The word wealth—the last time we checked—turned up in 72 million documents on the Internet, clearly outranked by the 167 million references to God. Mammon, it seemed, was kept firmly in place. Or was it? The problem, it turned out, was the one other term turned up 420 million times—twice as often as God and wealth combined. That term was market. Regarded with reverence by mainstream business leaders, executives, economists and politicians in the West, and with hostility verging on disgust by critics of capitalism, markets—like property and capital—are being transformed by revolutionary wealth. To appreciate how truly striking these changes are—and especially those still to come—it helps to glance briefly backward. The colorful history of ancient markers includes camel caravans on the Silk Road between China and the West, piracy at sea, bazaars in Baghdad and bloody banking rivalries between Venice and Genoa. These stories have been told too many times over, and trade surely had political, military and economic effects out of al proportion to its size. Yet the single most important fact about markets, throughout thousands of years of human history, is not how important they were but how tiny and relatively rare they were. Until recent centuries, the overwhelming majority of our ancestors lived in a pre-market World. Pockets of commerce existed, but most humans never bought or sold anything during their lives. As we have seen in earlier discussions, our forerunners—with the exception of a minute minority—were peasant prosumers who subsisted by growing, building, sewing or otherwise producing most of what they consumed. Every village or manor was more or less autarkic (self-sufficient); money was rare and trade was extremely limited. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Even markets for land in the countryside, so central to agriculture, were few and far between. Most land was owned by kings or the state and only granted to noble families under terms that that restricted their rights to dispose of it. Land tended to pass slowly from father to son, generation after generation. Nor, except for slavery, was there anything approximating a developed market for labour. Labour was more commonly forced than hired and that along with slavery there were various forms of feudal serfdom. Wage work was uncommon at best. Even more remote from the life of the average person were financial markets. At least two cities in China, Chengdu and Pingyao, claim to have invented the World’s first bank years ago. Italians claim that the Banca Monte dei Paschi in Siena is “the World’s oldest,” having been founded in 1472. Other claims, no doubt, abound, but regardless of which bank was the first, financial transactions basically took place only among elites, beyond the reach of 98 or 99 percent of the total population, if that. In this sense, most humans lived in a World that was essentially not only precapitalist, but pre-market. It was the industrial revolution—bringing the Second Wave of revolutionary wealth—that transformed the relationship among markets, marketers and ordinary people all over the World. Industrial revolution transferred millions of peasants who had until then lived primarily as prosumers outside the money economy into producers and consumers inside the money economy—thereby making them dependent on the marketplace. Wage labour replaced slavery and feudal relations in the labour sector of the marketplace, and a large force sprang up. This meant that workers for the first time were paid in money, minimal thought it was. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

And as industrial mass production spread, it eventually brought with it the corresponding development of mass markets spurred by three converging forces. The first was urbanization, as peasants flooded the cities. Between 1800 and 1900 the population in London exploded from 860,000 to 6.5 million; in Paris from 550,000 to 3.3 million; and in Berlin, from 170,000 to 1.9 million. As city populations mushroomed, urban markets for mass-produced goods expanded; and they expanded yet again when the first railroads made possible a huge leap from local to national markets. Mass markets and mass production were, in turn, supported by mass media. Thus the early nineteenth century in England also saw the beginnings of the so-called penny press—publications carrying ads aimed at “the masses” as markets and marking. By 1852 Parisians could shop at Bon Marche, the first big store divided into many departments. Ten years later, the eight-story Cast Iron Palace was built in Manhattan. Downtown department stores soon became a routine feature of cities everywhere. To sell mass-produced goods to rural customers as well, Aaron Montgomery Ward invented the paper counterpart of a department store in 1872. Taking advantage of advances in postal service and transportation, he created a sell-by-mail business that by 1904 was sending three million potential buyers around the United States of American a fat, four-pound catalog divided into equivalent of departments. Eventually, as mass production, mass media and mass markets continued to fuel one another, innovative retailers and land developers invented those cathedrals of consumerism—shopping malls—spreading these, too, across American, Europe, Latin American and Asia. In short, the wave of interlaced changes we call the industrial revolution tremendously expanded the role of markets in the everyday lives of most people. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Today’s transition to a knowledge-based wealth system is once more transforming markets in response to changes at the level of deep fundamentals. Once we understand this, we can catch a glimpse of future. In high-turnover economies, markets are continually flooded with new products that are often interrelated in as yet unsuspected ways. As speeds continue to accelerate, with currency and securities markets already operating at blinding, blistering, blitzing rates, the market life of products (and products related to them) will continue to shorten. Synchronizing multiple markets, fed by seemingly unrelated companies, will become an urgent necessity. We are already seeing corporate collaborations along this line. The attempt, meanwhile, by some marketers to create enduring links between a customer and a brand or a product is likely to prove more and more difficult, if not impossible. Speed will shorten, not lengthen, temporal relationships—including customers’ loyalty to brands. Meanwhile, the spatial shift to global markets adds foreign to domestic competition, not just in fixed or familiar products or in prices but in rates of innovation. Companies on different sides of the World wind up racing one another in arenas so transient they could appropriately be termed “flash markets.” Simultaneously, rising levels of intangibility and complexity demand vast increases in flows of data, information and know-how. Markets will increasingly face consumers who are armed with their own arsenal of facts. Many will demand the right to participate in the design of their own products—and to be paid for the data, information or knowledge they supply. Marketers will also face the opposite—customers in a hurry who revolt against time-wasting surplus complexity and demand the unbundling of unwanted functions. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Smarter and smarter technologies will reduce the cost advantages of mass production, making the halfway step called mass customization obsolete, and true product personalization available at close to zero additional cost. Markets will thus continue to splinter into ever narrower, more temporary and more knowledge-intensive slivers. De-massification will continue to spread wherever there is a middle class or a culture that favors individuality over herd uniformity. In lowbrow industrial economies, wealth was typically measured by the possession of goods. The production of goods was regarded as central to the economy. Conversely, symbolic and service activities, while unavoidable, were stigmatized as nonproductive. (They sometimes still are by economists applying routine measures of productivity designed for the manufacturing sector and inapplicable to the services, which are, by their very nature, harder to measure.) The manufacture of goods—autos, radios, tractors, TV set—was seen as “male” or macho, and words like practical, realistic, or hardheaded were associated with it. By contrast, the production of knowledge or the exchange of information was typically disparaged as mere “paper pushing” and seen as wimpy or—worse yet—effeminate. A flood of corollaries flowed from these attitudes. For example, that “production” is the combination of material resources, machines, and muscle…that the most important assets of a firm are tangibles…that national wealth flows from a surplus of the trade in goods…that trade in services is significant only because it facilitates trade in services is significant only because it facilitates trade in goods…that most education is a waste unless it is narrowly vocational…that research is airy-fairy…and that the liberal arts are irrelevant or, worse yet, inimical to business success. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

What mattered, in short, was matter. Incidentally, ideas like these were by no means limited to the Babbitts of capitalism. They had their analogs in the communist World as well. Marxist economists, if anything, have had a harder time trying to integrate highbrow work into their schema, and “socialist realism” in the arts produced thousands of portrayals of happy workers, their Andrei Deui-like muscles straining against a background of cogwheels, smokestacks, steam locomotives. The glorification of the proletariat, and the theory that it was the vanguard of change, reflected the principle of a lowbrow economy. What all this added up to was more than a welter of isolated opinions, assumptions, and attitudes. Rather it formed a self-reinforcing, self-justifying ideology based on a kind of macho materialism—a brash, triumphant “material-ismo!” Material-ismo, in fact, was the ideology of mass manufacture. Whether voiced by captains of capitalism or by conventional economists, it reflects a view of the primacy of material product that would be appreciated by Russian planners. It is a cudgel used in the power struggle between the vested interests of the smokestack economy and those of the fast-emerging super-symbolic economy. There was a time when material-ismo may have made sense. Today, when the real value of most products lies in the knowledge embedded in them, it is both reactionary and imbecile. Any country that, out of choice, pursues policies based on material-ismo condemns itself to becoming the Bangladesh of the 21^st century. The companies, institutions, and people with a strong stake in the super-symbolic economy have not yet fashioned a coherent counter-rationale. However, some of the underlying ideas are falling into place. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

The first fragmentary foundations of this new economics can be glimpsed in the still-unrecognized writings of people like the late Eugen Loebl, who during eleven years in a communist prison in Czechoslovakia, deeply rethought the assumptions of both Marxist and Western economics; Henry K. H. Woo of Hong Kong, who has analyzed “the unseen dimensions of wealth”; Orio Giarini in Geneva, who applies the concepts of risk and indeterminacy in his analysis of services of the future; and the American Walter Weisskopf, who writes on the role of non-equilibrium conditions in economic development. Scientists today are asking how systems behave in turbulence, how orders evolves out of chaotic conditions, and how developing systems leap to higher levels of diversity. Such questions are extremely pertinent to business and the economy. Management books speak of “thriving on chaos.” Economists rediscover the work of Joseph Schumpeter, who spoke of “creative destruction” as necessary to advance. In a storm of takeovers, divestitures, reorganizations, bankruptcies, start-ups, joint ventures, and internal reorganizations, the entire economy is taking on a new structure that is light-years more diverse, fast-changing, and complex than the old smokestack economy. This “leap” to a higher level of diversity, speed, and complexity requires a corresponding leap to higher, more sophisticated forms of integration. In turn, this demands radically higher levels of knowledge processing. Without this higher coordination, and the mind-work it requires, no value can be added, no wealth created by the economy. Value, therefore, is dependent on more than the mixture of land, labour, and capital. If they cannot be integrated at a far higher level than ever before, all the land, labour, and capital in the World will not meet consumer needs. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

A recent report by Promethee, an independent think tank in Paris, put it this way: “Value is in fact ‘extracted’ throughout the production/provision of a product/service. So-called service economies…are not characterized by the fact that people have suddenly begun to fulfill their lives through non-tangible consumption but rather by the fact that activities pertaining to the economic realm are increasingly integrated.” Drawing heavily on the 17^th-century writings of Rene Descartes, the culture of industrialism rewarded people who could break problems and processes down into smaller and smaller constituent parts. This disintegrative or analytic approach, when transferred to economics, led us to think of production as a series of disconnected steps. Raising capital, acquiring raw materials, recruiting workers, deploying technology, advertising, selling, and distributing the product were all seen as either sequential or as isolated from one another. The new model of production that springs from the super-symbolic economy is dramatically different. Based on a systemic or integrative view, it sees production as increasingly simultaneous and synthesized. The parts of the process are not the whole, and they cannot be isolated from one another. Information gained by the sales and marketing people feeds the engineers, whose innovations need to be understood by the financial people, whose ability to raise capital depends on how well satisfied the customers are, which depends on how well scheduled the company’s trucks are, which depends in part on employee motivation, which depends on a paycheck plus a sense of achievement, which depends…et cetera, et cetera. Connectivity rather than disconnectedness, integration rather than disintegration, real-time simultaneity rather than sequential stages—these are the assumptions that underlie the new production paradigm. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

We are, in fact, discovering that “production” neither begins nor ends in the factory. Thus, the latest models of economic production extend the process both upstream and downstream—forward into aftercare or “support” for the product even after it is sold, as in auto-repair warrantees or the support expected from the retailer when a person buys a computer. Before long, the conception of production will reach even beyond that to ecologically safe disposal of the product after use. Companies will have to provide for post-use cleanup, forcing them to alter design specs, cost calculations, production methods, and much else besides. In so doing they will be performing more service, relative to manufacture, and they will be adding value. “Production” will be seen to include all these functions. Similarly, they may extend the definition backward to include such functions as training of the employee, provision of day care, and other services. An unhappy muscle-worker could be compelled to be “productive.” In high-symbolic activities, happy workers produce more. Hence, productivity begins even before the worker arrives at the office. To old-timers, such an expanded definition of production may seem fuzzy or nonsensical. To the new generation of super-symbolic leaders, conditioned to think systemically rather than in terms of isolated steps, it will seem natural. In brief, production is reconceptualized as a far more encompassing process than the economists and ideologists of lowbrow economics imagined. And at every step from today on, it is knowledge, not affordable labour; symbols, not raw materials, that embody and add value. This deep reconceptualization of the sources of added value is fraught with consequence. It smashed the assumptions of both free-marketism and Marxism alike, and of the material-ismo that gave rise to both. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Thus, the ideas that value is sweated from the back of the worker alone, and that value is produced by the glorious capitalist entrepreneur, both implied in material-ismo, are revealed to be false and misleading politically as well as economically. In the new economy the receptionists and the investment banker who assembles the capital, the keypunch operator and the salesperson, as well as the systems designer and telecommunications specialist, all add value. Even more significantly, so does the customer. Value results from a total effort, rather than from one isolated step in the process. The rising importance of mind-work will not go away, no matter how many scare stories are published warning about the dire consequences of a “vanishing” manufacturing base or deriding the concept of the “information economy.” Neither will the new conception of how wealth is created. For what we are watching is a mighty convergence of chance—the transformation of production coming together with the transformation of capital and money itself. Together they form a revolutionary new system for wealth creation on the planet. An excellent way to promote cooperation in a society is to teach people to care about the welfare of others. Parents and schools devote a tremendous effort to teaching the young to value the happiness of others. This means that the adults try to shape the values of children so that the preferences of the new citizens will incorporate not only their own individual welfare, but to some degree at least, the welfare of others. Without doubt, a society of such caring people will have an easier time attaining cooperation among its members, even when caught in an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

Altruism is a good name to give to the phenomenon of one person’s utility being positively affected by another person’s welfare. Altruism is thus a motive for action. It should be recognized, however, that certain kinds of behaviour that may look generous may actually take place for reasons other than altruism. For example, giving to charity is often done less out of a regard for the unfortunate than for the sake of the social approval it is expected to bring. And in both traditional and modern societies, gift giving is likely to be part of an exchange process. The motive may be more to create an obligation than to improve the welfare of the recipient. From the point of view of the genetics of biological evolution, altruism can be sustained among kin. A father who risks his own life to save several of his children can increase the odds that copies of his genes will survive. This is the basis of genetical kinship theory. Altruism among people can also be sustained through socialization. However, there is a serious problem. A selfish individual can receive the benefits of another’s altruism and not pay the welfare costs of being generous in return. We have all met spoiled brats, people who expect others to be considerate and generous, but who do not think of the needs of anyone but themselves. Such people need to be treated differently than more considerate people, lest we be exploited by them. This reasoning suggests that the costs of altruism can be controlled by being altruistic to everyone at first, and thereafter only to those who show similar feelings. However, this quickly takes one back to reciprocity as the basis for cooperation. We have a great opportunity, the opportunity to rise Heavenward, to gain the spirit of the gospel as we have never enjoyed it before. This we can do by developing among us that unity required by the laws of the celestial kingdom. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

Having faith in Jesus Christ means relying completely on Him—trusting in His infinite power, intelligence, and love. It includes believing His teachings It means believing that even though you do not understand all things, He does. Remember that because He has experienced all of your pains, afflictions, and infirmities, He knows how to help you rise above your daily difficulties. “The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than He?” reports Doctrine and Covenants 122.8. The way we digest the European things is well illustrated by the influence of Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice on American consciousness. The story was enormously popular with generations of university students, for it seemed to express the mysteries and sufferings of sophisticated Europeans. It fit in with our preoccupation of Dr. Freud and with the artists; its alternative lifestyle theme attracted curiosity, and much more than curiosity in some, at a time when imagination had little to feed on so far as forbidden themes were concerned. It was a little like compendium of the best that was being said around the turn of the century. In Death in Venice, with what I believe to be a rather heavy Freudian hand, Mann analyzes the favourite subject and hero of poets and novelists since the invention of culture—the artists, that is, himself. The setting and the action of the story suggest the decline of the West; and the decay and demise of its hero, Aschenbach, teach the failure of sublimation, the shakiness and hollowness of his cultural superstructure. Underlying it all are hidden drives, primal, untamed, which are the real motives of his higher endeavour. Awareness of this undermines his life work without providing any acceptable alternatives. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Much of this a gloss on Mann’s famous statement in Tonio Kroger that “the artist is a bourgeois with a guilty conscience,” which I take to mean that he was experiencing all the post-romantic doubts about the artist’s ground or his access to sublime, that he thought the reality is the bourgeois, but that the artist’s troubled conscience leads him somewhere out above, from the point of view of motivest. Aschenbach is a writer, an heir to German tradition, but clearly not the spiritual aristocrat Goethe was. His self-possession is based on lack of self-knowledge. In Venice he touches the roots, finds out what he really wants; but there is nothing noble or even tolerable he can do with his awareness. He withers away horribly, finally dying of the plague afflicting that beautiful but decadent city. Art is always about “something hidden.” However, does it help us connect with that hidden something? I think it moves us away from it. During the first million or so years as reflective beings, humans seem to have created no art. As Jameson put it, art had no place in that “unfallen social reality” because there was no need for it. Though tools were fashioned with an astonishing economy of effort and perfection of form, the old cliché about the aesthetic impulse as one of the irreducible components of the human mind is invalid. The oldest enduring works of art are hand-prints, produced by pressure or blown pigment—a dramatic token of direct impress on nature. Later in the Upper Paleolithic era, about 30,000 years ago, commenced the rather sudden appearance of the cave art associated with names like Altamira and Lascaux. These images of animals possess an often-breathtaking vibrancy and naturalism, though current sculpture, such as the widely-found “Venus” statuettes of women, was quite stylized. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Perhaps this indicates that domestication of people was to precede domestication of nature. Significantly, the “sympathetic magic” or hunting theory of earliest art is now waning in light of evidence that nature was bountiful rather than threatening. The veritable explosion of art at this time bespeaks an anxiety not felt before: in Worringer’s words, “creation in order to subdue the torment of perception.” Here is the appearance of the symbolic, as a moment of discontent. It was a social anxiety; people felt something precious slipping away. The rapid development of ritual or ceremony parallels the birth of art, and we are reminded of the earliest ritual re-enactments of the moment of “the beginning,” the primordial paradise of the timeless present. Pictorial representation roused the belief in controlling loss, the belief in coercion itself. In the earliest evidence of symbolic division, as with the half-human, half-beast stone faces at El Juyo, the World is divided into opposing forces, by which binary distinction the contrast of culture and nature begins and a protectionist, hierarchical society is perhaps already prefigured. The perceptual order itself, as a unity, starts to break down in reflection of an increasingly complex social order. A hierarchy of senses, with the visual steadily more separate from the others and seeking it completion in artificial images such as cave paintings, moves to replace the full simultaneity of sensual gratification. Levi-Strauss discovered, to his amazement, a tribal people that had been able to see Venus in daytime; but not only were our faculties once so very acute, they were also not ordered and separate. Part of training sight to appreciate the objects of culture was the accompanying repression of immediacy in an intellectual sense: reality was removed in favour of merely aesthetic experience. Art anaesthetizes the sense organs and removes the natural World from their purview. This reproduces culture, which can never compensate for the disability. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Not surprisingly, the first signs of a departure from those egalitarian principles that characterize hunter-gather life show up now. The shamanistic origin of visual art and music has been often remarked, the point here being that the artist-shaman was first the specialist. It seems likely that the ideas of surplus and commodity appeared with the shaman, whose orchestration of symbolic activity portended further alienation and stratification. When you are watching television, you are seeing images that are utterly impossible in nature. This in itself qualifies the imagery for your attention, even when the content within the image is nothing you would otherwise care about. For example, the camera can circle the subject. It can rise above it or go below it. It can zoom in or back away from it. The image can be changed in size or made to fade and reappear. Editors make it possible for a scene in one room to be followed instantly by a scene in another room, or at another time, or another place. Words appear over images. Music rises and falls in the background. Two images or three can appear simultaneously. One image can be superimposed on another on the screen. Motion can be slowed down or sped up. None of these effects is possible in unmediated imagery. When you lift your eyes from this paper and look around your room, it does not become some other room or some other time. It could not possibly do that. Nor does your room circle around you or zoom back away from you. If it did do that, you would certainly pay one heck of a lot of attention to it, just as you would to anything new and unexplained that appeared in your field of vision. Through these technical events, television images alter the usual, natural imagery possibilities, taking on the quality of a naturally highlighted event. They may it seem that what you are looking at is unique, unusual and extraordinary. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

Attention is stimulated as though something new or important was going on, such as landslides, gigantic boulders or ten-foot daisies. However, nothing unusual is going on. All that is happening is that the viewer is watching television, which is the same thing that happened an hour ago, or yesterday. A trick has been played. The viewer is fixated by a conspiracy of dimmed-out environments combined with artificial, impossible, fictitious unusualness. Vitalized by such an information explosion, Western culture set itself upon a course which made technocracies possible. And then something quite unexpected happened; in a word, nothing. From the early seventeenth century, when Western culture undertook to reorganize itself to accommodate the printing press, until the mid-nineteenth century, no significant technologies were introduced that altered the form, volume, or speed of information. As a consequence, Western culture had more than two hundred years to accustom itself to the new information conditions created by the press. It developed new institutions, such as the school and representative government. It developed new conceptions of knowledge and intelligence, and a heightened respect for reason and privacy. It developed new forms of economic activity, such as mechanized production and corporate capitalism, and even gave articulate expression to the possibilities of a humane socialism. New forms of public discourse came into being through newspapers, pamphlets, broadsides, and books. It is no wonder that the eighteenth century gave us our standard of excellence in the use of reason, as exemplified in the work of Goethe, Voltaire, Diderot, Kant, Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Vico, Edward Gibbon, and, of course, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

I weight the list with America’s “Founding Fathers” because technocratic-typographic America was the first nation to ever be argued into existence in print. Paine’s Common Sense and The Rights of Man, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers were written and printed efforts to make the American experiment appear reasonable to the people, which to the eighteenth-century mind was both necessary and sufficient. To any people whose politics were the politics of the printed page, as Tocqueville said of America, reason and printing were inseparable. We need not hesitate to claim that the First Amendment to the United States of America’s Constitution stands as a monument to the ideological biases of print. It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In these forty-five words we may find the fundamental values of the literate, reasoning mind as fostered by the print revolution: a belief in privacy, individuality, intellectual freedom, open criticism, and community action. Equally important is that the words of that amendment presume and insist on a public that not only has access to information but has control over it, a people who know how to use information in their own interests. There is not a single line written by Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Hamilton, or Franklin that does not take for granted that when information is made available to citizens they are capable of managing it. This is not to say that the Founding Fathers believed information could not be false, misleading, or irrelevant. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

However, they believed that the marketplace of information and ideas was sufficiently ordered so that citizens could make sense of what they read and heard and, through reason, judge its usefulness to their lives. Jefferson’s proposals for education, Paine’s arguments for self-governance, Franklin’s arrangements for community affairs assume coherent, commonly shared principles that allow us to debate such questions as: What are the responsibilities of citizens? What is the nature of education? What constitutes human progress? What are the limitations of social structures? Now, when we think about how electric motors spin, the mechanical vibrations must generate a lot of heat, so the electric motors must draw a lot of power. Nanotechnology and today’s crude methods are very different: Technology has never had this kind of precise control; all of our technologies today are bulk technologies. We take a big chunk of stuff and hack away at it until we are left with the object we want, or we assemble parts from components without regard to structure at the molecular level. Today, electronics are made from silicon chips. We have already seen the landscape of a finished chip. During manufacturing, metal features would be built up by a centuries-long submergence in an acid sea. From the perspective of our simulation, the whole process would resemble geology as much as manufacturing, with the slow layering of sedimentary deposits alternating with ages of erosion. The term nanotechnology is sometimes used as a name for small-scale mircrotechnology, but the difference between molecular manufacturing and this sort of microlandscaping is like the difference between watchmaking and bulldozing. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

Today, chemists make molecules by solution chemistry. We have seen what a liquid looks like in our first simulation, with molecules bumping and tumbling and wandering around. Just as assemblers can make chemical reactions occur by brining molecules together mechanically, so reactions can occur by bringing molecules together mechanically, so reactions can occur when molecules bump at random through thermal vibration and motion in a liquid. Indeed, much of what we know today about chemical reactions comes from observing this process. Chemists make large molecules by mixing small molecules in a liquid. By choosing the right molecules and conditions, they can get a surprising measure of control over the results: only some pairs of molecules will react, and then only in certain ways. Doing chemistry this way, thought is like trying to assemble a model car by putting the pieces in a box and shaking. This will only work with cleverly shaped pieces, and it is hard to make anything very complex. Chemists today consider it challenging to make precise, three-dimensional structure having a hundred atoms, and making one with a thousand atoms is a great accomplishment. Molecular manufacturing, in contrast, will routinely assemble millions or billions. The basic chemical principles will be the same, but control and reliability will be vastly greater. It is the difference between throwing things together blindly and putting them together with a watchmaker’s care. Technology today does not permit thorough control of the structure of matter. Molecular manufacturing will. Today’s technologies have given us computers, spacecraft, indoor plumbing, and other wonders of the modern age. Tomorrow’s will do much more, bringing change and choice. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

Upon the tale of the tree of knowledge follows in the Scriptures that of fratricide, different from the former in its style and the manner in which it is conveyed, without irony and without lingering; a brief, dry report, which has preserved archaic elements within it, but which, in its present linguistic version, is unmistakably linked up with the former. It and not the former is the story of the first “iniquity” in the universal human sense, that is of one which is, as here, it took place within the clan, would always be punished as such in every society known to us. The former describes an action which earns punishment, not of itself, but as disobedience, the latter a deed which is wrong by its very nature. However it may have been fashioned and intended in its original and independent form, only its combination with the tale of the eating of the forbidden fruit drew out of it an immense significance: this, we are now told, is how accomplished human “knowledge of good and evil” works out in the generations that come after—not indeed as “original sin,” but as the specific sin, only possible in relation to God, which alone makes possible general sin against the fellow-man and hence, of course, once more against God as his Guardian. The deed of the first humans belonged to the sphere of pre-evil Kain’s deed to that of evil, which only came into being as such through the act of knowledge. We who have been born late and are concerned to know that knowledge and at the same time to prevail over it, must stress the perspective founded on the combination of the two tales. Long ago Satan was in the bushes near the Tree of Knowledge when the Man and the Woman came there and had a conversation. They were innocently unconscious of their nakedness, lovely to look upon, beautiful beyond words. Satan listed again. Again as they puzzled over those words, “good,” “evil” and “death.” Adam and Eve tried to reason out their meaning but of course they were not able to. “Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” reports 2 Nephi 28.29. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Wow, we can’t believe it’s almost July 4th, either! 🇺🇸 That’s the thing about summer – it’s as short and sweet as a fireworks display…so we’re planning to live it up!

We’re bringing you inspiration for “Preparing the Perfect 4th of July BBQ.” Doesn’t have to be fancy – but we hope you’ll get excited to go a bit beyond sun-warmed ketchup and paper plates!

#CresleighHomes