This, indeed, is true not merely for China and India but for Asia in general and the rest of the World. It is a reality grasped by a remarkable generation of Asian leaders long before their counterparts elsewhere. Lee Kwan Yew, the founder of independent Singapore, propelled a once sleepy colonial port into a World leader in high technology and services. In 2002 it became Asia’s top investor in biotech. Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s controversial former prime minister, set high-tech goals for Malaysia 2020 and attracted investment from Microsoft, Intel, Japan’s NTT, British Telecom and others. When Malaysia gained independence in 1957, its key exports were rubber and tin. Today it is a leading exporter of semicondctors and electrical goods. President Kim Dae-jung in South Korea, who served on the National Committee on Science and Technology before his election, approved $1.1 billion in funds for nanotechnology research. Once in the Blue House, he campaigned successfully to make his country a World leader in the application of I.T. and broadband communications—which it is today. Our talks with these and other Asian leaders make it clear that for them low-wage manufacturing jobs—and even routine call-center jobs like those outsourced to India—are just baby steps toward something far more dramatic: The leap to an advanced knowledge-based economy and society. As we scan the rest of the World, we can only ask, Where are the Lee Kwan Yews of Kin Dae-jungs of Latin America or Africa? In the Arabian World, hopefully, we see the first glimmerings of awakening in some of the Gulf States and in Jordan under young, computer-literate King Abdullah. What is it that has kept these various regions so mired in poverty? The hangover of colonialism? Religion? Culture? Corruption? Climate? Unstable politics? #RandolphHarris 1 of 15

 Is it politics that is keeping these various regions in poverty? Or could it be tribalism? Or combinations of these? Why do these regions lag so far behind the United States of America, Europe and fast-rising Asia? The answer differs by time and place. However, one thing is clear: It is in Asia—in rural China and rural India—that the true core of World poverty is found, and it is in these regions that the knowledge-based wealthy system can have its greatest success. It would be naïve to assume that India or China can wipe out poverty with technology alone. No country can. We have repeated throughout that the wealth revolution involves more than computers and hardware—more, in fact, than economics. It is clearly a social, institutional, educational, cultural and political revolution as well. However, it is also true that no country can eradicate its age-old rural poverty without drastically increasing agricultural productivity, and that cannot be done on a wide scale just by building better hoes and plows. Nor can it be accomplished by eliminating the agricultural subsidies paid by Europe and the United States of America to their minute handful of farmers. The effects of these subsidies are far more complex than their opponents suggest. A controversial case can even be made that, while they severely hurt subsistence peasants, they can indirectly spur industrial development. However, there is no doubt about the immediate short-term devastation they create in many less affluent countries. Yes, European and American subsidies—mainly payoffs to favored political constituencies—should be slashed. However, no one should imagine that even their total and immediate elimination would actually solve the problem of rural poverty. #RandolphHarris 2 of 15

Yes, the rich World, if only for moral reasons, should drastically increase funds for humanitarian aid and disaster relief. However, feeing people during an emergency or digging out corpses and helping re-house displaced victims after an Earthquake or tsunami will not, in themselves, transform the economics of World. Also, people forget that the millions and billions of taxpayer dollars sent over seas every year is funded from American’s working. It is not really the governments money. Hard working Americans are actually paying for that. As a result, especially when America is in crises, it is leading to bankruptcy, people going hungry, not be able to pay their bills and it leaves America crumbling while the rest of the World seems to thrive. Yes, hunger must be addressed. Immediate, emergency aid must be provided for the World’s hungriest people. Among the benefits, it will save the brains of children from the effects of malnutrition—brains needed in a future in which knowledge assumes increasing importance. However, hit-and-run food supplies for the worst-off will not break the back of global poverty. The same goes for viruses and other country-ravaging diseases that are killing millions each year around the World. No one can be anything but horrified and heartsick at the immense human tragedy they represent. We must save every life we can. Yet stopping the spread of these viruses and diseases without making other fundamental changes will not break the cycle of rural destitution. Economic advance, as everyone by now should know, demands saving women from degradation and inequality. It demands that we reduce, if not wipe out, corruption—and that we do the best we can, for now, with what passes for education. #RandolphHarris 3 of 15

However, all of these measures, even all of them together, will not ultimately liberate the billions of rural poor whose lives are severely limited by the Earth’s stingy response to their ending, bitterly hard, sweaty labor. For that stingy response is the core reason for core poverty. Subsistence-level poverty cannot be conquered unless peasants agriculture is replaced by more productive activities. Any other plan is illusory. There is an upper limit, even under the best of circumstances, to how much First Wave peasants can make the Earth produce with the tools they now use. There are limits, as well, to how much Second Wave mechanized agribusiness can produce without severely damaging the environment. (Once the cost of rehabilitation is included, the productivity is less than it seems.) For all practical purposes, however, there are no limits to what Third Wave knowledge-based agriculture can produce. And that is why we are the edge of the biggest change in rural life since our ancestors first began to till the soil. Umbrellas and automobiles are different. Not just because of size, function, and cost. However, for a reason we seldom stop to consider. A person can use an umbrella without buying another product. An automobile, by contrast, is useless without fuel, oil, repair services, spare parts, not to mention streets and roads. The humble umbrella, therefore, is a rugged individual, so to speak, delivering value to its user irrespective of any other products that work only when combined with others.  If someone somewhere were not transmitting images to it, the television set would stare blankly into the living room. Even the lowly closet hanger presupposes a rack or bar to hang it on. Each of these is part of a product system. #RandolphHarris 4 of 15

It is precisely their systemic nature that is their main source of economic value. And just as “team players” must play by certain agreed-on rules, systemic products need standards to work. If all the wall sockets have only two slots, a three-pronged electrical plug does not help much. This distinction between stand-aloe and systemic products throws revealing light on an issue that is widening today’s information war all around the World. The French call it la guerre des norms—“the war over standards.” Battles over standards are raging in industries as diverse as medical technology, industrial pressure vessels, and camera. Some of the most explosive—and public—disputes are directly related to the ways in which data, information, knowledge, images, and entertainment are created and distributed. In essence a global battle over dollars and political power, its outcome will reach into millions of homes. It will radically shift power among the industrial giants of the World: companies like IMB, AT&T, Sony, and Siemens. And it will affect national economies. Nowhere is this battle more public than in the three-way fight to determine what kind of television the World will watch in the decades to come. What we do know is that television has a goal. The goal is often to immerse us, the viewers, in an experience, to convey the beauty and mystery of the subject’s art and its organic, naturalistic meaning, even if it is a fictional television show. However, on television, cut at an average of ten technical events per minute, the ceremonials are practically impossible to follow. They are as fuzzy as the natural surroundings from which they have emerged. We get no sense of the dance or rhythm of life. It passes in and out of the frame of the camera. We see only this piece of it or that one. The fine details of the costumes blur like the tiny seeds of the flower. We cannot smell the foods they are eating, nor participate in the conversations they are having. We cannot feel the coldness of the air.  #RandolphHarris 5 of 15

Our exposure comes in ten-second pieces, at most. Whatever understanding we develop comes from Luke Fetherston’s words, which describe what we cannot actually see or intuit. The information is virtually total. Aura is utterly destroyed. Time is fractured. The sensory information is lost. The context is deleted. The gestalt of intuition experience is cracked. The details are gone. The mood is impossible to convey. The Process is invisible, as is the source. No magic. Not enough is conveyed to develop any feeling od caring about what might happen to these people because the heart of their belief remains invisible, despite the attempt to convey it to me. This is not say I do not care what happens. However, I cared before I saw these scenes. If these scenes had been my total exposure to these cultures, they would only have confirmed the uselessness of trying to sustain cultures that obviously do not fit the World today. Okay. We get it. Conflict. Rules. Arguments. Laws. Right and wrong. Rip-off. Rights. Entrenched interest. Brutality. Lack of due process. Oppressors. Oppressed. Heroes. Downtrodden. It all comes flooding through. Now we start to care, now we get drawn in. What want to know will Joel ever recover? We see why Mr. Foxworth is so stern. We see why Mrs. Foxworth is trapped in a cage. Here in America, if corporations fail to provide what “we want,” then they die. We can tour a graveyard of headstones, carved with the names of the corporations that had not kept up with Americans’ changing needs. This was proof that we the people control the corporations, not vice versa. Corporate manipulation was a fiction. Planners say it would be nice if we all lived in apartments, but most people prefer to live in their own single-family houses. And American business, sparked by the profit motive, is providing them. The same with mass transit. People prefer their own cars, manufactured by big business, providing what people want. #RandolphHarris 6 of 15

Naturally, television has been used more successfully for the latter cultural forms than the former. Also naturally, the American population develops more of a feeling for products and a life-style suitable to business than it does for a sensitive, subtle and beautiful way of mind that theoretically offers an alternative. The more people sit inside their television experience, the more fixed they become in the hard-edged reality that the medium can convey. If science is just for curiosity’s sake, which is what theoretical men believe, it is nonsense, and immoral nonsense, from the viewpoint of practical men. The World loses it proportions. Only Swift has rivalled Aristophanes in picturing the comedy of science. His description of a woman’s breast seen through a microscope shows what science means, not in order to denigrate science but to make clear the harsh disproportion between the World most men cling to and the one inhibited by theoretical men. What Aristophanes satirizes is the exterior of science, how the scientist appears to the nonscientist. He can only hint at the dignity of what the scientist does. His Socrates is not individualized; he is not the Socrates we know. He is a member of the species philosopher, student of nature, particularly of astronomy. The first known member of this species was Thales. He was the first man to have seen the cause of, and to predict, an eclipse of the sun. This means he figure out that the Heavens move in regular ways that accord with mathematical reasoning. He was able to reason from visible effects to invisible causes and speculate about the intelligible order of nature as a whole. He at that moment became aware that his mind was in accord with the principles of nature, that he was the microcosm. #RandolphHarris 7 of 15

This moment contains many elements: satisfaction at having solved a problem; pleasure in using his faculties; fulness of pride, more complete than that of any conqueror, for he surveys and possesses all; certitude drawn from within himself, requiring no authorities; self-sufficiency, not depending, for the fulfillment of what is highest in himself, on other men or opinions or on accidents such as birth or election to power, on anything that can be taken from him; a happiness that has no admixture of illusion or hope but is full of actuality. However, perhaps most important for Thales was seeing that the poetic or mythical accounts of eclipses are false. They are not, as men believed prior to the advent of science, a sign from the gods. Eclipses are beyond the power of the gods. They belong to nature. One need not fear the gods. The theoretical experience is one of liberation, not only negatively—freeing the think from fear of the gods. They belong to nature. One need not fear the gods. The theoretical experience is one of liberation, not only negatively-freeing the thinker from fear of the gods—but also positively, simultaneously a discovery of the best way of life. Maimonides describes the experience of the philosophic use of reason as follow: “This then will be a key permitting one to enter places the gates to which were locked. And when these gates are opened and these places are entered into, the soul will find rest therein, the eyes will be delighted, and the bodies will be eased of their toil and of their labor.” What had previously been checked in man’s soul comes into full play. Freedom from the myths and their insistence that piety is best permits man to see that knowing is best, the end for which everything else is done, the only end that without self-contradiction can be said to be final. The important theoretical experience leads necessarily toward the first principles of all things and includes an awareness of the good. #RandolphHarris 8 of 15

Man as man, regardless of nation, birth, or wealth, is capable of this experience. And it is the only thing men surely have spiritually in common: the demonstrations of science come from within man, and they are the same for all men. When I think the Pythagorean theorem, I know that what is in me at that moment is precisely the same as what is within anyone else who is thinking that theorem. Every other supposedly common experience is at best ambiguous. Some of this experience still remains within the contemporary natural science, and it has a fugitive existence within the humanities. The unity of it all is hardly anywhere to be found or appreciated because philosophy hardly exists today. However, it was always understood by philosophers, because they share the experience and are able to recognize it in others. This sense of community is more important for them than any disagreements about the final things. Philosophy is not a doctrine but a way of life, so the philosophers, for all the differences in their teachings, have more in common with one another than with anyone else, even their own followers. Plato saw this in Parmenides, Aristotle in Plato, Bacon in Aristotle, Descartes in Bacon, Locke in Descartes and Newton, and so on. The tiny band of men who participate fully in this way of life are the soul of the university. This is true in historical fact as well as in principle. Universities came to be where men were inspired by the philosophers’ teachings and examples. Philosophy and its demonstration of the rational contemplative life, made possible and, more or less consciously, animated scholarship and the individual sciences. When those examples lost their vitality or were overwhelmed by men who had no experience of the, the universities decay or were destroyed. This, strictly, is barbarism and darkness. I do not mean that philosophers were ordinarily present in universities any more than prophets or saints are ordinarily present in houses of worship. #RandolphHarris 9 of 15

However, if the faith disappears, if the experiences reported by the prophets and saints become unbelievable or matters of indifference, the temple is no longer a temple, no matter how much activity of various kinds goes on in it. It gradually withers and at best remains a monument, the inner life of which is alien to the tourists who pass idly through it. Although the comparison is not entirely appropriate, the university is also informed by the spirit, which very few men can fully share, of men who are absent, but it must preserve respect for them. It can admit almost anyone, but only if one looks up to and can have an inkling of the dignity of what is going on in it. It is itself always in danger of losing contact with its animating principle, of representing something it no longer possesses. Although it may seem wildly implausible that this group of rare individuals should be the center of what really counts for the university, this was recognized in the universities until only yesterday. It was, for example, well known in the nineteenth-century. German university, which was the last great model for the American university. However bad universities, and perhaps the greatest abhorred them. One cannot imagine Socrates as a professor, for reasons that are worthy of our attention. However, Socrates is of the essence of the university. It exists to preserve and further what he represents. In effect, it hardly does so anymore. However, more important is the fact that as a result of Enlightenment, philosophers and philosophy came to inhabit the universities exclusively, abandoning their old habits and haunts. There they have become vulnerable in new ways and thus risk extinction. The classical philosophers would not, for very good reasons, have taken this risk. Understanding these reasons is invaluable for our peculiar predicament. #RandolphHarris 10 of 15

As our interventions have become more searching, they have also become more costly and more hazardous. Thus, today it is not unusual to find a fragile elder who walked into the hospital, [and became] slightly confused, dehydrated, and somewhat the worse for wear on the third hospital day because his first 48 hours in the hospital were spent undergoing a staggering series of exhausting diagnostic studies in various laboratories or in the radiology suite. None of this is surprising to anyone familiar with American medicine, which is notorious for its character “aggressiveness.” The question is, why? There are three interrelated reasons, all relevant to the imposition of machinery. The first has to do with the American character, which is so congenial to the sovereignty of technology. The once seemingly limitless lands gave rise to a spirit that anything was possible if only the natural environment could be conquered. Disease could also be conquered, but only aggressively ferreting it our diagnostically and just as aggressively treating it, preferably by taking something out rather than adding something to increase resistance. How could a people which has a revolution once in four years, which has contrived the Bowie Knife and the revolver which insists in sending out yachts and horses and body to outsail outrun, outfight and checkmate all the rest of creation; how could such a people be content with any but “heroic” practice? What wonder that the stars and stipes wave over doses of ninety grams of sulphate of quinine and that American eagle screams with delight to see three drachms [180 grains] of calomel given at the single mouthful? Medicine may have been hindered by doctors placing undue reliance upon the powers of nature in curing disease. Some specifically blame Hippocrates and his tradition for this lapse. #RandolphHarris 11 of 15

Dr. Benjamin Rush, for example, had considerable success in curing patients of yellow fever by prescribing large quantities of mercury and performing purges and bloodletting. (His success was probably due to the fact that patients either had mild cases of yellow fever or did not have it at all.) In any event, Rush was particularly enthusiastic about bleeding patients, perhaps because he believed that the body contained about twenty-five pints of blood, which is more than twice the average actual amount. He advised other doctors to continue bleeding a patient until four-fifths of the body’s blood was removed. Although Rush was not in attendance during George Washington’s final days, Washington was bled seven times on the night he died, which, no doubt, had something to do with why he died. All of this occurred, mind you, 153 years after Harvey discovered that blood circulates throughout the body. Putting side the question of the available medical knowledge of the day, Rush was a powerful advocate of action—indeed, gave additional evidence of his aggressive nature by being one of the singers of the Declaration of Independence. He persuaded both doctors and patients tht American diseases were tougher than European diseases and required tougher treatment. “Desperate diseases require desperate remedies” was a phrase repeated many times in American medical journals in the nineteenth century. The Americans, who considered European methods to be mild and passive—one might even say effeminate—met the challenge by eagerly succumbing to the influence of Rush: they accepted the imperatives to intervene, to mistrust nature, to use the most aggressive therapies available. The idea was to conquer both a continent and the diseases its weather and poisonous flora and fauna inflicted. #RandolphHarris 12 of 15

So, from the outset, American medicine was attracted to new technologies. Far from being “neutral,” technology was to be the weapon with which disease and illness would be vanquished. The weapons were not long in coming. The most significant of the early medical technologies was the stethoscope, invented (one might almost say discovered) by the French physician Rene-Theophile-Hyacinthe Laennec in 1816. The circumstances surround the invention are worth mentioning. Working at the Necker Hospital in Paris, Laennec was examining a young woman with a puzzling heart disorder. He tried to use percussion and palpation (pressing the hand upon the body in hope of detecting internal abnormalities), but the patient’s obesity made this ineffective. He next considered auscultation (placing his ear on the patient’s chest to hear the heart beat), but the patient’s youth and gender discouraged him. Laennec then remembered that sound traveling through solid bodies is amplified. He rolled some sheets of paper into a cylinder, placed one end on the patient’s chest and the other to his ear. Voila! The sounds he heard were clear and distinct. “From this moment,” he later wrote, “I imagined that the circumstance might furnish means for enabling us to ascertain the character, not only of the action of the heart, but of every species of sound produced by the motion of all the thoracic viscera.” Laennec worked to improve the instrument, eventually using a rounded piece of wood, and called it a “stethoscope,” from the Greek word for “chest” and “I view.” For all its simplicity, Laennec’s invention proved extraordinarily useful, particularly in the accuracy with which it helped to diagnose lung diseases like tuberculosis. Chest diseases of many kinds were no longer concealed: the physician with a stethoscope could, as it were, conduct an autopsy on the patient while the patient was still alive. #RandolphHarris 13 of 15

However, it should not be supposed that all doctors or patients were enthusiastic about the instrument. Patients were often frightened at the sight of a stethoscope, assuming that its presence implied imminent surgery, since, at the time, only surgeons used instruments, not physicians. Doctors had several objections, ranging from the trivial to the significant. Among the trivial was the inconvenience of carrying the stethoscope, a problem some doctors solved by carrying it, crosswise, inside their top hats. This was not without its occasional embarrassment—an Edinburgh medical student was accused of possessing a dangerous weapon when his stethoscope fell out of his hate during a snowball fight. A somewhat less trivial objection raised by doctors was that if they used an instrument they would be mistaken for surgeons, who were then considered mere craftsmen. The distinction between physicians and surgeons was unmistakable then, and entirely favorable to physicians, whose intellect, knowledge, and insight were profoundly admired. It is perhaps to be expected that Oliver Wendell Holmes, professors of anatomy at Harvard and always a skeptic about aggressiveness in medicine, raised objections about the overzealous use of the stethoscope; he did so, in characteristic fashion, by writing a comic ballad, “The Stethoscope Song,” in which a physician makes several false diagnoses because insects have nested in his stethoscope. Now, changing directions a bit. Is there anything special about proteins? The main advantage of proteins that they are familiar: a lot is known about them, and may tools exist for working with them. Yet proteins have disadvantages as well. Just because this design work is starting with proteins—soft, squishy molecules that are only marginally suitable for nanotechnology—does not mean it will stay within those limits. #RandolphHarris 14 of 15

DeGrado points out, “The fundamental goal of our work in de novo design is to be able to take the next step and get entirely away from protein systems.” An early example is the work of Wallace Carothers of Du Pont, who used a de novo approach to studying the nature of proteins: Rather than trying to cut up proteins, he tried to build up things starting with amino acids and other similar monomers. In 1935, he succeeded in making nylon. DeGardo explains; “There is a deep philosophical belief at Du Pont in the ability of people to make molecules de novo that will do useful things. And there is a fair degree of commitment from the management that following that path will lead to products: not directly, and not always predictably, but they know that they need to support the basic science. I think ultimately we have a better chance at doing some really exciting things by de novo design, because our repertory should be much greater than that of nature. Think about the ability to fly: One could breed better carrier pigeons or one could design airplanes.” The biology community, however, leans more toward ornithology than toward aerospace engineering. DeGardo’s experience is that “a lot of biologists feel that is you are not working with the real thing [natural proteins], you are not studying biology, so they do not totally accept what we are doing. On the other hand, they recognize it as good chemistry.” “Wo be unto them that shall perver the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear,” report Moroni 8.16. #RandolphHarris 15 of 15

Cresleigh Homes

“I love to sit in a chair and look out the window and do nothing” – Ingrid Bergman

When you’re enjoying a home like ours at #PlumasRanch (Residence 2, specifically), it’s easy to just chill all afternoon! 😀

This smartly designed home offers a generous an ideal layout with 2,372 square feet, an open great room, dining room and kitchen, two bedrooms with a shared bath, and a separate owner’s suite with private bath and walk-in closet.

And our homes come with an All Ready Connected system, so it’s easy to set up our included Google Home Hub, sit back, and relax! https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/residence-2/

Home interperts Heaven. A Cresleigh Home is Heaven for those of us on Earth.

#CresleighMeadows
#CresleighHomes