Antibiotics, aircraft, satellites, nuclear weapons, television, mass production, computers, a global petroleum economy—all the familiar revolutions of twentieth-century technology, with their growing consequences for human life and the Earth itself, have emerged within living memory. These revolutions have been enormous, yet the next few decades promise more. Twentieth-century technology is headed for the junk heap, or perhaps the recycling bins. It has changed life; its replacement will change life again, but differently. There are important consequences for the environment, medicine, warfare, industry, society, and life on Earth. Pollution, physical disease, and material poverty all stem from poor control of the structure of matter. Strip mines, clear-cutting, refineries, paper mills, and oil wells are some of the revolutionary twentieth-century technologies that will be replaced. Dental drills and toxic chemotherapies are others. As always, there is both promise of benefit and danger of abuse. As has become routine, the United State of America is attempting to look ahead, but some of our leaders seem to be intentionally trying to make us slip behind. As never before, foresight is both vital and possible. There is a view of the future that does not fit with the view in the newspaper. Think of it as an alternative, a turn in the road of future history that leads to a different World. In that World, cancer follows polio, petroleum follows whale oil, and industrial technology follows chipped flint—all healed or replaced. Old problems vanish, new problems appear: down the road are many alternative Worlds, some fit to live in, some not. We aim to survey this road and the alternatives, because to arrive at a World fit to live in, we will all need a better view of the open paths.

Technology-as-we-know-it is a product of industry, of manufacturing and chemical engineering. Industry-as-we-know-it takes things from nature—ore from mountains, trees from forests—and coerces them into forms that someone considers useful. Trees become lumber, then houses. Mountains become rubble, then molten iron, then steel, then cars. Sand becomes a purified gas, then silicon, then chips. And so it goes. Each process is crude, based on cutting, stirring, baking, spraying, etching, grinding, and the like. Trees, though, are not crude: To make wood and leaves, they neither cut, grind, stir, bake, spray, etch, nor grind. Instead, they gather solar energy using molecular electronic devices, the photosynthetic reaction centers of chloroplasts. They use that energy to drive molecular machines—active devices with moving parts of precise, molecular structure—which process carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and molecular building blocks. They use other molecular machines to join these molecular building blocks to form roots, trunks, branches, twigs, solar collectors, and more molecular machinery. Every tree makes leaves, and each leafy is more sophisticated than a spacecraft, more finely patterned than the latest chip from Silicon Valley. They do all this without noise, heat, toxic fumes, or human labor, and they consume pollutants as they go. Viewed this way, trees are high technology. Chips and rockets are not. Trees give a hint of what molecular nanotechnology will be like, but nanotechnology will not be biotechnology because it will not rely on altering life.

Biotechnology is a further state in the domestication of living things. Like selective breeding, it reshapes the genetic heritage of a species to produce varieties more useful to people. Unlike selective breeding, it inserts new genes. Like biotechnology—or ordinary trees—molecular nanotechnology will use molecular machinery, but unlike biotechnology, it will not rely on genetic meddling. It will be not an extension of biotechnology, but an alternative or replacement. Molecular nanotechnology could have been conceived and analyzed—though not built—based on scientific knowledge available forty years ago. Even today, as development accelerates, understanding grows slowly because molecular nanotechnology merges fields that have been strangers: the molecular sciences, working at the threshold of the quantum realm, and mechanical engineering, still mined in the grease and crudity of conventional technology. Nanotechnology will be a technology of new molecular machines, of gears and shafts and bearings that move and work with parts shaped in accord with the wave of equations at the foundation of natural law. Mechanical engineers do not design molecules. Molecular scientist seldom design machines. Yet a new field will grow—is growing today—in the gap between. That field will replace both chemistry as we know it and mechanical engineering as we know it. And what is manufacturing today, or modern technology itself, but a patchwork of crude chemistry and crude machines? Picture a World of molecular machines and molecular manufacturing. Imagine an automated factory, full of conveyor belts, computers, rollers, stampers, and swing robot arms.

Now think about something like that factory, but a million times smaller and working a million times faster, with parts and workpieces of molecular size. In this factory, a “pollutant” would be a loose molecule, like a ricocheting bolt or washer, and loose molecules are not tolerated. In many ways, the factory is utterly unlike a living cell: not fluid, flexible, adaptable, and fertile, but rigid, preprogrammed and specialized. And yet for all of that, this microscopic molecular factory emulates life in its clean, precise molecular construction. Advances molecular manufacturing will be able to make almost anything. Unlike crude mechanical and chemical technologies, molecular manufacturing will work from the bottom up, assembling intricate products from the molecular building blocks that underlie everything in the physical World. Nanotechnology will bring new capabilities, giving us new ways to make things, heal our bodies, and care for the environment. It will also bring unwelcome advances in weaponry and give us yet more ways to foul up the World on an enormous scale. It will not automatically solve our problems: even powerful technologies merely give us more power. As usual, if we hope to harness new developments to good ends, we have a lot of work ahead of us, and a lot of hard decisions to make. The main reason to pay attention to nanotechnology now, before it exists, is to get a head start on understanding it and what to do about it. Having defined tool-using cultures, two points we must avoid to not excessively oversimplify the matter of evolution need to be discussed. First, the quantity of technologies available to a tool-using culture is not its defining characteristic. Even a superficial study of the Roman Empire, for example, reveals the extent to which it relied on roads, bridges, aqueducts, tunnels, and sewers for both its economic vitality and its military conquests.

Or, take it to another example, we know that, between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, Europe underwent a technological boom: medieval man was surrounded by machines. One may even go as far as Lynn White, Jr., who said that the Middle Ages gave up for the first time in history, “a complex civilization which rested not on the backs of sweating slaves or coolies but primarily on non-human power.” Tool-using cultures, in other words, may be both ingenious and productive in solving problems of the physical environment. Windmills were invented in the late twelfth century. Eyeglasses for nearsightedness appeared in Italy in 1280. The invention in the eleventh century of rigid padded collars to rest on the shoulder blades of horses solved the problem of how to increase the pulling power of horses without decreasing their ability to breathe. In fact, as early as the ninth century in Europe, horseshoes were invented, and someone figured out that, when horses are hitched, one behind the other, their pulling power is enormously amplified. Corn mills, paper mills, and fulfilling mills were part of medieval culture, as were bridges, castles, and cathedrals, The famous spire of Strasbourg Cathedral built in the thirteenth century, rose to a height of 466 feet, the equivalent of a forty-story skyscraper. And, to go further back in time one must not fail to mention the remarkable engineering achievements of Stonehenge and the Pyramids (whose construction, Lewis Mumford insisted, signifies the first example of a megamachine in action). Given the fact, we must conclude that tool-using cultures are not necessarily impoverished technologically, and may even be surprisingly sophisticated.

Of course some tool-using cultures were (and still are) technologically primitive, and some have even displayed a contempt for crafts and machinery. The Golden Age of Greece, for example, produced no important technical inventions and could not even devise ways of using horsepower efficiently. Both Plato and Aristotle scorned the “base mechanic arts,” probably in the belief that nobility of mind was not enhanced by efforts to increase efficiency or productivity. Efficiency and productivity were problems for slaves, not philosophers. We find a somewhat similar view in the Bible, which is the longest and most detailed account of an ancient tool-using culture we have. In Deuteronomy, no less an authority than God Himself says, “Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, and abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and set it up in secret.” Tool-using cultures, then, may have many tools or few, many be enthusiastic about tools or contemptuous. The name “tool-using culture” derives from the relationship in a given culture between tools and the belief system or ideology. The tools are not intruders. They are integrated into the culture in ways that do not pose significant contradictions to its World-view. If we take the European Middle Ages as an example of a tool-using culture, we find a very high degree of integration between its tools and its World-view. Medieval theologians developed an elaborate and systematic description of the relation of man to God, man, man to nature, man to man, and man to his tools. Their theology took as a first and last principle that all knowledge and goodness come from God, and that therefore all human enterprise must be directed toward the service of God. Theology, not technology, provided people with authorization for what to do or think. Perhaps this is why Leonardo da Vinci kept his design of submarine secret, believing that it was too harmful a tool to unleash, that it would not gain favor in God’s eyes.

A revolutionary new system for creating wealth cannot spread without triggering personal, political, and international conflict. Change the way wealth is made and you immediately collide with all the entrenched interests whose power arose from the prior wealth-system. Bitter conflicts erupt as each side fights for control of the future. It is this conflict, spreading around the World today, that helps explain the present power shake-up. To anticipate what might lie ahead for us, therefore, it is helpful to glance briefly backward at the last such global conflict. Three hundred years ago the industrial revolution also brought a new system of wealth creation into being. Smokestacks speared the skies where fields once were cultivated. Factories proliferated. These “dark Satanic mills” brought with them a totally new way of life—and a new system of power. Peasants freed from near-servitude on the land turned into urban workers subordinated to private or public employers. With this change came changes in power relations in the home as well. Agrarian families, several generations under a single roof, all ruled by a bearded patriarch, gave way to stripped-down nuclear families from which the elderly were soon extruded or reduced in prestige and influence. The family itself, as an institution lost much of its social power as many of its functions were transferred to other institutions—education to the school, for example. Sooner or later, too, wherever steam engines and smokestacks multiplied, vast political changes followed. Monarchies collapsed or shriveled into tourist attractions. New political forms were introduced.

If they were clever and farsighted enough, rural landowners, once dominant in their regions, moved into the cities to ride the wave of industrial expansion, their sons becoming stockbrokers or captains of industry. Most of the landed gentry who clung to their rural way of life wound up as shabby gentility, their mansions eventually turned into museums or into money-raising lion parks. Against their fading power, however, new elites arose: corporate chieftains, bureaucrats, media moguls. Mass production, mass distribution, mass education, and mass communication were accompanied by mass democracy, or dictatorships claiming to be democratic. These internal changes were matched by gigantic shifts in global power, too, as the industrialized nations colonized, conquered, or dominated much of the rest of the World, creating a hierarchy of World power that still exists in some regions. The appearance of a new system for creating wealth undermined every pillar of the old power system, ultimately transforming family life, business, politics, the nation-state, and the structure of the global power itself. Those who fought for control of the future made use of violence, wealth, and knowledge. Today a similar, though far more accelerated, upheaval has started. The changes we have recently seen in business, the economy, politics, and at the global level are only the first skirmishes of far bigger power struggles to come. For we stand at the edge of the deepest powershift in human history. The real message that America sends, ore important than its ideological and commercial rhetoric, is Gospel of Change. It is the dominant message now being delivered to billions of people in rigid societies around the World: Change is possible—and not just in some blue-sky future but soon, in your own lifetime or that of your child.

This gospel does not specify whether change will be good or bad. That will be interpreted differently and fought over. However, the very idea that change is possible is still revolutionary for many populations on this planet—especially for the World’s poorest young people. And, as innumerable examples show, when people regard change as impossible, they seldom take the future in their hands. If the emergent generation is inspired by the Gospel of Change, the changes to come will not necessarily please America and Americans. In the Middle East, it could take the form of popularly elected theocratic-fascist regimes duly voted into power. In Africa and Latin America, it might take completely different forms. The Gospel of Change is most dangerous to established institutions and order precisely because it is not inherently right-wing or left-wing, democratic or authoritarian. Its implicit meta-message is that all our societies, all out current ways of life and even our beliefs are inherently temporary. It is not the message of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. It is not the message of the French or American revolutionists. It is the message of that most revolutionary of all philosophers, Heraclitus—whose best-know statement still sums it up: “You cannot step in the same river twice, because by the second step it will already have changed.” All is process. All is change. Heraclitus implies that all ideologies, and all religions, like all institutions, are historically transient. That is the real message emanating from the United States of America. And that is what, at the deepest level, disturbs the dreams—and triggers the nightmares—of billions of human beings. The United States of America cannot help but transmit that message because it itself exemplifies change. Many countries today have begun the transition from an industrial wealth system and civilization to a knowledge-based wealth system—without appreciating that a new wealth system is impossible without a correspondingly new way of life. America is on the razor edge of that all-encompassing change.

That is why even the present and former allies are increasingly troubled by America’s role in the World. Even as they, too, undergo significant transformation—the recent enlargement of European Union and the rejection by some countries of its proposed constitution, for example—their overall pace is slower and less revolutionary. As they struggled to build their own future, they see the United States of American pulling away, speeding into the unknown—and pulling other cultures and countries in its turbulent wake. However, if everything is in fact temporary, so is American power. The United States of American has become famous for its obsession with the next year’s elections and the next quarter’s profits, and the future be damned. Nonetheless, we are writing for normal human beings who feel that the future matters—ten, twenty, perhaps even thirty years from now—for people who care enough to try to shift the odds for the better. Making wise choices with an eye to the future requires a realistic picture of what the future can hold. What if most pictures of the future today are based on the wrong assumptions? Here are a few of today’s common assumption, some are so familiar that they are seldom stated: Industrial development is the only alternative to poverty, many people must work in factories, greater wealth means greater resource consumption, logging, mining, and fossil-fuel burning must continue, manufacturing means pollution, Third World development would doom the environment. These assumptions all depend on a more basic assumption: Industry as we know it cannot be replaced. Some further assumptions: The twenty-first century will basically bring more of the same. Today’s economic trends will define tomorrow’s problems. Spaceflight will never be affordable for most people. Forests will never grow beyond Earth. More advanced medicine will always be more expensive. Even highly advanced medicine will not be able to keep the people healthy. Solar energy will never become really inexpensive. Toxic wastes will never be gathered and eliminated. Developed land will never be returned to wilderness. There will never be weapons worse than nuclear missiles. Pollution and resource depletion will eventually bring war of collapse. These, too, depend on a more basic assumption: Technology as we know it will never be replaced.

These commonplace assumptions paint a future full of terrible dilemmas, and the notion of that a technological change will let us escape from them smacks of the idea that some technological fix can save the industrial system. The prospect, though, is quite different: the industrial system will not be fixed, it will be junked and recycled. The prospect is not more industrial wealth ripped from the flesh of the Earth, but green wealth unfolding from processes as clean as a growing tree. Today, our industrial technologies force us to choose better quality or lower costs or greater safety or cleaner environment. Molecular manufacturing, however, can be used to improve quality and lower costs and increase safety and clean the environment. The coming revolutions in technology will transcend many of the old, familiar dilemmas. And yes, they will bring fresh, equally terrible dilemmas. Molecular nanotechnology will bring thorough and inexpensive control of the structure of matter. We need to understand the molecular nanotechnology in order to understand the future capabilities of the human race. This will help us see the challenges ahead, and help us plan how best to conserve values, traditions, and ecosystems through effective policies and institutions. Likewise, it can help us see what today’s events mean, including business opportunities and possibilities for action. We need a vision of where technology is leading because technology is part of what human beings are, and will affect what we and our societies can become. The consequences of the coming revolutions will depend on human actions. As always, new abilities will create new possibilities both for good and for ill. However, our political and economic pressures can be harnessed to achieve good ends. Still, the answers will not be satisfactory, but they are at least a beginning.

Society is made up of rules. Exactly what is meant by “uncalled for” is not precisely determined. However, some people deliberately disobey the rules to see what they can get away with. TRANQUILIZER illustrates a mor subtle way of taking advantage of many rules, and hence a more subtle challenge. It first seeks to establish a mutually rewarding relationship with another individual, and only then does it cautiously try to see if it will be allowed to get away with something. By waiting until a pattern of mutual cooperation has been developed, it hopes to lull the other side into being forgiving of occasional defections. If the other individua continues to cooperate, the defections become more frequent, but still tries to avoid pressing one’s luck too far. What it takes to do well with challenging rules like these is to be ready to retaliate after an “uncalled for” defection. So while it pays to be nice, it also pays to be retaliatory. What seems to happen is an interesting interaction between people. If others are going to be nice and forgiving, it pays to tr to take advantage of them. The reason is that in trying to exploit other rules, they often eventually get punished enough to make the whole situation less rewarding for both parties than pure mutual cooperation would have been. At first, poor decisions and good decisions, in anything such as a business or in Congress, are represented in equal proportions. However, as time passes, the poorer ones begin to dropout and the good ones thrive. Success breeds more success, provided that the success derives from interactions with other successful rules. If, on the other hand, a decision rule’s success derives from its ability to exploit other rules, then as these exploited rules die out, the exploiter’s base of support becomes eroded and the exploiter suffers a similar fate.

We have to remember that the United State of America and most corporations are, in the long run, are still relatively new. By the two hundredth generation or so, things began to take a noticeable turn. Less successful programs usually become extinct, which means that there are fewer and fewer prey for them to exploit. Soon a predator cannot keep up with the successful nice rules, and by the one thousandth generation, predators become extinct as do the exploitive rules on which they preyed. This is why older societies, like the Native Americans, were able to live in harmony and protect the land. They were much older than the “New World,” and were in harmony with their people and environment. The ecological analysis shows that doing well with rules that do not score well themselves is eventually a self-defeating process. Not being nice may look promising at first, but in the long run it can destroy the very environment it needs for its own success. By the one-thousandth generation, a society is usually most successful and still growing at a faster rate than any other rule. I supposed this is why some people do not like immigration very much. The want to acclimate with the people who are already here, establish peace and prosperity before adding new people to the melting pot. Immigration does bring a lot of knowledge and technology, but it also brings some disharmony and instability with it. However, parts of its success might be that other rules anticipate its presence and are designed to do well with it. And any rule that tries to take advantage of the situation, will only hurt itself because it will upset society. For that reason, a country benefits from its own nonexploitability because mutual feelings are salient. Aggression is easy to recognize. And once recognized, mutual nonexploitability is easy to appreciate. People generally like to live in peace in the communities.

While exploitation is occasionally fruitful, over a wide range of environments the problems with trying to exploit others are manifold. In the first place, if a rule defects to see what it can get away with, it risks retaliation from the rules that are provocable. In the second place, once mutual recriminations set it, it can be difficult to extract oneself. Being able to exploit the exploitable without paying too high a cost cannot always be accomplished. Generally, for a robust success of a nation or corporation and even a family is that one needs a combination of being nice, retaliatory, forgiving, and clear. Its niceness prevents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tried. Its forgiveness helps restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes it intelligible to other individuals, thereby eliciting long-term cooperation. The disenchantment of God and nature necessitated a new description of good and evil. To adapt a formula of Plato about the gods, we do not love a thing because it is good, it is because we love it. It is our decision to esteem that makes something estimable. Man is the esteeming being, the one capable of reverence and self-contempt, “the beast with the red cheeks.” Nietzsche claimed to have seen that the object of men’s reverence in no sense compel that reverence; frequently the objects do not even exist. Their qualities are projections of what is most powerful in man and serve to satisfy his strongest needs or desires. Good and evil are what make it possible for men to live and act. The character of their judgments of good and evil shows that they are. To put it simply, Nietzsche says that modern man is losing, or has lost, the capacity to value, and therewith his humanity. Self-satisfaction, the desire to be adjusted, the comfortable solution to his problems, the whole program of the welfare state, are the signs of the incapacity to look up toward the Heaven of man’s possible perfection or self-overcoming.

However, the surest sign is the way we use the word “value,” and in this Nietzsche not only diagnosed the disease but exacerbated it. He intended to point out to men the danger they are in, the awesome task they face of protecting and enhancing humanity. If they believed God ss he understood it, men in our current decrepitude could take it easy because nature or history provides value. Such belief was salutary as long as the objectified creations of man were still noble and vital. However, in the present exhaustion of the old values, men must be brought to the abyss, terrified by their danger and nauseated by what could become of them, in order to make them aware of their responsibility for their fate. They must turn within themselves and reconstitute the conditions of their creativity in order to generate values. The self must be a tense bow. It must struggle with opposites rather than harmonize them, rather than turn the tension over to the great instruments of the last manhood—the skilled bow unbenders and Jesuits of our days, the psychiatrists, who, in the same spirit and as part of the same conspiracy of modernity as the peace virtuosos, reduce conflict. Chaos, the war of opposites, is, as we know from the Christian Bible, the condition of creativity, which must be mastered by the creator. The self must also bring forth arrows out of its longing. Bow and arrow, both belonging to man, can shoot a start into the Heavens to guide man. Stripping away the illusions about values was required, so Nietzsche thought, by our situation, to disenchant all misleading hopes of comfort or consolation, thereby to fill the few creators with awe and the awareness that everything depends on them.

Nihilism is a dangerous but a necessary and a possibly salutary stage in human history. In it man faces his true situation. It can break him, reduce him to despair and spiritual or bodily suicide. However, it can hearten him to a reconstruction of the World of meaning. Nietzsche’s works are a glorious exhibition of the soul a man who might, if anybody can, be called creative. They constitute the profoundest statement about creativity, by a man who had a burning need to understand it. The development of the conceptual and performance genres changed the rules of art till it became virtually unrecognizable to those who had thought that it was theirs. The art activity flowed into the darkness beyond its traditional boundaries and explored areas that were previously as unmapped and mysterious as the other side of the Moon. In recent years a tendency has been underway to close the book on those investigations, to contract again around the commodifiable aesthetic object, and to forget the sometimes frightening visions of other side. Yet it if one opens the book—and it will not go away—the strange record is still there, like the fragmentary journals of explorers in new lands, filled with apparently unanswerable questions. When Piero Manzoni, in 1959, canned his feces and put in on sale in an art gallery for its weight in gold; when Chris Burden had himself shot in the arm and crucified to the roof of a Volkwagen (in 1971 and 1974 respectively); when two American performance artists, in separate events, had pleasures of the flesh with corpses—how did such activities come to be called art? In fact the case at hand is not unique. Similar movements have occurred occasionally in cultural history when the necessary conditions were in place. Perhaps the most striking parallel is the development, in the Cynic school of Greek philosophy, of “performance philosophy” that parallels the gestures of performance art in many respects. If this material is approached with sympathy and with a broad enough cultural perspective it will reveal its inner seriousness and meaning.

One of the necessary conditions for activities of this type is the willingness to manipulate linguistic categories at will. This willingness arises from a nominalist view of language which holds that words lack fixed ontological essences that are their meanings; meanings, rather, are seen to be created by convention alone, arbitrary, and hence manipulable. Ferdinand de Saussure pointed toward this with his perception of the arbitrariness of the link between signifier and gained. Even more, Ludwig Wittgenstein, by dissolving fixed meaning into the free-for-all of usage, demonstrated a culture’s ability to alter its language games by rotations of reshapings of the semantic field. By manipulating semantic categories, by dissolving their boundaries selectively and allowing the contents of one to flow into another, shifts in cultural focus can be forced through language’s control of affection and attitude. In the extreme instances, a certain category can be declared universal, coextensive with experience, its boundaries being utterly dissolved until its content melts into awareness itself. This universalization of a single category has at different times taken place in the areas of religion, philosophy, and, in our time, art. A second necessary condition is a culture that is hurtling through shifts in awareness so rapidly that, like the tragic hero in Sophocles just before the fall, it becomes giddy with prospects of new accomplishments hardly describable in known terms. At such moments the boundaries of things seem outworn; the contents flow into and around one another dizzyingly. In a realm like that, the art some twenty-five years ago, feels its inherited boundaries to be antiquated and ineffective, a sudden overflow in all directions can occur. Television, some might argue, is another form of art, and it is the most important single source of images in the World today. If people are ingesting television images at the rate of four hours a day, then it is clear that whatever uses people have for the images they carry in their heads, television is now the source.

When one is watching television all categories of one’s own image-making capacities go dormant, submerged in the television image. TV effectively intervenes between one and one’s personal images, substituting itself. When one is watching TV, one is not daydreaming, or reading, or looking out the window at the World. One has opened one’s mind, and someone else’s daydreams have entered. The images come from distant places one has never been, depict events one can never experience, and are sent by people one does not know and never has met. One’s mind is the screen for their microwave pictures. Once their images are inside one, they imprint upon one’s memory. They become yours. What is more, the images remain in one permanently. I can easily prove this to you. Please bring to mind any of the following: John F. Kennedy, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Howdy Doody, Justin Bieber, Captain Kirk, Archie Bunker, Johnny Carson, Tomi Lahren, Henry Kissinger. Did any of these images appear in your mind? Were you able to make a picture of them in your head? If so, that is proof that once they have entered your brain, they remain in there. They live in there together with all the memories of one’s life. Yet one does not know these people. And some of them are fictional characters. Now would you make the effort, please, to erase these TV people from your mind? Make them go away. Erase Johnny Carson or Justin Bieber. Can you do that? If so, you are a most unusual person. Once television places an image inside your head, it is yours forever. Happiness, more precisely, true happiness, they truly happy person. Happiness which is not obvious to all eyes, which is perhaps not even properly credible, since common experience knows nothing of it. There is a secret happiness hidden by the hands of life itself, which balances and outbalances all unhappiness. You do not see it, but it is true happiness, the only true happiness. That is why one can dare to explain, in face of everyday appearances, which show the abundant failures of the good, that everything done by this human succeeds.

Cresleigh Homes

No complaints over laundry when you’ve got plenty of room for folding and more storage than you can imagine! We’re already mentally assembling an army of stain-removers in those cabinets…muddy soccer uniforms have nothin’ on us! 💪

A home that fits YOUR lifestyle is priceless, that’s for sure!

#Havenwood
#CresleighHomes