Perfection for Aristotle (as well as for Plato) is realized in degrees, natural, personal, and social; and courage as the affirmation of one’s essential being is more conspicuous in some of these degrees than in others. Since the greatest test of courage is the readiness to make the greatest sacrifice, the sacrifice of one’s life, and since the soldier is required by his profession to be always ready for this sacrifice, the soldier’s courage is and somehow remains the outstanding example of courage. Although development is possible, it is at the same time very rare and requires a great number of external and internal conditions. The first of these conditions is that man must understand his position, his difficulties, and his possibilities, and must have either a very strong desire to get out of his present state or have a very great interest for the new, for the unknow state which must come with the change. Speaking shortly, he must be either very strongly repelled by his present state or very strongly attached by the future state that may be attained. Further, one must have a certain preparation. A man must be able to understand what he is told. Also, he must be in right conditions externally; he must have sufficient free time for study and must live in circumstances which make study possible. It is impossible to enumerate all the conditions which are necessary. However, they include among other things a school. And school implies such social and political conditions in the given country in which a school can exist, because a school cannot exist in any conditions; and a more or less ordered life and a certain level of culture and personal freedom are necessary for the existence of a school. #RandolphHarris 1 of 22

In many countries schools are impossible. One must not live in a country governed by Sudras, nor inhabited by impious men, nor in one conquered by heretics, nor one abounding with men of lower castes. One must not be in the company of outcastes, nor Kandalas, the lowest of men, nor of Pukkases, nor of idiots, nor of arrogant men, nor of men of low class, nor of Antyavasayins (gravediggers). A kingdom people mostly by Sudras, filled with godless men and deprived of twice-born inhabitants, will soon wholly perish, stricken by hunger and disease. These ideas of the Laws of Manu are very interesting because they give us a basis on which we can judge different political and social conditions from the point of view of school work, and to see which conditions are really progressive, and which bring only the destruction of all real values, although their adherents pretend that these conditions are progressive and even manage to deceive quantities of weak-minded people. However, external conditions do not depend on us. To a certain extent, and sometimes with great difficulty, we can choose the country where we prefer to live, but we cannot choose the period or the century and must try to find what we want in the period in which we are placed by fate. So we must understand that even the beginning of preparation for development needs a combination of external and internal conditions which only rarely come all together. However, at the same time we must understand that, at least so far as internal conditions are concerned, man is not entirely left to the law of accident. If he cares to and if he is lucky, there are many lights arranged for him by which h can find his way. #RandolphHarris 2 of 22

What makes a man desire to acquire new knowledge and to change himself? Man lives in life under two kinds of influences. This must be very well understood and the difference between the two kinds of influences must be very clear. The first kind consists of interests and attractions created by life itself; interests of one’s health, safety, wealth, pleasures, amusements, security, vanity, pride, fame etcetera. The second kind consists of interests of a different order aroused by ideas which are not created in life but come originally from schools. These influences do not reach man directly. They are thrown into the general turnover of life, pass through many different minds and reach a man through philosophy, science, religion, and art, always mixed with influences of the first find and generally very little resembling what they were in their beginning. In most cases, men do not realize the different origin of the influences of the second kind and often explain them as having the same origin as the first time. Although man does not know of the existence of two kinds of influences, they both act on him and in one way or another way he responds to them. He can be more identified with one or with some of the influences of the fist kind and not feel influences of the second kind at all. Or he can be attracted and affected by one or another of the influences of the second kind. The result is different in each case. We will call the first kind of influence, influence A, and the second, influence B. #RandolphHarris 3 of 22

If a man is fully in the power of influence A, or of one particular influence A, and quite indifferent to influence B, nothing happens to him, and his possibility of development diminishes with every year of his life; and at a certain age, sometimes quite an early age, it disappears completely. This means that man dies while physically remaining still alive, like grain that cannot germinate and produce a plant. However, if, on the other hand, man is not completely in the power of influence A, and if influences B attract him and make him feel and think, results of the impressions they produce in him collect together, attract other influences of the same kind, and grow, occupying a more important place in his mind and life. If the results produced by influence B become sufficiently strong, they fuse together and form in man what is called a magnetic center. It must be understood at once that the word “center” in this case does not mean the same thing ad the “intellectual” or the “moving” center; that is, centers in the essence. The magnetic center is in personality; it is simply a group of interests which, when they become sufficiently strong, serve, to a certain degree, as a guiding and controlling factor. The magnetic centers turns one’s interests in a certain direction and helps to keep them there. At the same time it cannot do much by itself. A school is necessary. The magnetic center cannot replace a school, but it can help to realize the need of a school; it can help in beginning to look for a school, or if one meets a school by chance, the magnetic center can help to recognize a school and try not to lose it. Because nothing is easier to lose than a school. #RandolphHarris 4 of 22

Possession of a magnetic center is the first, although quite unspoken, demand of a school. If a man without a magnetic center, or a small or weak magnetic center, or with several contradictory magnetic center, or with several contradictory magnetic centers, that is, interested in many incompatible things at the same time, meets a school, one does not become interested in it, or one becomes critical at once before one can know anything, or one’s interest disappears very quickly when one meets with the first difficulties of school work. This is the chief safeguard of a school. Without it the school would be filled with quite a wrong kind of people who would immediately distort the school teaching. A right magnetic center not only helps one to recognize a school, it also helps to absorb the school teaching, which is different from both influences A and influences B and may be called influence C. Influence C can be transferred only by word of mouth, by direct instruction, explanation, and demonstration. When a man meets with influence C and is able to absorb it, it is said about him that in one point himself—that is, in his magnetic center—he becomes free from the law of accident. From this moment the magnetic center has actually played its part. It brought man to a school or helped him in his first steps there. From then on the ideas and the teachings of the school take the place of the magnetic center and slowly begin to penetrate into the different parts of personality and with time into essence. #RandolphHarris 5 of 22

One can learn many things about schools, about their organization and about their activity, in the ordinary way by reading and by studying historical periods when schools were more conspicuous and more accessible. However, there are certain things about schools that one can learn only in schools themselves. And the explanation of school principles and rules occupies a very considerable place in school teaching. However, promising and real as all these trends are, they are not enough to justify an attitude which is to be found among a number of very sophisticated writers who claim that criticisms of our society. The United States of America will not maintain its spearhead role in the World wealth revolution, it will not hold on to global power and it will not reduce poverty without replacing—not merely reforming—its factory-focused education system. Wave conflict over public education—and the $800 billion the present system costs every year (not counting the societal costs of its failure and its indirect costs to business in terms of an ill-prepared workforce)—will escalate in personal and political passion in the years ahead. Perhaps the greatest cost of wave conflict in America will be paid by nearly fifty million children currently compulsorily enrolled in schools that are attempting to prepare them—and not very successfully at that—for jobs that will not exist. Call that stealing the future. #RandolphHarris 6 of 22

Education is about far more than jobs. However, the schools, with minute exceptions, also fail to prepare students for their roles as consumers and prosumers. Nor does this system, by and large, help kids copes with the rising complexity and new life options they face in gender, marriage, ethics, and other dimensions of the emerging society. Least of all does it succeed in introducing more than a tiny fraction of them to the enormous pleasures of learning itself. Negative as it sounds today, however, the mass education system, in its time, was in fact a progressive advance over pre-industrial reality where, by and large, only a small percentage of children ever went to school, and where literacy and numeracy were almost non-existent among the poor. It took generations, even after the rise of industrialism, to put children in school rather than in cheap-labour factories from the earliest possible age. Today we still keep all these millions of children in factory-style schools because that is where an unlikely, nameless coalition of special interests has wanted them to be. To understand this coalition, we need to glance back to its origins in the late 1800s. At that time, while many parents opposed sending the children to school because they needed them to work in the fields or factories, an increasingly vocal number fought for free public education. However, it was only when business interests concluded that schools could contribute to productivity by helping to impose “industrial discipline” on young workers fresh off the farm that the pro-education coalition gained real power. #RandolphHarris 7 of 22

The values and attitudes associated with industrial discipline….inner discipline, hard work, punctuality, frugality, sobriety, orderliness and prudence. Schools taught these not only through text book preachments, but also through the very character of their organization—the grouping, periodizing and objective impersonality were not unlike those of the factory. In addition, the arrival of millions of immigrants speaking diverse languages brought affordable labour to U.S. shores from many different countries and cultures. However, to be productive in the factory economy, they needed to be assimilated or homogenized into the dominant American culture of the time, and from about 1875 to 1925, one of the dominant functions of the schools was the Americanization of the foreign-born. Business, in short, now has a crucial stake in massifying armies of the young to help build the mass-production economy of the industrial age. As industrialism developed further in the twentieth center, big labour arose to protect the interest of workers. Unions as a rule strongly supported public education—not just because its members wanted a better life for their children, but because unions, too, had a hidden, or unnoticed, stake in the system. The smaller the available workforce, the less competition for jobs and the higher the wages. Unions not only fought the good fight against child labour but also campaigned to extend the years of compulsory education, thus keeping millions of young people out of the labour market for longer and longer periods. #RandolphHarris 8 of 22

The subsequent unionization of teachers, moreover, created a large membership with an even stronger, personal reason to support the mass-education system designed for the industrial age. In addition to parents, business and labour, government, too, had reason to support big education. Public agencies recognized the economic advantages of the system but had secondary, less obvious reasons to support it. For example, when compulsory education worked, it kept many millions of high-testosterone teenagers off the streets, improving public order and reducing crime and the costs of policing and prison. What we saw, therefore, throughout the industrial era, was an unbreakable coalition that has preserved the factory-school model—a mass education system that fit neatly into the matrix of mass production, mass media, mass culture, mass sports, mass entertainment and mass politics. The whole apparatus of public education has largely been shaped by the needs and ideologies of industrialism…predicated on old assumptions about the supply and demand for labour. They keywords of this system are linearity, conformity and standardization. The Information Revolution not only promotes faster and wider adaption; it can also promote a new mode of thinking about social systems. The Industrial Revolution made metaphors of machines and factory production widely available. These mechanical conceptions had a profound effect on approaches to organizational design. In business, they led to an emphasis on predictability and control. #RandolphHarris 9 of 22

In public affairs, they led to an emphasis on rules to be executed by hierarchies of relatively expert and impartial public officials. In both settings, efficiency and consistency became preeminent goals. Of course, real processes often did not exhibit unblemished efficiency and impartiality, but these were the ideals toward which organizational activities were oriented. Recently, there has been increasing dissatisfaction with the costs of the industrial mode of thinking and action. Its impersonality and rigidity are frustrating. Its slowness and inability to adjust to changing circumstances and local conditions have become obvious. With the advent of the Information Age, the bottom-up style of thinking associated with Complex Adaptive Systems may well become a greater part of people’s understanding of how economic, social, and political processes actually function and change. In some respects, bottom-up thinking has had a long history. Adam Smith and Charles Darwin introduced some of the major ideas of Complex Adaptive Systems. Adam Smith’s 1776 description of a market introduced some of the key concepts of complex systems, including the notion of a hidden hand and market clearing, concepts that would now be called emergent properties of the system. Darwin’s 1859 theory was another major advance, with its understanding of how evolutionary adaptation results from mutation and differential biological evolution have already had a tremendous impact on modern thought. Nevertheless, people have only just begun to absorb their full implications. No doubt, machines and hierarchies provide easier metaphors to use than markets and gene pools. So it is no wonder that most people are still more comfortable thinking about organizations in fixed, mechanical terms rather than in adaptive, decentralized terms. #RandolphHarris 10 of 22

As the complexity approach enters economic and political discourse, some of the premises of the industrial mode of thought will become less self-evident. The legitimacy associated with both traditional and bureaucratic authority may be further weakened. The premises about the inherent virtue of harmony, efficiency, and hierarchical lines of authority will be questioned. Instead, people will be more comfortable with the ideas of perpetual novelty, adaptation as a function of entire populations, the value of variety and experimentation, and the potential of decentralized and overlapping authority. Economic, social, and political design will emphasize questions such as the proper balance between exploration and exploitation, and the dangers of premature convergence. For example, excess pollution my be treated as a mismatch between performance criteria used by formal institutions, and the personal values held by citizens. Just as the clock and the steam engine provided powerful images for the metaphor of society as machine, distributed information technology can provide a powerful image for the metaphor of society as a Complex Adaptive System. Already, the Internet provides an example that has begun to capture the popular imagination in the way that the early advances of the Industrial Age captured the imagination of social thinkers and the broad public. The fact that the Internet functions without a central authority is widely marveled at today, precisely because it challenges widely accepted notions of how large systems are “supposed” to work. #RandolphHarris 11 of 22

New organizational forms will also make the complex systems metaphor more accessible. Virtual corporations that recombine small units from different companies on an ad hoc basis will demonstrate the value of decentralized adaptation. Geographically dispersed activities based on information technology will foster greater telecommuting and distance learning, and these trends will make the metaphor of population-based adaptation more accessible. Most people in industrial nations have worked with machines and have been exposed to the discipline of the factory or office. This has had a powerful influence on our way of thinking about politics and society. Today more and more people are becoming personally familiar with the flexible, adaptive, and dispersed nature of information technology. This familiarity will make the metaphor of the Complex Adaptive System more compelling as a guide to thinking not just about information technology itself, but also about how business, society, and government can and should function effectively. There is an important caveat here that must be emphasized: decentralized systems do not always work well, just as machines do not always work well. The market provides a very helpful example in this regard. While a “free” market has many theoretical and practical advantages over a command system, there is an important body of knowledge and experience about market failures. #RandolphHarris 12 of 22

Even Adam Smith appreciated the need for government to protect the market from force and fraud. People now recognize a range of additional problems, including the tendency of some markets to self-organize into oligopolies or even monopolies. Moreover, information systems are subject to several modes of failure. Rather than undermining the vale of complexity as a way of thinking about social systems, an appreciate of how Complex Adaptive Systems can fail provides valuable guidance for the design and management of complex systems, including human organizations as well as technical systems. Designing new strategies and organizations will frequently imply altering—or even creating—the variation, interaction, and selection that are hallmarks of a Complex Adaptive System. Finally, a word on networks. This form of organization has received so much attention in recent years, has been so heavily hyped, and has been defined so broadly that a touch of caution is warranted. For many, the network is a panacea. Societies and businesses are riddled with networks of many kinds. We normally think of them as the informational pathways along which information and influence flow. Feminists complain that an “old boys’ network” frequently operates to deprive women managers of promotion. Ex-military men often have their own network of contacts, as do former police and members of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, many of whom take jobs as corporate security officers after their retirement from government service. #RandolphHarris 13 of 22

Homosexual have networks that are particularly strong in certain industries like fashion, fitness, interior design, writing and producing movies and TV shows and cooking or owning restaurants. Other marginalized groups have strong networks–overseas Chinese throughout Southeast Asia, Jewish people in Europe and America, West Indians in Britain. Transplanted people in general–New Yorkers in Texas, the so-called Georgia Mafia that came to Washington when Jimmy Carter was President, the Ukrainians who came to Moscow with Leonid Brezhnev—also their own communication networks. Informal networks of many kinds crop up in virtually all complex societies. To these one must add formal networks—Masons, for example, Mormons, or members of the Catholic order Opus Dei. For a long time the role and structure of such networks were ignored by economists and business theorists. Today they are much studied as potential models for corporate structure. This recent interest can be traced to deep social changes. One is the previously noted breakdown of formal communication in companies. When the firm’s bureaucratic channels and cubbyholes get clogged, unable to carry the heavy volumes of communication and information needed nowadays to produce wealth, the “right information” does not get to the “right person” as it once did, and employees fall back on the informal networks to help carry the information load. Similarly, the de-massification of the economy compels companies and work units to interact with more numerous and varied partners than before. This means more personal and electronic contact with strangers. #RandolphHarris 14 of 22

However, when a stranger tells us something, how do we know if it is accurate? When possible, skeptical managers check in with their personal networks—people they have known or worked with for years—to supplement and verify what they learn through formal channels. Finally, since an increasing number of business problems today require cross—discipline information, and the broken-down cubbyhole-and-channel system stands in the way, employees rely on friends and contact in the network whose membership may be scattered across many departments and units. These networks, formal or not, share common characteristics. They tend to be horizontal rather than vertical—meaning they have either a flat hierarchy or none at all. They are adaptive—able to reconfigure themselves quickly to meet changed conditions. Leadership in them tends to be based on competence and personality rather than on social organizational rank. And power turns over frequently and more easily than in a bureaucracy, changing hands as new situations arise that demand new skills. All this had popularized the notion of the corporate network among both academics and manager. Corning, Inc., which operates in four sectors—telecommunications, housewares, materials, and laboratory sciences—describes itself as a “global network.” A network is an interrelated group of businesses with a wide range of ownership structures. Within each sector there are a variety of business structures that range from traditional line divisions to wholly owned subsidiaries and alliances with other companies. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

A network is egalitarian. There is no parent company. A corporate staff is no more, or less, important than a line organization group. And being part of a joint venture is just as important as working at the hub of a network. Networks can be enormously useful, flexible, and antibureaucratic. However, in the recent enthusiasm, elementary distinctions are often ignored. In the 1970s one of the earliest and deepest analysts of network organization, Anthony Judge, then based in Brussels at the Union of International Associations, examined the density and response times of people networks, the structure of nets and their social functions, and the degree of connectedness they exhibit. He also compared human networks with such inanimate networks as pipelines, electric grids, railways, and transaction networks handling foreign exchange, commodity trading, and so on. Judge developed a whole little-known but useful vocabulary for network concept. He also brilliantly matrixed global networks against global problems, showing in a vast volume how networks of ideas or problems were linked, how networks of organizations overlapped, and how ideas and organizations were related. More recently Netmap Intenrational, an affiliate of KPMG Peat Marwick, has developed a methodology for identifying the hidden communication networks in organizations as varied as the Republican Party and a giant accounting firm, in the course of its work for business and governments from Malaysia to Sweden. #RandolphHarris 16 of 22

Organizations are redesigned daily by their members to get the job done. That is the real structure. It is the informal organization—the anti-organization. It is the primary organization. If you cannot identify it, and track its changes, how are you going to manage it? You will be satisfied with manipulating the formal organization with titles, hierarchies and tables of organizations. Such tracking can provide deep insight into existing organizations, but the enthuse blindly today over networks and assume that networks are “the” basic form of the future is to imply much the same uniformity that bureaucracy imposed, albeit at a higher, looser level. Like any other type of human organization, the network has its limitations along with its virtues. Network organization is superb for fighting terrorism or a decentralized guerrilla war, not marvelous at all for the control of strategic nuclear weapons where the last thing we want is for local commanders to be free and unrestrained. The flex-firm is a broader concept, which implies an organization capable of encompassing both the formal and informal, the bureaucratic and the networked suborganizations. It implies even greater diversity. While we might never get the chance to skipper in an America’s Cup race, one of us found himself with a very similar problem. At the end of his academic studies, Harvey celebrated at one of Cambridge University’s May Balls (the English equivalent of a college prom). #RandolphHarris 17 of 22

Part of the festivities included a casino. Every one was given $20 worth of chips, and the person who had amassed the greatest fortune by evening’s end would win a free ticket to next year’s ball. When it came  time for the last spin of the roulette wheel, by a happy coincidence, Harvey led with $700 worth of chips, and the next closets was a young Englishwoman with $300. The rest of the group had been effectively cleaned out. Just before the last bets were to be placed, the woman offered to split next year’s ball ticket, but Harvey refused. With his substantial lead, there was little reason to settle for half. To better understand the next strategic move, we take a brief detour to the rules of roulette. The betting in roulette is based on where a ball will land when the spinning wheel stops. There are typically numbers 0 through 36 on the wheel. When the ball lands on zero, the house wins. The safest bet in roulette is to be on every or odd (denoted by Black or Red). These bets pay even money—a one-dollar bet returns two dollars—while the chance of winning is only 18/37. Even betting her entire stake would not lead to victory at these odds; therefore, the woman was forced to take on of the more risky gambles. She had bet her entire stake on the chance that the ball would land on a multiple of three. This bet pays two to one (so her $300 bet would return $900 if she won) but has only a 12/37 chance of winning. She placed her bet on the table. At that point it could not be withdrawn What should Harvey do? #RandolphHarris 18 of 22

Harvey should have copied the woman’s bet and placed $300 on the event that the ball landed on a multiple of three. This guarantees that he stays ahead of her by $400 and wins the ticket: either they both lose the bet and Harvey wins $400 to $0, or they both win the bet and Harvey ends up ahead $1,300 to $900. The woman had no other choice. If she did not bet, she would have lost anyway; whatever she bet on, Harvey could follow her and stay ahead. (If truth be told, this is what Harvey wished he had done. It was 3.00 in the morning and much too much champagne had been drunk for him to have been thinking clearly. He bet $200 on the even numbers figuring that he would end up in second place only in the event that he lost and she won, the odds of which were approximately 5.1 in his favor. Of course 5.1 events sometimes happen and this was one of those cases. She won.) Her only hope was that Harvey would bet first. If Harvey had been first to place $200 on Black, what should she have done? She should have bet her $300 on Red. Betting her stake on Black would do her no good, since she would win only when Harvey wins (and she would place second with $600 compared with Harvey’s $900). Winning when Harvey lost would be her only chance to take the lead, and that dictates a bet on Red. The strategic moral is the opposite from that of our tale of Martin Luther and Charles de Gaulle. In this tale of roulette, the person who moved first was at a disadvantage. The woman by betting first, allowed Harvey to choose a strategy that would guarantee victory. If Harvey had bet first, the woman could have chosen a response that offered an even chance of winning. #RandolphHarris 19 of 22

The general point is that in games it is not always an advantage to seize the initiative and move first. This reveals your hand, and other players can use this to their advantage and your cost. Second movers may be in the stronger strategic position. Anyone who practices the art of cultural criticism must endure being asked, “What is the solution to the problems you describe?” Critics almost never appreciate this question, since, in most cases, they are entirely satisfied with themselves for having posed the problems and, in any event, are rarely skilled in formulating practical suggestions about anything. This is why they became cultural critics. The question comes forth nonetheless, and in three different voices. One is gentle and eager, as if to suggest that the critic knows the solutions but has merely forgotten to include them in the work itself. A second is threatening and judgmental, as if to suggest that the critic had no business bothering people in the first place unless there were some pretty good solutions at hand. And a third is wishful and encouraging, as if to suggest that it is well known that there are not always solutions to serious problems but if the critic will give it a little thought perhaps something constructive might come from the effort. It is to this last way of posing the question that I should like to respond. I have indeed given the matter some thought.  A reasonable response (hardly a solution) to the problem of living in a developing Technopoly can be divided into two parts: what the individual can do irrespective of what the culture is doing; and what the culture can do irrespective of what any individual is going. #RandolphHarris 20 of 22

Beginning with the matter of individual response, I must say at once that I have no intention of providing a “how to” list in the manner of the “experts” ridiculed in our “broken defenses.” No one is an expert on how to live a life. I can, however, offer Talmudic-like principle that seems to me an effective guide for those who wish to defend themselves against the worst effects of the American Technopoly. It is this: You must try to be a loving resistance fighter. By “loving,” I mean that, in spite of the confusion, errors, and stupidities you see around you, you must always keep close to your heart the narratives and symbols that once made the United States of America the hope of the World and that may yet have enough vitality to do so again. You may find it helpful to remember that, when the Chinese students at Tiananmen Square gave expression to their impulse to democracy, they fashioned a papier-mache model, for the whole World to see, of the Statue of Liberty. Not a statue of Karl Marx, not the Eiffel Tower, not Buckingham Palace. The Statue of Liberty. It is impossible to say how moved Americans were by this event. However, one is compelled to ask, “Is there an American soul do dead that it could not generate a murmur (if not a cheer) of satisfaction for this use of a once-resonant symbol? Is there an American soul so shrouded in the cynicism and malaise created by Technopoly’s emptiness that it failed to be stirred by students reading along from the works of Thomas Jefferson in the streets of Prague in 1989? #RandolphHarris 21 of 22

Americans may forget, but others do not, that America dissent and protest during the Vietnam War may be the only case in history where public opinion forced government to change its foreign policy. Americans may forget, but others do not, that American invented the idea of public education for all citizens and have never abandoned it. And everyone knows, including Americans, that each day, to this hour, immigrants still come to America in hopes of finding relief from one kind of deprivation or another, while Americans are increasingly experiencing more deprivations of their own. Where wealth is concerned, the least-developed countries present the hardest cast. Can a capability advance as nanotechnology, based on molecular machinery, be of use in the developing nations? Yes. Agriculture is the backbone of the Third World economics of today, and agriculture is based on the naturally occurring molecular machines in wheat, rice, yams, and the like. The Third World is short on equipment and skill. (It often has governmental problems as well, but that is another story.) Molecular manufacturing can make equipment inexpensive enough for the poor to buy or for aid agencies to give way. This included equipment for making more equipment, so dependency could be reduced. As for skill, basic molecular manufacturing will require little labour of any kind, and a little skill will go a long way. As the technology advances, more and more of the products can be easy-to-use smart materials Molecular manufacturing will enable the poorest countries to bypass the difficult and dirty process of the industrial revolution. It can make products that are less expensive and easier to use than yams or rice or goats or water buffalo. And with products like inexpensive super-computers, with huge databases of writing and animation viewed through 3-D colour displays, it can even help spread knowledge. Nanotechnology’s role in helping the poorest nations will not be on the minds of the first developers—they will be in government and commercial labs in the wealthiest nations, pursuing problems of concern to people there. History, though, is full of unintended consequences, and some are for the better. #RandolphHarris 22 of 22

MILLS STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA |

Close Out!

Don’t miss the final opportunity to purchase at Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch.

Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom.

Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District. https://cresleigh.com/mills-station/