is even more peculiar is that so many of us do not find the idea peculiar. To say that someone should be doing better work because he has an IQ of 134, or that someone is a 7.2 on a sensitivity scale, or that this man’s essay on the rise of capitalism is an A- and that man’s is a C+ would have sounded like gibberish to Galileo or Shakespeare or Thomas Jefferson. If it makes sense to us, that is because our minds have been conditioned by the technology of numbers so that we see the World differently than they did. Our understanding of what is real is different. Which is another way of saying that embedded in every tool is an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the World as one thing rather than another, to value one thing other another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another. This is what Marshal McLuhan meant by his famous aphorism “The medium is the message.” This is what Marx meant when he said, “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with nature” and creates the “conditions of intercourse” by which we relate to each other.

 It is what Wittgenstein meant when, in referring to our most fundamental technology, he said that language is not merely a vehicle of thought but also the driver. And this is what Thamus wished the inventor Theuth to see. This is, in short, an ancient and persistent piece of wisdom, perhaps most simply expressed in the old adage that to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Without being too literal, we may extend the truism: To a man with a pencil, everything looks like a list. To a man with a camera, everything looks like an image. To a man with a computer, everything looks like data. And to a man with a grade sheet, everything looks like a number. This represents a kind of prejudice. There is a simple way to represent these types of situations that give rise to real problems. This is to use a particular kind of game called the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. The game allows the players to achieve mutual gains from cooperation, but it also allows for the possibility that neither will cooperate. As in most realistic situations, the players do have strictly opposing interest. This approach differs from sociobiology. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that important aspects of human behaviour are guided by our genetic inheritance. Perhaps so. However, the present approach is strategic rather than genetic. It used an evolutionary perspective because people are often in situations where effective strategies continue to be used and ineffective strategies are dropped. Sometimes the selection process is direct: a member of Congress who does not accomplish anything is interactions with colleagues will not remain a member of Congress.

Cresleigh Homes

Whether it’s PB & J’s after school, late night glasses of premium cranberry juice and ambrosia or early morning cups of coffee, ☕ this kitchen island has a front row seat to some family togetherness.

And don’t forget the birthday parties, anniversaries, and holiday celebrations! 🎉 There’s nothing like a welcoming kitchen and living room space to keep those bonds strong.

And you will always have natural light into your home with large windows throughout your new Cresleigh home. This is a place where you can have your cake, and eat it, too.

#PlumasRanch
#CresleighHomes