Being gunned down in a shower of lead is the growing fear many people face as crime soars out of control in America. Guns are not the problem, but more than likely socioeconomic conditions, felon coddling policies, corruption, and people being allowed to evade the law are. On May 7, 1931, the most sensational manhunt New York City had ever known had come to its climax. After weeks of search, “Two Gun” Crowley—the killer, the gunman who did not some or drink—was at bay, trapped in his sweetheart’s apartment on West End Avenue. One hundred and fifty policemen and detectives laid siege to his top-floor hideaway. They chopped hoes in the roof; they tried to smoke out Crowley, the “cop killer,” with teargas. Then they mounted their machine guns on surrounding buildings, and for more than an hour one of New York’s fine residential areas reverberated with the crack of pistol fire and the rat-tat-tat of machine guns. Crowley, crouching behind an overstuffed chair, fired incessantly at the police. Ten thousand excited people watched the battle. Nothing like it had ever been seen before on the sidewalks of New York. When Crowley was captured, Police Commissioner E. P. Mulrooney declared that the two-gun desperado was one of the most dangerous criminals ever encountered in the history of New York. “He will kill,” said the Commissioner, “at the drop of a feather.” However, how did “Two Gun” Crowley regard himself? We know, because the police were firing into his apartment, he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a crimson trail on the paper. #RandolphHarris 1 of 22

In this letter Crowley said: “Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one—one that would do nobody any harm.” A short time before this, Crowley had been having a necking party with his girl friend on a country road out on Long Island. Suddenly a policeman walked up to the car and said: “Let me see your license.” Without saying a word, Crowley drew his gun and cut the policeman down with a shower of lead. (This is why tinted front windows are illegal in California). As the dying officer fell, Crowley leaped out of the car, grabbed the officer’s revolver, and fired another bullet into the prostrate body. And that was the killer who said: “under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one—one that would do nobody any harm.” Crowley was sentenced to the electric chair. When he arrived at the death house in Sing Sing, did he say, “This is what I get for killing people”? No, he said: “This is what I get for defending myself.” “Two Gun” Crowley did not blame himself for anything. Is that an unusual attitude among criminals? If you think so, listen to this. “I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man.” That is Al Capone speaking. Yes, America’s most notorious Public Enemy—the most sinister gang leader who ever shot up Chicago. Capone did not condemn himself. He actually regarded himself as a public benefactor—an unappreciated and misunderstood public benefactor. And so did Dutch Schultz before he crumpled up under gangster bullets in Newark. Dutch Schultz, one of New York’s most notorious rats, said in a newspaper interview that he was a public benefactor. And he believed it. #RandolphHarris 2 of 22

I have had some interesting correspondence with Lewis Lawes, who was warden of New York’s infamous Sing Sing prison for many years, on this subject, and he declared that “few of the criminals in Sing Sing regard themselves as bad men” or women. “They are just as human as you and I. So they rationalize, they explain. They can tell you why they had to crack a safe or be quick on the trigger finger. Most of them attempt by a form of reasoning, fallacious or logical, to justify their antisocial acts even to themselves, consequently stoutly maintaining that they should never have been imprisoned at all.” If Al Capone, “Two Gun” Crowley, Dutch Schutlz, and the desperate men and women behind prison walls do not blame themselves for anything—what bout the people with whom you and I come in contact with? A wrong idea which people have or which belongs particularly to our times, is that understanding can be different, that people can—that is, have the right—to understand the same thing differently. This is quite wrong from the point of view of the system. Understanding cannot be different. There can only be one understanding, the rest is non-understanding, or incomplete understanding. However, at the same time people often think that they understand things differently. We can see examples of this every day. How can we find an explanation of this seeming contradiction? In reality, there is no contradiction. Understanding means understanding of a part in relation to the whole. #RandolphHarris 3 of 22

However, the idea of the whole can be very different in people according to their knowledge and being. This is why the system is again necessary. People learn to understand by understanding the system and everything else in relation to the system. However, speaking on an ordinary level without the idea of a school or a system one must admit that there are as many understandings as there are many people. Everyone understands everything in one’s own way or according to one or another mechanical training or habit; but this is all a subjective and relative understanding. The way to objective understanding lies through school systems and the change of being. In order to explain this I must return to the division of man into seven categories. You must realize that there is a great difference between men no. 1, 2, and 3 on one hand and men of higher categories on the other hand. In reality the difference is much greater than we can imagine. It is so great that all life from this point of view is regarded as being divided into two concentric circles—the inner circle and the outer circle of humanity. To the inner circle belong men no. 5, 6, and 7; to the outer circle, men no. 1, 2, and 3. Men no. 4 are on the threshold of the inner circle, or between the two circles. The inner circle is in its turn divided into three concentric circles; the innermost, to which belong men no. 7, the middle, to which belong men no. 6, and the outer-inner circle, to which belong men no. 5. #RandolphHarris 4 of 22

This division does not concern us at the moment. For us, the three inner circles form one inner circle. The outer circle, in which we live, has several names, designating its different features. It is called the mechanical circle, because everything happens there, everything is mechanical, and the people who live there are machines. It is also called the circle of the confusion of tongues, because people who live in this circle all speak in different languages and never understand one another. Everyone understands everything differently. We have come to a very interesting definition of understanding. It is something that belongs to the inner circle of humanity and does not belong to us at all. In men in the outer circle realize that that do not understand one another, and if they feel the need of understanding, they must try to penetrate into the inner circle, because understanding between people is possible only there. Schools of different kinds serve as gates through which people can pass into the inner circles. However, this penetration into the inner circle higher in comparison with the one in which a man is born requires long and difficult work. The very first step in this work is the study of a new language. You ma ask: “What is this language we are studying?” It is the language of the inner circle, the language in which people can understand one another. #RandolphHarris 5 of 22

You must realize that standing, so to speak, outside the inner circle we can know only the rudiments of this language. However, even those rudiments will help us to understand one another better than we could even understand without them. The three inner circles have each a language of their own. We are studying the language of the outer of the inner circles. People in the outer-inner circle study the language of the idle circle, and people in the middle circle study the language of the innermost circle. If you ask e how all this can be proved, it can only be proved by further study of oneself and further observation. If we find that with the study of the system we can understand ourselves and other people, or for instance, certain books, or certain ideas better than we could understand them before, and particularly if we find definite facts which show that this new understanding develops, that will be, if not proof, at least a sign of the possibility of proof. We must remember that our understanding, exactly as our consciousness, is not always on the same level. It is always moving up and down. That means that at one moment we understand more, and at another moment we understand less. If we notice these differences of understanding in ourselves, we shall be able to realize that there is a possibility, first, of keeping to those higher levels of understanding, and second, of surpassing them. However, theoretical study is not sufficient. You must work on your being and on the change of your being. #RandolphHarris 6 of 22

If you formulate your aim from the point of view that you wish to understand other people, you must remember one very important school principle: you can understand other people only as much as you understand yourself and only on the level of your own being. This means that you can judge other people’s knowledge, but you cannot judge their being. You can see in them only as much as you have in yourself. However, people always make the mistake of thinking that they can judge other people’s being. In reality, if they wish to meet and understand people of higher development than themselves they must work with the aim of changing their being. In many easy-going and steady types a few drinks will trigger an oft-times welcome loss of inhibitions more readily than with any other category. These are the normally consistent and dependable types, who have one drink too many and wind up getting in a fight, taking their clothes off, or wetting their pants. The most important rule to remember, concerning alcohol, is that whatever form it is taken in will have the effect of brining the qualities of the Demonic to the surface. Thus, a normally jolly person, when drunk, will become a morose, dour and cynical person. The dry, technical person will turn into a sort of arrested development life of the party, who might even sing a ribald song he learned in high school. The strong assertive person will become sentimental, nostalgic, maudlin over youthful errors and lost romance and might even cry in one’s bonded whiskey. #RandolphHarris 7 of 22

The bank clerk will relive the beach at Anzio; and the individual who is usually bouncing around like a rubber ball, will be found in a darkened corner, morosely serious over what one feels is one’s lack of accomplishment and how people do not know what one is going though. When that old-time fundamentalist coined the term, “demon rum, he never knew how right he was! Since different participants in a social occasion may perform quite different roles, it might be argued that what is an occasion of play for one individual may be an occasion of work for another, as in the case of the guest and the servant at a party. Nevertheless, too much relativity is not justified. However differently participants may feel about a past social occasion, they can presumable agree as to which occasion they are talking about. Further, one who must work during and at an occasion they are talking about. Further, one who must work during and at an occasion defined for play still knows that his job locates him in a play occasion, not in a serious one, the fact that it does being an important job-contingency from him. There is another sense, however, in which multiple social realities can occur in the same place. Once a social situation is referred back to the social occasion that sets the tone for the gathering in it, we must admit the possibility that the same physical space may be caught within the domain of two different social occasions. The social situation then may be the scene of potential or actual conflict between the sets of regulations that ought to govern. #RandolphHarris 8 of 22

Note the famous conflict of definitions in the situation between summer tourists, who would like to extend summer-resort informality to the stores in the local town, and the natives, who would like to preserve proper business decorum in such places. Even within the same social establishment it is possible to find these overlapping definitions in the situation. Thus, in an office building or library where a rather strict decorum may obtain, the maintenance crews may see the occasion quite differently: they may work in profane clothing, run down the hallway when a quick repair is required, enter rooms at will, shout easily down the hall, plug a portable radio into the outlet nearest to their work, and maintain a level of conversational loudness quite prohibited to the office staff. Here we find something more than different roles in the same occasion, for no single main activity may be accorded precedence, at least in the short run. The social situations that occur in these overlapping behavior settings support gatherings tht possess a special type of normative disorganization. The possibility that the same physical space can come to be used as a setting for more than one social occasion, and hence as a locus for more than one set of expectations, is regularly recognized in society and typically restricted. Thus, in the important case of public streets, there is a tendency in Western society to define these places as the scene of an overriding social occasion to which other occasions ought to be subordinated. Potentially competing definitions in the situation then give way to a kind of public decorum. #RandolphHarris 9 of 22

This decorum itself, of course, is typically subverted momentarily by parades, convention antics, marriage and funeral processions, ambulances, and fire trucks, all of which impress their special tone upon the public ear for a brief times. In the military case, younger officers become interested in new possibilities. They find opportunities to experiment. Some of them are supported and protected by more senior officers who are sympathetic. As their careers advance, they get continuing opportunities to refine their ideas on things like naval aviation, tank tactics, or airborne logistics. And their careers give them access to increasing resources for testing their ideas in field exercises and war games. At some point combat situations arise in which some of these ideas are put to the most stringent tests. Eventually, some of these idea-bearing officers may be able to forge an entire career system for other officers who want to pursue some new mode of combat. This is what happened to Admiral William Moffett, whose career became synonymous with the rise of naval aviation. It is also the story of Admiral Hyman Rickover and the development of nuclear submarine forces, although both officers entered into the new area midway through their careers. The problem facing today’s makers of military personnel policy is that no one can know which young officers have the key ideas for surprising new operational concepts of the next decade. #RandolphHarris 10 of 22

By definition, the big surprises are those deviating enough from incremental change that they cannot be confidently foreseen. As a result, the specialists within the military services who make personnel decisions face precisely the kind of hard-to-predict situation that is common in Complex Adaptive Systems. The British, for example, could not foresee that merging their early naval flyers into the newly formed Royal Air Force, which was dominated by long-rage bomber pilots, would seriously interfere with efforts to implement technical innovations that could apply to aircraft carriers. While most of the technical advances required for carrier combat were made in British experiments, those new technologies and methods ended up being fully exploited by American navel flyers and commanders. The loss of the naval career path for experienced British naval pilots is a major part of the story of why the British could not implement their own innovations. Several of the principles we have come to in our review of complex systems research are relevant here. Two considerations suggest that now is a good time to weight exploration heavily relative to exploitation for military personnel systems. First, many military experts believe that the current profusion of technical possibilities, including the Information Revolution, makes radical chances in combat over the next two decades seem extremely likely. Second, for the United States in the immediate future, there is no military enemy of comparable strength. #RandolphHarris 11 of 22

If we accept the premise that exploration is to be strongly emphasized, the Complex Adaptive System perspective suggests several questions to ask about how to pursue that goal. First, what are the sources of “new types” of strategy-bearing officers and changes in frequencies of types? It seems wise to expose junior officers to new technology and its possibilities at the earliest possible points in their training. It may also make sense to include the biographies of previously innovative officers in their training, to help them see that their own vision of the future possibilities can be linked to their career prospects. The concepts that will be vital in the future involve combing knowledge of military requirements with knowledge of new technical possibilities. Officers will be valuable who have mixed exposures to the two knowledge bases, and who appreciate how previous innovators managed their careers. The personnel example lets us foreshadow some of the issues that will be discussed later on involving interaction patterns. If the aim is to produce officers with unusual and useful combinations of knowledge, what controls the interactions among types? The system that assigns new posts to officers takes on central import. To the extent possible, the assignment system should mix experiences with the deliberate intention of exploring new technical possibilities and operational concepts. It should accept more “risky proposals,” whose payoff may not be obvious. It should also create crosscutting contact networks for future use in allowing easy recombination. #RandolphHarris 12 of 22

This means tht the apparently boring personnel activity of rotating officers through posts needs to be deeply informed by the best recent theories of new technology and related combat possibilities. Of course, realism dictates that many other factors must play a role in such placements. However, considerable benefit can be gained from every step that can be taken to increase the career controllers’ vision of the “space of possibilities” being explored by the individuals in the organization as they develop their careers. What other barriers should be erected or removed in order to change patterns of interaction among types? For example, policies that keep assignments within interest areas will affect who interacts with whom. In our military example, if an officer develops an interest in logistics, it is better for the next placement to in logistics? Is it the same for all types? Should the rates of rotation be similar for most officers, or should they be a function of the outcomes of previous rotations, with some officers therefore having many shorter postings? Finally, we can observe that the officers will be evaluated as their careers progress. At each stage of their careers, the officers, and therefore the new ideas they embody, need to be assessed, and the character of this assessment will determine the speed and direction of the system’s adaptation. For example, the officers can be expected to adjust to the rules established by personnel and policy makers, who must avoid making changes too rapidly or slowly, can identify the coevolutionary character of this dynamic. #RandolphHarris 13 of 22

Thus a Complex Adaptive Systems perspective generates a systematically interrelate set of questions about the personnel management area. These are questions that arise, as we noted previously, because Complex Adaptive System theory suggests general analogs for the principles of artificial selection that once fascinated Darwin. Now, behind every good scheme to encourage cooperation is usually some mechanism to punish cheaters. Social and political cohesion of a nation may deter a country from cheating because of the dear of ostracism. Other kinds of punishment arise. The short-term gain from cheating seems small in comparison with the subsequent costs. However, even the slightest fear of collapse of two nation’s mutual trust should be enough to keep the two competitors abiding by the agreement. Trust can break down for all sort of reasons. Only in an ongoing relationship is there an ability to punish, and thus a stick to motivate cooperation. A collapse of cooperation carries an automatic cost in the form of a loss of future profits. If this cost is large enough, cheating will be deterred and cooperation sustained. Using the principle of looking ahead and reasoning back, we see that cooperation must end when there is no longer any time left to punish. Yet neither wants to left cooperating while the other cheats. If ever someone cooperate, then someone must get stuck in the end. Since neither is willing to play the fool, cooperation never gets started. This is true no matter how long the game is, provided the end is known. Let us loo at this argument a little more carefully. Right from the start, both players should look ahead to predict the last play. #RandolphHarris 14 of 22

On this last play, there will be no future to consider, and the dominant strategy is to cheat. The outcome of the last play is a foregone conclusion. Since there is no way to affect the last play of the game, the penultimate play effectively becomes the last one to consider. Once again, cheating is a dominant strategy. The reason is that the play in the next-to-last period has no effect on the strategies chosen in the final period. Thus the penultimate period can be considered in isolation. For any period in isolation, cheating is a dominant strategy. Now the play of the final two periods can be take as a given. Cooperating early on will not help, as both players are resigned to cheat in the final two periods. Hence, the third-to-last period is effectively the past one to consider. The same argument applies and cheating is a dominant strategy. This argument unwinds all the way back, so that there is no cooperation even in the first play. The logic of this argument is impeccable, and yet in the real World we find episodes of successful cooperation. There are various ways to explain this. One is that all actual games of this kind are repeated only a finite number of times, there is always the possibility that the relationship will go on. Then the players have some incentive to sustain the cooperation for the sake of such future contingencies; if this incentive is large enough, the cooperation will persist. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

Another explanation is that the World contains some “nice” people who will cooperate no matter what the material advantages of cheating may be. Now suppose you are not so nice. If you behaved true to your type in a finitely repeated game of prisoners’ dilemma, you would start cheating right away. That would reveal your nature to the other players. To hide the truth (at least for a while) you have to behave nicely. Why would you want to do that? Supposed you started by acting nicely. Then the other player would think it possible that you are one of the few nice people around. There are real gains to be had by cooperating for a while, and the other player would plan to reciprocate your niceness to achieve these gains. That helps you, too. Of course you are planning to sneak in a defection near the end of the game, just as the other player is. However, you two can still have an initial phase of mutually beneficial cooperation. This while each side is waiting to take advantage of the other, both are benefiting from this mutual deception. A third qualification to the emergence of trust in a repeated prisoners’ dilemma is that the gains from cheating take place before the costs of the breakdown of cooperation occur. Therefore the relative importance of the two depends on the relative importance of the present versus the future. In business contexts, current and future profits are compared using an appropriate interest rate to discount the future. In politics, the judgement of present versus future is more subjective, but it seems that time beyond the next election counts for very little. This makes cooperation hard to achieve. #RandolphHarris 16 of 22

Even in business, when times are bad, the whole industry is on the verge of collapse, and the management feels that there is no tomorrow, competition may become more fierce than in normal times. Similarly, the needs of war made current profits more important to Iran and Iraq, and contributed to the difficulties of OPEC. We have already seen how molecular manufacturing can provide clean solar energy without paving over desert ecosystems, and how clean energy and common materials can be turned into abundant, efficient goods, also cleanly. With care, sources of chemical pollution—even of excess carbon dioxide—can, step by step, be eliminated. This includes the pollutants responsible for acid rain, as well as ozone-destroying gases, greenhouse gases, oil spills, and toxic wastes. In each case, the story is about the same. Acid rain mostly results from burning dirty fuels containing sulfur, and from burning cleaner fuels in a dirty way, producing nitrogen oxides. We have seen how molecular manufacturing can make solar cells inexpensive enough and rugged enough to use as road surfaces. With green wealth, we can make clean fuels from solar energy, air, and water; consuming these fuels in clean nanomechanical systems would just return to their air exactly the materials taken from it, along with a little water vapor. Fuels are made, fuels are consumed, and the cycle produces no net pollution. With inexpensive solar fuels, coal and petroleum can be replaced, ignored, left in the ground. When petroleum is obsolete, with will stop sending our money to the Middle East, there will be no more oil spills. #RandolphHarris 17 of 22

The greenhouse gas of greatest concern is carbon dioxide, and its main source is the burning of fossil fuels. The above steps would end this. The release of other gases, such as the chloroflluorocarbons (CFCs) used in foaming plastics, is often a side effect of primitive manufacturing processes: foaming plastic will hardly be a popular activity in an era of molecular manufacturing. These materials can be replaced or controlled—and they include the gases most responsible for ozone depletion. The chief threats to the ozone layer are those same CFCs used as refrigerants and solvents. Molecular manufacturing will use solvents sparingly (mostly water), and can recycle them without dumping any. CFC refrigerants can be replaced even with current technology, at a cost; with nanotechnology, that cost will be negligible. Toxic wastes generally consist of harmless atoms arranged into noxious molecules; the same is true of sewage. With inexpensive energy and equipment able to work at the molecular level, these wastes can be converted into harmless forms. Many need never be produced in the first place. Other toxic wastes contain toxic elements, such as lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. These elements come from the ground, and are best returned to the location and condition in which they were found. With nanotechnology, moreover, there will be little reason to dig them up in the first place. Nanotechnology will be able to break materials down to simple molecules and build them back again. Need it be said that this will permit complete recycling? #RandolphHarris 18 of 22

It is fair to say that eliminating these sources of pollution would be a major improvement. There does not seem to be much more to say, aside from the usual caveats: “Not immediately,” “Not all at once,” and “Not on a predictable schedule.” No one wants to make and dump wastes; they want something else, and get wastes s byproducts. With a better way to get what people want, dumping wastes can be stopped. People will also be able to get what they want while reducing their resource consumption. As materials grow stronger, they can be used more sparingly. As machines grown more perfect—in their motors, bearings, insulation, computers—they will grow more efficient. Materials will be needed to make things, and energy will be needed to run them, but in smaller amounts. What is more, nanotechnology will be the ultimate recycling technology. Objects can be make extremely durable, decreasing the need for recycling alternatively, objects can be made genuinely biodegradable, designed at the molecular level to decompose after use, leaving humans and mineral grit; alternatively, they can be made of microscopic snap-together pieces, making objects as recyclable as structures built and rebuilt out of a child’s blocks; finally, even objects not designed for recycling can be taken apart into simple molecules and recycled regardless. Each approach has different advantages and costs, and each makes current garbed problems go way. #RandolphHarris 19 of 22

Another key factor shifting power on the job has to do with the concept of interchangeability. One of the most important innovations of the industrial revolution was based on the idea of interchangeable parts. However, workers, to came to be regarded as interchangeable. Much of the relative powerlessness of the industrial working class derived precisely from this fact. So long as jobs required particular skills, and workers could be trained in a few minutes to do some rote task, one worker was as good as another. Especially in periods of labour surplus, wages would drop and workers, even when unionized, had little bargaining power. A “reserve army of the unemployed” usually was standing by to step into any available jobs. By contrast, as pointed out in the past, the jobless today cannot step into available jobs unless they happen to have the right mixture of skills at the right moment. Moreover, as the knowledge content of work rises, jobs grow more individualized—id est, less interchangeable. Knowledge workers are less and less replaceable. The tools are used differently by each knowledge worker. One engineer uses the computer differently from the next. One market analyst analyzes things one way; the next is different. When a worker leaves, either the company must find another with matching skills, which becomes mathematically harder (and more costly) as the variety of skills increases, or else it must train a new person, which is also expensive. Hence, the costs of replacing anyone individual grow, and his or her bargaining power rises correspondingly. #RandolphHarris 20 of 22

The boss of a gain project team in the defense industry puts it this way: “Years ago you might have everybody doing the same thing…Today it is different. Now if we lose somebody, it takes six months to train an individual to understand our system.” Furthermore, because work is team-based, “When we pluck an individua out, the whole team becomes dysfunctional.” The net result of such changes is that companies tend to use fewer but better-paid workers than in the past, and in the fast-growing, leading-edge industries, the old authoritarian command structure is phasing out, replaced by a new, more egalitarian or collegial style of work. Seen in its historical context, this represents a significant shift of power in the workplace. Many Non Profit Organization (NGOs) that still operate at local and national levels can be expected before long to make their presence felt at the global level—just as environmentalists, feminists and civil rights organizations began locally, then moved up to the national scale before placing their issues on the World addenda. Today, for example, the rights of homosexuals are fiercely contested inside many nations. As gender rations change in many countries, with male babies outnumbering baby girls 120:100 in China, for example—the shortage of women is likely to promote male homosexuality. I never thought there might be a use for same sex relations, but it could be to balance out some populations. In country after country, gays will exit in the closet and, whether overtly or covertly, organize politically, as they already have in North American and Europe. They will then elevate the demand for gay rights, including the legislation of gay marriage, which President Biden recently signed into law, and is now making its way to the global stage. #RandolphHarris 21 of 22

Struggles over a raft of twenty-first-century moral issues will also give birth to entirely new NGOs. They will arise to gain support for research into “nano—diseases” or o fight for or against the neuro-manipulation of human intelligence. When humans are eventually cloned—as lively, despite attempt to ban it—we may see global movements organized to deny or protect the rights of clones. There have been rumors of actual human clones, but then these accusations are disputed. Tomorrow we will have many more powerful ways to alter both bodies and brains with the help of genetics and science generally. Just as academic, economic, political and other boundaries are breaking down, so, too, are the boundaries that define what it means to be human. How much can we alter a body—chemically, biologically, genetically or mechanically—before it its no longer “human” enough to merit equal treatment with humans? Tomorrow NGOs will battle globally over what separates a human from a “transhuman” and what rights each should have. So profound are the moral issues that will soon face us, and so emotive, that we can easily picture them giving rise to new fanatic movements and becoming yet another source of global terror. Collectively, even now, NGOs form a pot of boiling passions, ideas, early warnings and proposed social innovations, good and bad. They are already able to organize and act more rapidly than governments and their bureaucracies (another important example of de-synchronization). What they do will have enormous, largely unexpected impacts on the production and distribution of wealth in the global economy. And that leads us to what might be regarded as the biggest NGOs of all: Religions. #RandolphHarris 22 of 22

CRESLEIGH HAVENWOOD

Lincoln, CA | from the high $600s

Now Selling!

Residence Two a spacious single story home with over 2,600 square feet of home thoughtfully designed to maximize every available foot of space.

Three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three car garage all come included in this home. The layout of an entertainer’s dream with large kitchen and working island, dining room connected through the butler’s pantry, and a large great room overlooking the ample rear yard.

Best of all, each Cresleigh home comes fully equipped with an All Ready connected home! This smart home package comes included with your home and features great tools including: video door bell and digital deadbolt for the front door, connect home hub so you can set scenes and routines to make life just a little easier.

Two smart switches and USB outlets are also included, plus we’ll gift you a Google Home Hub and Google Home Mini! https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/quick-move-homesite-60/