Before the industrial revolution, horrific poverty was not just concentrated in Africa, Asia or Latin America. According to historian Fernand Braudel, in the Beauvaisis region of France in the seventeenth century, over one third of all children died every year. Only about 60 percent reached the age of fifteen. Braudel describes a Europe swept by plague and recurrent famine. The poor crowded into cities, begging and stealing to stay alive. Children and wives were routinely abandoned, many doomed to perish in poorhouses alongside the elderly and infirm. Nobel Prize-winning economic historian Robert Fogel points out that “the energy value of the typical diet in France at the start of the 18^th Century was as low as that of Rwanda in 1965, the most malnourished nation for that year.” France was not alone. For ten thousand years, only the tiniest fraction of the World’s population ever lived above the barest subsistence level. And the World’s richest countries were only twice as rich as the poorest. If this was roughly true around the globe, with all the diversity of agrarian people, cultures, climates, religions and farming methods, it strongly suggests that peasant agriculture had at some point hit its upper limit of productivity. It was only after the industrial wealth system began to replace agriculture that the population soared and significant numbers of people crawled out of utter destitution. This history led economists and policy-makers to a common prescription for what is still called “development” or “modernization”—a strategy for moving a country’ workforce and economy from low-productivity, low-value-added farming to more productive, low-tech manufacturing and its support services. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

From the early 1950s on, this Second Wave strategy was propagated in endless variants by experts from the United States of America, Europe, Russia, the United Nations and NGO (Non-Government Organization) development agencies. Its message was, essentially, that each country had to replay the industrial revolution. And, indeed, there was no realistic alternative model. After the 1960s, some critics attacked this strategy and proposed focusing not on factories and the urbanization that came with them but on small-scale “appropriate” or “alternative” technologies that are sustainable and use local resources. Since them, this movement has broadened, encouraging microfinance and the creation of small business in poor-World countries, reaching out to science, and becoming more sophisticated. Many imaginative innovations have flowed from this movement. However, it is essentially designed to stop or slow further industrialization and to keep peasant populations on the land. Moreover, in their assumption that “small is beautiful,” many of the movement’s militant adherents still romanticize machines and make little distinctions between industrial and knowledge-intensive technologies. Claiming that both these technologies serve only the rich, critics ignore the benefits they have, in fact, brought to millions of the World’s destitute. More important, they do not understand that Third Wave technologies have already indirectly raised huge members out of misery and offer for the first time in more than three centuries fresh, powerful ways to attack the poverty of the poorest. Worldwide, as more and more of the economy came to depend on phones, the companies or government agencies that provided or regulated them became enormously powerful too. In the United States of America, AT&T, otherwise known as the Bell System or Ma Bell, became the dominant supplier of telecommunications services. #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

It is hard for those accustomed to decent telephone service to imagine operating an economy or a business without it, or to function in a country where the telephone company (usually the government) can deny even basic phone service or delay its installation for years. This bureaucratic power gives rise to political favoritism, payoffs, and corruption, slows down national economic development, and frequently determines which enterprises have a chance to grow and which must fail. Yet such is the situation still prevailing in many of the formerly socialist and nonindustrial nations. Even in the technologically advances nations, phone service suppliers and regulators can control the fate of entire industrial sectors, by providing or refusing specialized services, setting differential prices, and through other means. Sometimes angry or frustrated user strike back. In fact, the biggest corporate restructuring in history, the court-ordered breakup of AT&T in 1984, can illustrate the point. The U.S. government had been trying without success to dismantle AT&T since the 1940s on grounds that it was charging customers too much. Government attorneys hauled the company into court, cases dragged on interminably, but nothing fundamental changed. Warning shots were fired across the corporation’s bow, but even during Democratic administrations pledged to strong antitrust action, nothing cracked the AT&T grip on the U.S. communications system. What ultimately shifted the power balance was a combination of new technology and the irrepressible demand of business phone users for more and better service. Starting in the 1960s, a large number of American businesses had begun installing computers. Simultaneously, satellites and many other new technologies erupted from the laboratories—some of them out of AT&T’s own Bell Labs. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

Soon corporate computer users began demanding a great variety of new data network services. They wanted computers to be able to talk to one another. They knew the necessary technology was feasible. However, the diverse data services they desperately needed represented, at the time, to small a market to whet Ma Bell’s appetite. As a protected monopoly the phone company had no competition, and was therefore slow to respond to these new needs. As computers and satellites spread, however, and more companies needed to link them up, business disgruntlement with AT&T intensified. IMB, the prime supplier of mainframes, presumably lost business because AT&T was dragging its feet, and had other reasons for wishing to see AT&T’s monopoly cracked. All these unhappy corporations were politically savvy. Gradually anti-AT&T sentiment in Washington mounted. Ultimately, it was the combination of new technologies and rising hostility to Ma Bell that provided the political climate for the climactic bust-up that occurred. Breaking AT&T into pieces, the court, for the first time since the early decades of the century, opened telecommunications in the United States of America to competition. There were, in other words, structural forces, not merely legal reasons, behind the massive breakup. Just as an overwhelming business demand for better communications had defeated Western Union a century earlier, so again, new technologies and an overwhelming unmet demand for new services ultimately defeated AT&T. By now the rate of technological change has become white-hot and companies are far more dependent on telecommunications than ever in history. #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

The result is that airlines, car makers, and oil companies are all engaged in a many-sided war for control of the emerging communications system. Indeed, as we will shortly see, truckers, warehousers, stores, factories—the entire chain of production and distribution—are being shaken. Moreover, as money becomes more like information, and information more like money, both are increasingly reduced to (and moved around by) electronic impulses. As this historic fusion of telecommunications and finance deepens, the power inherent in the control of networks increases exponentially.  All this explains the fierce urgency with which companies and governments alike are hurling themselves into the war to control the electronic highways of tomorrow. Amazingly, however, few top business leaders actually understand the stakes, let alone the fantastic changes restructuring the very nature of communications in our time.  In the territorial system, people tend to not want to apologize and wins a great many converts from its neighbours. When one of these apologizers is next to someone who does not like to admit fault, and the other three neighbours are nice, the one who does not like to apologize is likely to do better than any of its four neighbours as well. Thus, in a social system based on diffusion by imitation, there is a great advantage to being able to attain outstanding success, even if it means that the average rate of success is not outstanding. This is because the occasions of outstanding success win many converts. The fact the stubborn neighbour starts off being nice means that it avoids unnecessary conflict, and continues to hold its own when the rules which are not nice are eliminated. The advantage of being stubborn is based on the fact that while five rules are abjectly apologetic to it, no other nice rule elicits such apologies from more than two other rules. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

The territorial system demonstrates quite vividly that the way the players interact with each other can affect the course of the evolutionary process. A variety of structures have now been analyzed in evolutionary terms, although many other interesting possibilities await analysis. Each of the five structures reveal different facets of the evolution of cooperation: Random mixing was used as the fundamental type of structure. Cooperation based upon reciprocity can thrive even in a setting with such a minimal social structure. Clusters of individuals were examined to see how the evolution of cooperation could have gotten started in the first place. Clusters allow a newcomer to have at least a small chance of meeting another newcomer, even though the newcomers themselves are a negligible part of the whole environment of the natives. Even if most of a newcomer’s interactions are with uncooperative natives, a small cluster of newcomers who use reciprocity can invade a population of meanies. Differentiation of the population was shown to occur when the individuals have more information about each other than is contained in the history of their own interaction. If the people have labels indicating their group membership or personal attributes, stereotyping and status hierarchies can develop. If the individuals can observe each other interacting with others, they can develop reputations; and the existence of reputations can lead to a World characterized by efforts to deter bullies. Governments were found to have their own strategic problems in terms of achieving compliance from most of their citizens. Not only is this a problem of choosing an effective strategy to use in a particular case, but it is also a question of how to set the standards so that compliance will be both attractive to the citizen and beneficial to the society. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

Territorial systems were examined to see what would happen if the individuals interacted only with their neighbours and imitated a neighbour who was more successful than they were. Interactions with neighbours were found to give rise to intricate patterns in the spread of particular strategies, and to promote the growth of these strategies that scored unusually well in some setting even though they did poorly in others. Compared to football, baseball is an almost an Eastern game, minimizing individual stardom, requiring a wide range of aggressive and defensive skills, and filled with long periods of inaction and irresolution. It has no time limitations. Football, on the other hand, has immediate goals, resolution on every single play, and a lot of violence—itself a highlight. It has clearly distinguishable hierarchies: heroes and drones. Baseball is virtually a process game. Not that baseball is a process the way oceans and coffeehouses and conversations and love are, but in the context of sports it is more process oriented than many. Soccer has even fewer peaks than baseball. The action flows over an immense field. Moments of focused concentration are rare. There is very little resolution from minute to minute. Boxing, on the other hand, is very focused, involving constant action, frequent resolution and peaks of personal catharsis. Basketball, although it is a flow sport like soccer, is played on a small field and involves highlighted events—baskets—every few seconds. Naturally football has totally overpowered baseball on television and so have boxing and basketball. Meanwhile, soccer is rarely presented, and when it is, it communicates almost nothing. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Television, which is better suited to football and boxing than to soccer, is also better suited to any sporting event than to probing of alternative consciousness or natural environments, or any delving into relationships, all of which require emphasis on process: the in-between spaces. Within the range of all human experience, and all possible programming, any sport contains more clearly highlighted action than, say, 99 percent of human relationships, except for those with a component of pleasures of the flesh or violent orientation. The dramatic programs, featuring jealousy, hatred, desire, fear, humiliation, ebullience, are not only the most visible on television, they are also the most emotionally loaded, with the larger cathartic payoffs, like home runs or touchdowns or wars. They pass the test of highlighted content, providing visibility in a dimmed-out medium. Television presents relationships in crisis; those that stand out from the usual fare of everyday life, which is not so explosive and dramatic most of the time. In the television World, relationships involve the same huge cycles of feeling as sports shows: big joys, great losses, ups and downs, sudden shocks, and surprises, explosive passions, frequent catharsis. We get soap operas, Elizabeth Gillies, Roots. Without crises, television drama would not be able to deliver any feeling. Conversation or smaller feelings—love, friendship, camaraderie—do not deliver on television. Violence does. It delivers fear. Producers and sponsors are well advised to make choices in favor of such programs. Fear qualifies as a bona fide pseudoexperience. It can fool viewers into believing that when they are watching television, some actual living is going on, when it is not. In the long run, experiencing artificial fear over and over again when nothing dangerous is actually going on eventually dulls one’s responses. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

As a result, one becomes less subject to television fear while at the same time more paranoid about the real World one actually experiences less and less. It is a psychological fact that frustration can lead to aggression and that the more a person is frustrated from achieving a goal, typically the more aggressive one will become. If not able t vent that aggression against the cause of one’s frustration, one will readily deflect it to a less deserving object. Cult leaders and political demagogues have traditionally channeled and used those aggressive feelings by teaching their followers that they are the elect, and the rest of the World is inferior. Charles Mansion, who called himself Christ and Satan, taught his Family that the apocalypse, in the form of a race war in America (which many people suspect some local and state leaders are trying to egg on), was at hand, and that he, “the Beast of the bottomless pit,” would lead them to salvation. The Family would trigger these cosmic events by endling the lives of the rich, and blaming in on the less affluent, a reign of terror he called Helter Skelter, after a song from the Beatles’ White album. According to Manson, after a backlash against the rich, the less affluent would rise up and defeat the affluent, but being inferior and not capable of intelligent rule, they would be forced to ask Charlie, who would be waiting things out with his Family in the desert, to take over as World leader. As bizarre as these ideas may sound, the Haight for a few brief years in the sixties was a place out of time and space, and Manson had little trouble finding minds receptive to his acid-activated rap. He found Susan Atkins, an adult dance who had briefly been a member of the Church of Satan and had prophetically, played a blood-sucking vampire in LaVey’s “Witches’ Sabbath” stage show at Gigi’s nightclub in North Beach. He also found Beausoleil, guitar player for a Digger band called the Orkustra and former protégé of underground filmmaker and later author of Hollywood Babylon, Kenneth Anger, a Crowley disciple and one of the original members of Levey’s Magic Circle, out of which the Church of Satan evolved. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

God—after the work of destruction—explains His forgiveness, His resolution never again to strike the living thing He had made, precisely on the grounds that “the imagery of man’s heart is evil from His youth.” No longer “all the imagery,” no longer “only evil,” and curiously added afresh “from his youth.” It is not to be understood in any other manner than that God deliberates: imagination is not entirely evil, it is evil and good, for in the midst of it and from out of it decision can arouse the heart’s wiling direction toward Him, master the vortex of possibility and realize the human figure purposed in the creation, as it could not yet do prior to the knowledge of good and evil. For straying and caprice are not innate in man, they are not of the nature of original sin; in spite of all the burdens of past generations, he always begins anew as a person, and the storm of adolescence first deluges him with the infinitude of the possible—greatest danger and greatest opportunity at once. This was the point at which, several hundred years, the Talmudic doctrine of the two urges started. It found the word yester, which I have rendered by “imagery,” already transformed in meaning; as early as Jesus Sirach it signifies the own impulse, into whose hand created man is given by God, but with liberty to keep commandment and faith in order to do the will of God. In the Talmud, the concept, under the influence of increasing reflection, is partly used, without any attribute, to designate the second of these as the elemental one. Why cannot people learn to wait for developments before they commit themselves? Surely experience has given them warnings enough. Almost as a rule the apparently insane invention turns out well by and by, through the discovery and applications to it of improvements of one kind and another. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

To make that range of possibilities accessible, to overcome the regime’s tendency to discourage appreciation of important alternatives, the university must come to the assistance of unprotected and timid reason. The university is the place where inquiry and philosophic openness come into their own. It is intended to encourage the noninstrumental use of reason for its own sake, to provide the atmosphere where the moral and physical superiority of the dominant will not intimidate philosophic doubt. And it preserves the treasury of great deeds, great men and great thoughts required to nourish that doubt. Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense a man free, but thoughts, reasoned thoughts. Feelings are largely formed and informed by convention. Real differences come from difference in thought and fundamental principle. Much in democracy conduces to the assault on awareness of difference. In the first place, as with all regimes, there is what might be called an official interpretation of the past that makes it appear defective or just a step on the way to present regime. An example of this is the interpretation of Rome and the Roman empire in Augustine’s City of God. Rome is not forgotten, but it is remembered only through the lens of victorious Christianity and therefore poses no challenge to it. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

Second, sycophancy toward those who hold power is a fact in every regime, and especially in a democracy, where, unlike tyranny, there is an accepted principle of legitimacy that breaks the inner will to resist, and where, as I have said, there is no legitimate power other than the people to which a man can turn. Repugnance at the power of the people, at the fact that the popular taste should rule in all arenas of life, is very rare in a modern democracy. One of the intellectual charms of Marxism is that it explains the injustice or philistinism of the people in such way as to exculpate the people, who are said to be manipulated by corrupt elites. Thus a Marxist is able to criticize the present without isolating oneself from present and future. Almost no one wants to face the possibility that “bourgeois vulgarity” might really be the nature of the people, always and everywhere. Flattery of the people and incapacity to resist public opinion are the democratic vices, particular among writers, artists, journalists and anyone else who is dependent on an audience. Hostility and excessive contempt for the people is the vice of aristocracies, and is hardly our problem. Aristocracies hate and fear demagogues most of all, while democracies in their pure form hate and fear “elitists” most of all, because they are unjust, id est, they do not accept the leading principle of justice in those regimes. Hence each regime discounts those who are most likely to recognize and compensate for its political and intellectual propensities, while it admires those who encourage them. However, to repeat this tendency is more acute in democracy because of the absence of a nondemocratic class. In every regime there is a people; there is not necessarily any other class. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

Third, the democratic concentration on the useful, on the solution of what are believed by the populace at large to be the most pressing problems, makes theoretical distance seem not only useless but immoral. When there is poverty, disease and war, who can claim the right to idle in Epicurean gardens, asking questions that have already been answered and keeping a distance where commitment is demanded? The for-its-own-sake is alien to the modern democratic spirit, particularly in matters intellectual. Whenever there is a crunch, democratic men devoted to thought have a crisis of conscience, have to find a way to interpret their endeavors by the standard of utility, or otherwise tend to abandon or deform them. This tendency is enhanced by the fact that in egalitarian society practically nobody has really grand opinion of himself, or has been nurtured in a sense of special right and a proud contempt for the merely necessary. Aristotle’s great-souled man, who loves beautiful and useless things, is not a democratic type. Such a man loves honor but despises it because he knows he deserves better, whereas democratic vanity defines itself by the honor it seeks and can get. The lover of beautiful and useless things is far from being a philosopher—at least as far as is the lover of the useful, who is likely to be more reasonable—but he has the advantage of despising many of the same things the philosopher does and is likely to admire the philosopher for his very uselessness, as an adornment. Great and unusual undertakings are more natural to him than to the lover of the useful, and he believes in and revers motives that are denied existence by utilitarian psychology. He can take for granted the things that are the ends of most men’s strivings—money and status. He is free, and must look for other fulfillments, unless he spends, as in the democratic view he should do, his life helping others to get what he already has. #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Knowing as fulfillment in itself rather than as task required for other fulfillments is immediately intelligible to him. Finality as opposed to instrumentality, and happiness as opposed to the pursuit of happiness, appeal to the aristocratic temperament. All of this is salutary for the intellectual life, and none of it is endemic to democracy. Thus the mere announcement of the rile of reason does not create the conditions for the full exercise of rationality, and in removing the impediments to it some of its supports are also dismantled. Reason is only part of the soul’s economy and requires a balance of the other parts in order to function properly. The issue is whether the passions are its servitor, or whether it is the handmaiden of the passions. The latter interpretation, which is Hobbes’s play an important role in the development of modern democracy and is a depreciation as well as an appreciation of reason. Older, more traditional orders that do not encourage the free play of reason contain elements reminiscent of the nobler, philosophic interpretation of reason and help to prevent its degradation. Those elements are connected with the piety that prevails in such orders. They convey a certain reverence for the higher, a respect for the contemplative life, understood as contemplation of God and the peak of devotion, and a cleaving to eternal beings that mitigates absorption in the merely pressing or current. These are images of philosophic magnificence—which, it must be stressed, are distortions of the original, and can be its bitterest enemies, but which preserve the order of the cosmos and of the soul from which philosophy begins. If humanity is not to be grievously impoverished, the marvelously well, most perfect of men, a human type, the theoretical type is most threatened and it must be vigorously defended. #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Much of the theoretical reflection that flourishes in modern democracy could be interpreted as egalitarian resentment against the higher type of man, denigrating it, deforming it and interpreting it out of existence. Marxism and Freudianism reduce his motives to those all men have. Historicism denies him access to eternity. Value theory makes his reasoning irrelevant. If he were to appear, our eyes would be blind to his superiority, and we would be spared the discomfort it would cause us. It is to prevent or cure this peculiar democratic blindness that the university may be said to exist in a democracy, not for the sake of establishing an aristocracy but for the sake of democracy and for the sake of preserving the freedom of the mind—certainly one of the most important freedoms—for some individuals within it. Do not let the TV, the Master of this World lead you into the dark paths of lust and licentiousness, and all the intricate pleasures of the flesh. Also, do not take the road to nowhere, half-in, half-out, half-up, half-down, your instincts and ideals buried in a deep morass of hypocritical compromise and respectable mediocrity. Time is running out. “But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin,” Mormon 2.13. It is an open question whether or not “liberal democracy” in its present form can provide a thought-World of sufficient moral substance to sustain meaningful lives. We are still incapable of understanding that the only genuine backbone of our actions—if they are to be moral—is responsibility. Responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my firm, my success. It is not enough for one’s nation to liberate itself from one flawed theory; it is necessary to find another, and Technopoly provides no answer.  #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

There is another ideological conflict to be fought—between “liberal democracy” as conceived in the eighteenth century, with all its transcendent moral underpinnings, and Technopoly, a twenty-first-century thought-World that functions not only without a transcendent narrative to provide moral underpinnings but also without strong social institutions to control the flood of information produced by technology. Because that flood has laid waste the theories on which schools, families, political parties, religion, nationhood itself are based, American Technopoly must reply, to an obsessive extent, on technical methods to control the flow of information. Bureaucracy is foremost among all technological solutions to the crisis of control.  Bureaucracy is not, of course, a creation of Technopoly. Its history goes back five thousand years, although the word itself did not appear in English until the nineteenth century, as bureaucracies became more important, the complaints against them become more insistent. John Stuart Mill referred to them as “administrative tyranny.” Carlyle called them “the Continental nuisance.” There are two distinctions between two types of centralization, calling one governmental and the other administrative. Only the first exists in America, the second being almost unknown. If the directing power in American society had both these means of government at its disposal and combined the right t command with faculty and habit to perform everything itself, if having established the general principles of the government, it entered into the details of their application, and having regulated the great interests of the country, it came down to consider even individual interest, then freedom would soon be banished from the New World. I live in the Managerial Age, in a World of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see final result. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

However, it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state of the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern. Putting these attacks aside for the moment, we may say that in principle a bureaucracy is simply a coordinated series of techniques for reducing the amount of information that requires processing. It is the invention of the standardized form—a stable of bureaucracy—allow for the “destruction” of every nuance and detail of a situation. By requiring us to check boxes and fill in blanks, the standardized form admits only a limited range of formal, objective, and impersonal information, which in some cases is precisely what is needed to solve a particular problem. For an amputee to obtain motions when they are desired, one must give the microcomputer needed for information. This information can come in the form of myoelectric signals picked up on the surface of the amputee’s skin. These signals occur when the brain sends a signal to the muscle and the muscle tissues expand or contract to produce the requested motion. When a part of the body is amputated, many times the amputees continues to have a mental image of the missing part, a phenomenon known as the phantom limb syndrome. Mentally, the amputee can continue to move this phantom limb. Therefore, the brain continues to send signals to the remaining muscles and these muscles continue to try to produce desired motion. Grey Walter experimented with the E-wave, or expectancy wave, which is a voltage that “arises in the brain about one second before a voluntary action, which can be either a motor act (such as pushing a button) or simply an action with respect to making a firm decision about something. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

The E-wave, like any electric signal from any source, can also be used to operate electrically controlled devices. Slow progress has finally resulted in a recent announcement that a researcher at Johns Hopkins University has learned to predict the arm movements of a monkey by analysis of its brain waves. These techniques, developed twenty years ago, are rather basic, but they are a first step in allowing machinery to be mentally or neurally controlled like alternate body parts. The opposite of thought-activated machinery is electrical brain stimulation which sinks electrodes into the brain and applies minor voltages. Just as thoughts and mental impulses produce electrical activity, most motor functions and emotions can be triggered or influenced by electrically stimulating the brain. When a patient is conscious during a brain operation, the surgeon can give electrical stimulation in the motor strip and produce definite movements; here a twisting of the foot, there an arm movement, at a third point a clamping of the jaw. Electrical brain stimulation provides researchers with a means of mapping and controlling brain functions, including stimulating formant sections (as in stroke victims) to produce useful body operation. Sequential computer control of serial stimulus has apparently been successful in producing “lifelike” movement in laboratory animals suffering paralysis. Stimulating the cortex directly to replace missing sensory input is another application. There was a case of a fifty-two-year-old woman, totally blind after suffering bilateral glaucoma, in whom an array of eighty small receiving coils were implanted subcutaneously above the skull, terminating in eighty platinum electrodes enchased in a sheet or silicone rubber placed in direct contact with the visual cortex of the right occipital lobe. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

With this type of transdermal stimulation, a visual sensation was perceived by the patient in the left half of her visual field…and simultaneous excitation of several electrodes evoked the perception of predictable simple visual patterns. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve has produced auditory sensations. Appropriately placed electrodes can alter blood pressure, sleep, motor functions, the sensation of pain and even hostile behaviour. These procedures and functions are also part of what bureaucracies do. For many years, it was conventional to assume that the road to very small devices led through smaller and smaller devices: a top-down path. On this path, progress is measured by miniaturization: How small a transistor can we build? How small a motor? How thin a line can we draw on the surface of a crystal? Miniaturization focuses on scale and has paid off well, spawning industries ranging from watchmaking to microelectronics. Researchers at AT&T Bell Labs, the University of California at Berkely, and other laboratories in the United States of America have used micromachining (based on microelectronic technologies) to make tiny gears and even electric motors. Micromachining is also being pursued successfully in Japan and Germany. These microgears and micromotors are, however, enormous by nanotechnological standards: a typical device is measure in tens of micrometers, billions of times the volume of comparable nanogrears and nanomotors. (In our simulated molecular World, ten microns is the size of a small town.) In size, confusing microtechnology with molecular nanotechnology is like confusing an elephant with a ladybug. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

The differences run deeper, though. Microtehcnology dumps atoms on surfaces and digs them away again in bulk, with no regard for which atoms goes where. Its methods are inherently crude. Molecular nanotechnology, in contrast, positions each atom with care. The essence of nanotechnology is that people have worked for years making things smaller and smaller until we are approaching molecular dimensions. At that point, one cannot make smaller things except by staring with molecules and building them up into assemblies. The difference is basic: In microtechnology, the challenge is to build smaller; in nanotechnology, the challenge is to build bigger—we can already make small molecules. (A language warning: In recent years, nanotechnology has indeed been used to mean “very small microtechnology”; for this usage, the answers to the above question is yes, by definition. This use of a new word for a mere extension of an old technology will produce considerable confusion, particularly in light of the widespread use of nanotechnology in the sense found here. Nanolithography, nanoelectronics, nanocomposities, nanofabrication: not all that is nano– is molecular, or very relevant to the concerns raised in these reports. The terms molecular nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing are more awkward but avoid this confusion.) BMW has an iX SUV that used nanotechnology to change colour at the push of a button, and the grill can also repair itself from minor damages. Nanotechnology will be used to preform things like car maintenance in the future, making it easier for an auto science engineer to access things in the internal system of the car without removing anything. They may even be used to restores hoses and pumps. So, the future is very bright with all of this developing technology. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20

Cresleigh Homes

Our outdoor living space is just as important as our indoor one, and #Havenwood Model 1 has the goods. 😉

We’re picturing late nights with great wine and good friends in this airy backyard! Cue string lights. ✨

Get more info on all the homes in the Havenwood community on our website, and contact our leasing office with any questions!

Enjoy the ranch-style residence one. Although it is the smallest of the floor plans offered at Cresleigh Havenwood, at 2,293 square feet, there is plenty of space in this single story home. https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/residence-one/
#CresleighHomes