An individual has to compete with millions of others, and since there are so many of them, one solitary individual often feels that one just does not make much difference! There is a feeling that individually and as a people we are fighting a losing battle to maintain our own uniqueness and that there appears to be no end in sight. When a face engagement exhausts the situation—all persons present being accredited participants in the encounter—the problem of maintaining orderly activity will be largely internal to the encounter: the allocation of talking time (if the engagement is a spoken one); the maintenance of something innocuous to talk or act upon (this being describable as the problem of “safe supplies”); the inhibition of hostility; and so forth. When there are persons present who are not participants in the engagement, we know that inevitably they will be in a position to learn something about the encounter as a whole is conducted. When a face engagement must be carried on in a situation containing bystanders, I will refer to it as accessible. Whenever a face engagement is accessible to nonparticipants there is a fully shared and unshared participation. All persons in the gathering at large will be immersed in a common pool of unfocused interaction, each person, by one’s mere presence, manner, and appearance, transmitting some information about oneself to everyone in the situation, and each person present receiving like information from all the others present, at least in so far as one is willing to make use of one’s receiving opportunities. #RandolphHarris 1 of 22

It is this possibility of widely available communication, and the regulations arising to control this communication, that transforms a mere physical region into the locus of a sociologically relevant entity, the situation. However, above and beyond this fully common participation, the ratified members of a particular engagement will in addition be participating in interaction of the focused kind, where a message conveyed by one person is meant to make a specific contribution to a matter at hand, and is usually addressed to a particular recipient, while the other members of the encounter, and only these others, are meant to receive it too. Thus, there will be a fully shared basis of unfocused interaction underlying one or more partially shared bases of focused interaction. The difference between participation in the unfocused interaction in the situation at large and participation in the focused interaction in a face engagement is easy to sense but difficult to follow out in detail. Questions such as choice of participants for the encounter or sound level of voices have relevance for the situation as a while, because anyone in the situation will be (and will be considered to be) in a position to witness these aspects of the face engagement, which are the unfocused part of the communication flowing from it. However, the specific meanings of particular statements appropriately conveyed within a face engagement will not be available to the situation at large, although, if a special effort at secrecy be made, this furtiveness, as a general aspect of what is going on, may in fact become quite widely perceivable and an important item in the unfocused interaction that is occurring. #RandolphHarris 2 of 22

That part of the communication occurring in a face engagement that could not be conveyed through mediating channels is situational; but this situational aspect of the encounter becomes part of the unfocused communication in the situation at large only when some of the grosser improprieties, such as shouting, whispering, and broad physical gestures, occur. In considering accessible engagements, it is convenient to take a vantage point within such an encounter, and to describe the issues from this point of view. The persons present in the gathering at large can then be divided up into participants and bystanders, depending on whether or not they are official members of the engagement in question; and the issues to be considered can be divided up into obligations owned the encounter and obligations owed the gathering at large (and behind the gathering, the social occasion of which is an expression). In order for the engagement to maintain its boundaries and integrity, and to avoid being engulfed by the gathering, both participant and bystander will have to regulate their conduct appropriately. And yet even while cooperating to maintain the privacy of the given encounter, both participant and bystander will be obligated to protect the gathering at large, demonstrating that in certain ways all those within the situation stand together, undivided by their differentiating participation. Man is man because he is capable of reflective thought. Among the animal kingdom man alone has yet been able to demonstrate that he can cognitively consider his own existence, his own ending, his own limitations, and his own strengths. #RandolphHarris 3 of 22

Perhaps the limitations of man’s communicative abilities keep him from knowing any more than he does about the talents of other members of the animal kingdom; nevertheless, what he is sure of is that man can perform these and other, higher acts. With man being so superior, why is it that when we are trying to change people, we do not use meat, instead of a whip? Why do we not use praise instead of condemnation? Let us praise even the slightest improvement. That inspires the other person to keep on improving. Praise is like sunlight to the warm human spirit; we cannot flower and grow without it. And yet, while most of us are only too ready to apply to others the cold wind of criticism, we are somehow reluctant to give our fellow the warm sunshine of praise. When you have a hard day or make a mistake, you might feel discouraged or bad about yourself. However, anyone can look back on their own lives and see where a few words of praise have sharply changed their future. If something goes wrong and you are feeling bad, try writing yourself an encouraging note! What happened: I did not do well on a test. Encouraging words: I can keep trying and learning. I will not give up. Keep trying. Keep loving. Keep trusting. Keep believing. Keep growing. History is replete with striking illustrations of the sheer witchery of praise. For example, many years ago a boy of ten was working in a factory in Naples. He longed to be a singer, but his first teacher discouraged him. “You can’t sing,” he said. “You haven’t any voice at all. It sounds like the wind in the shutters.” #RandolphHarris 4 of 22

However, his mother, a poor peasant woman, put her arms about him and praised him and told him she knew he could sing, she could already see an improvement, and she went barefoot in order to save money to pay for his music lessons. That peasant mother’s praise and encouragement changed that boy’s life. His name was Enrico Caruso, and he became the greatest and most famous opera singer of his age. Many of you may not know this, but a lot of you and your parents are successful because your grandparents and great grandparents did things like go without shoes and worked hard so they could ensure their descendants would not have to miss a meal or go without a roof over their heads. So be proud of who you are and be thankful that someone had the opportunity to help you succeed. And next time you think about blowing money, even say, $30, think about how many hours it took you to make that money, and perhaps save it or put it in a Roth IRA so you have more money for retirement, or for your child’s college fund. You do not want your offspring to grow up and know the pangs of hunger. The praise, the recognition that one receives through an accomplishment can change one’s whole life. For if one does not get encouragement, one might spend one’s life never knowing what he or she could have accomplished. Use praise instead of criticism. When criticism is minimized and praise emphasized, the good things people do will be reinforced and the poorer things will atrophy for lack of attention. Many people who are praised for the good things they do end up going out of their way to do things right. #RandolphHarris 5 of 22

And even better, when praise is specific, it comes across as sincere—not something the other person may be saying just to make one feel good. Remember, we all crave appreciation and recognition, and will do almost anything to get it. However, nobody wants insincerity. Nobody wants flattery. If you and I will inspire the people with whom we come in contact to a realization of the hidden treasures they possess, we can do far more than change people. We can literally transform them. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within one’s limits. One possesses powers of various sorts which one habitually fails to use. Everyone possess powers of various sorts which one habitually fails to use; and one of these powers you are probably not using to the fullest extent is your magic ability to praise people and inspire them with a realization of their latent possibilities. Abilities wither under criticism; they blossom under encouragement. To become a more effective leader of people, be hearty and sincere in your approbation and lavish in your praise. Promoting a sense of individual worth is basic to effective psychotherapy and counseling, to effective public education, to marriages, and other love relationships, and certainly to child-rearing. People who are accepted and loved and treated as worthwhile have a greater tendency to develop more fully in their selfhood, to engage themselves more fully in their tasks and chores, and, if production is any kind of measure, to turn out more of whatever we might like from them. #RandolphHarris 6 of 22

“Is a bored man free from identification?” Boredom is identification with oneself, with false personality, with something in oneself. Identification is an almost permanent state for us. It is the chief manifestation of false personality, and because of this we cannot get out of the false personality. You must be able to see this state apart from yourself, separated from yourself, and that can only be done by trying to become more conscious, trying to remember yourself, trying to be aware of yourself. Only when you become more aware of yourself are you able to struggle with manifestations like identification and lying, and with false personality itself. All work has to be on false personality. If you do any other work and leave this, it is useless work and you will fail very soon. As with negative emotions, lying and all imagination, false personality cannot exist without identification. You must understand that false personality is a combination of all lies, features and “I”s which can never be useful in any sense or in any way, either in life or in the work—like negative emotions. “If false personality entirely based on negative emotions?” There are many things besides negative emotions in false personality. For instance, in false personality there are always bad mental habits—wrong thinking. False personality, or parts of false personality, is always based on wrong thinking. #RandolphHarris 7 of 22

At the same time, if you were to take negative emotions away from false personality it would collapse; it could not exist without them. “So all negative emotions spring from false personality?” Yes certainly. How could it be otherwise? False personality is to speak a special organ for negative emotions, producing negative emotions. You remember that I said that there is no real center for negative emotions. False personality acts as a center for negative emotions. “How can one deal with the conceit of false personality?” You must know all its features first and then you must think rightly. When you think rightly you will find ways to deal with it. You must not justify it; it lives on justification, even glorification of all its features. At almost every moment of out life, even in quiet moments, we are always justifying it, considering it legitimate and finding all possible excuses for it. This is what is meant by wrong thinking. So first of all you must know false personality, and then you must think rightly about it. You must know what it is—place it so to speak—this is the first step. And, as I have said, you must realize that all identification, all considering, all lies to oneself, all weaknesses, all personality. In addition, all forms of self-will belong to false personality, so sooner or later you have to sacrifice them. “Did you say that all our likes and dislikes are in false personality?” Most of them are. And even those which did not belong to it originally, which have real roots, all pass through false personality. #RandolphHarris 8 of 22

[Somebody asked if one had to know the whole of false personality in order to struggle against it because it seemed to one that one could only know little bits of it.] One most know it. It is like a special breed of bird. If you do not know it you cannot speak about it. If you have seen it you can speak about it. To see only bits, as you say, is quite enough. Every small part of it is the same colour. If you see this bird once, you will always know it. It sings in a special way; it walks in a special way. Humans are capable of understanding many of the things that happen to us, and unable to comprehend many others though we can still experience them. The lacks of comprehension are due partly to our attitudes or mind-sets, which limit our understanding to things that our word symbols can define or point toward. Partly the limitations are due to a lack of development of our fullest functioning. As self-aware beings, able to look objectively at our own experiences, we find ourselves confused and anxious at times, overjoyed and ecstatic at others. We can search for many things: happiness, wisdom, perfection, enlightenment, identity, meaning. We can be effective in dealing wholly with the life we live, and we can attain some measures of significance. In the “search for significance,” it is often a struggle, for life certainly is not a bed of roses. So, just being alive is a blessing, but also a “struggle” and full of ordinary everyday risks. However, to seek the difficult, to search for the challenging, to demonstrate human effectiveness, in short, to be significant, is the biggest struggle of all. #RandolphHarris 9 of 22

One of the first strategic lessons in tennis is not to commit to a direction until the last possible fraction of a second. Otherwise, the opponent can exploit your guess and hit the ball the other way. However, even when one cannot observe the opponent’s move, there is a great advantage to predicting it. If the server always aims to the receiver’s backhand, the receiver will prepare his or her grip and start to move toward that side in anticipation, and consequently will be more effective in the return of serve. The server, therefore, attempts to be unpredictable in order to prevent the receiver from successfully second-guessing one’s aim. Conversely, the receiver must not exclusively favour one side or the other in making one’s initial move. Unlike matching fingers, players should not equate unpredictability with even odds. Players can improve their performance by systematically favouring one side, although in an unpredictable way. For correctness, let us think of a pair of players with particular skills. The receiver’s forehand is somewhat stronger. If one anticipates correctly, one’s forehand return will be successful 90 percent of the time, while an anticipated backhand return will be successfully only 60 percent of the time. Of course, the returner fares worse if one starts to move to one side and the service goes to the other. If one goes to the backhand side while the service is to one’s forehand, one can shift and return successfully only 30 percent of the time. The other way around, one’s chances are 20 percent. #RandolphHarris 10 of 22

The server wants to keep the successful return percentage as low as possible; the returner has exactly the opposite interest. Before the match, the two players choose their game plans. What is the best strategy for each side? If the server always aims one’s serves toward the forehand, the receiver will anticipate the move to one’s forehand and successfully return the serves 90 percent of the time. If the server always aims one’s serves to the backhand, the receiver will anticipate the move toward one’s backhand and will return 60 percent of the serves successfully. Only by mixing one’s aim can the server reduce the receiver’s effectiveness. One keeps the receiver guessing and therefore unable to take full advantage of anticipating the correct position. Suppose the server tosses an imaginary coin just before each serve, and aims to the forehand or backhand according to whether the coin shows heads or tails. Now look what happens when the receiver moves to the forehand position. This guess will be correct only half the time. When correct, the forehand return is successful 90 percent of the time, and when the move to the forehead is an incorrect guess, the receiver’s successful return tale falls to 20 percent. One’s overall success rate is (1/2)90% + (1/2)20% = 55%. By a similar argument, a move toward the backhand leads to successful returns (1/2)60% + (1/2)30% = 45% of the time. Given the 50:50 mixing rule of the server, the receiver chooses the options best from one’s perspective. One should move toward one’s forehand, and the percentage of successful returns will be 55 percent. #RandolphHarris 11 of 22

For the server, this is already an improvement over the outcome when one aims one’s serve the same way all the time. For comparison, the receiver’s success rate is 90 percent or 60 percent if the server aims exclusively toward the forehand or backhand serves, respectively. Predicting business success is a lot like the example of the tennis match. All messages move through channels. However, some channels are more equal than others. All executives know that the “routing slip” which determines who gets to see a memo is a tool of power. Keeping someone “out of the loop” is a way of clipping one’s wings. Sometimes the person kept out of the loop is the person on top. When John H. Kelly was the U.S.A. ambassador in Beirut, he sent messages direct to the White House National Security Council, using the facilities of the CIA, rather than through the normal State Department chain of command. This meant he was end-running his own boss, Secretary of State George P. Shultz. Kelly, while in Washington, also met numerous times with Oliver North and other NSC officials in connection with their plan to trade arms to Iran in return for hostages—a plan Shultz had advised against. Shultz was so furious when he learned about the Beirut incident that he blasted Kelly publicly, and formally prohibited State Department personnel from communicating outside departmental channels without express instructions from either oneself of from the President. It is unlikely, however, that any such order will ever wipe out the practice- Back-channels are too useful to power-shifters. #RandolphHarris 12 of 22

One hearing of this case, Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House Intelligence committee, blurted, “I don’t think I have ever heard of that happening before—totally bypassing an American Secretary of State.” Irritation may have fogged his memory. A precisely parallel case of back-channeling took place when the American ambassador to Pakistan communicated secretly with the White House National Security Council, again bypassing a Secretary of State. In this earlier case, the back channel was set up by Henry Kissinger, then serving as head of the NSC. Kissinger used it in arranging President Nixon’s secret mission to China, which resulted in restoring relations between the two countries. Kissinger was an enthusiastic back-channeler, eager to keep information out of the official bureaucratic system and in his own hands. Claiming he had the President’s approval, he once invited William J. Porter, the U.S.A. ambassador to South Korea, to communicate directly with him without going through Porter’s boss, William Rogers, then Secretary of State. Porter’s diary notes his reaction: “Here’s the Nixon-Kissinger secret diplomatic service shaping up, secret codes and all…If the President agreed to create a super-net of ambassadors under his security adviser without the knowledge of the Secretary of State something new was happening in American history…I concluded that I was just a country boy and I would keep my head down.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 22

When the SALT treaty was being negotiated with the Soviets, the America team in Geneva was headed by Gerard C. Smith. However, Kissinger and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff set up a private channel so that certain staff people could communicate with the directly without Smith’s knowledge. Kissinger also maintained a back-channel to Moscow, again bypassing the State Department, sending messages to the Politburo through Anatoli Dobrynin, rather than through the appropriate State Department specialists or their counterparts in the Soviet Foreign Ministry. Only a few people in Moscow—in the Politburo, the secretariat, and the Soviet diplomatic corps—were ever aware that messages were being passed back and forth this way. The most celebrated—and perhaps most fateful—use of the Back-Channel Tactic helped prevent World War III. This occurred during the Cuban missile standoff. Formal messages ricocheted back and forth like a tennis match between President Kennedy and Soviet leader Khrushchev while the World held its breath. Russian missiles in Cuba were pointed at American soil. Kennedy orders a naval blockade. It was at that moment of high tension that Khrushchev sent Aleksandr Fomin, his KGB chief in Washington, to call on an American newsman, John Scali, whom Fomin had earlier met. On the furth day of the crisis, with danger escalating by the moment, Fomin asked Scali whether he thought the United States of America would agree not to invade Cuba if Soviets pulled out their missiles and bombers. That message, relayed by the journalist to the White Hose, proved to be a key turning point in the crisis. #RandolphHarris 14 of 22

However, even such uses of Back-Channel Tactic are simple by comparison with the more sophisticated method that might be called the Double-Channel Tactic—the sending of alternative or contradictory messages through two different channels to test reactions or to sow confusion and conflict among the recipients. Twice during negotiations over the antiballistic missile system, Kissinger and Soviet Foreign Minister Alexei Gromyko each relied on a back-channel to bypass their own normal chain of command. During these talks, in May 1971 and April 1972, Kissinger had reason to suspect that the Russians were using the Double-Channel Tactic against him. Years later Arkady Shevchenko, former Gromyko assistant defected to the United States of America and wrote in his autobiography that Kissinger’s suspicion had been unwarranted. It was not a deliberate ploy but confusion, arising because one of the Soviets had been “operating on outdated instructions from Moscow, knowing no better.” Whether or not this is correct is irrelevant here. What is clear is that Back- and Double-channeling are much-used techniques to shift power. There is also a dazzling variety of games played at the receiving end of the communication process. The most familiar of these is the Access Tactic—meaning the attempt to control access to one’s superior, and thereby to control the information one receives. Top executives and lowly secretaries alike know this game well. Access conflicts are so common they hardly merit further comment. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

Then there is the Need-to-Know Tactic, much favoured by intelligence agencies, terrorists, and underground political movements, by means of which data, information, and knowledge are compartmentalized and carefully kept away from all but specified receivers with a validated “need to know.” The exact converse of this is the Need-Not-to-Know Tactic. A former Cabinet Secretary in the White House explains it this way: “Should I, as a White House official, know something? Does knowing it mean I have to take action? Cn the person telling me then go to someone else and say, ‘I’ve already discussed this with the White House’? That could put me in a pissing contest between two other players I don’t know anything about and have nothing to do with…There was a lot I didn’t want to know about.” The Need-Not-to-Know Tactic is also used by subordinate to protect a superior, leaving the leader in a position to claim ignorance if things go sour. During the Irangate investigation a joke that went the rounds in Washington made the point. QUESTION: How many White House aides does it take to screw in  light bulb? ANSWER: None. They like to keep Reagan in the dark. By the same token, there is also a Forced-to-know Tactic, more popularly knowns as the CYA, or “cover your assets,” memo. Here the power player makes sure that another player has been notified of something, so that if things fall apart, a recipient can share the blame. Variations are numerous, but for every game played with sources, channels, and receivers, there is a multitude of ploys and stratagems directed at the message itself. #RandolphHarris 16 of 22

Credit attribution, though difficult and necessarily imperfect, can nonetheless be designed to help harness complexity. As we have already discussed, context preservation could be advantageous if the cause of apparent success is not fully understood. This indicates a general problem. Since Complex Adaptive Systems are inherently difficult to understand or predict, it follows that attribution of credit in selection will often be difficult and prone to mistakes. If it were feasible, the best response would be not to make mistakes in credit attribution. Because such mistakes can be very costly, vast bodies of academic knowledge and expensive social apparatus have been created to reduce them. Systems of logic, methods of statistics, and philosophies of science are all aimed at improving the extent to which our conclusions follow from our premises and evidence. There re public debates, professional review boards, and courts of law. All contribute to limiting the mistakes in attribution of credit that may drive selection processes. Where these tools for improving inference are cost-effective, we certainly believe they should be used, and we applaud the work that maintains and extends them. However, despite all the effort put into these valuable resources, totally accurate attribution of credit is often infeasible. Factors that make it easy to learn appropriate lessons from the experience accumulated in making a series of choices: clear rewards for the appropriate choices, repeated opportunities for observation or for practice, small deliberation costs at each choice so that frequent choices are easier, good feedback on the results of choices, unchanging circumstances that keep inferences valid, and a simple context that can be effectively analyzed. #RandolphHarris 17 of 22

As you know, changing causes problems. Molecular manufacturing offers the possibility of drastic change, a change in the means of production more fundamental than the introduction of industry, or of agriculture. Our economic and social structures have evolved around assumptions that will no longer be valid. How will we handle the changes in the way we work and live? Nanotechnology will have wide-ranging impact in many areas, including economic, industrial, and social patterns. What do historical patterns in similar circumstances tell us about the future? Any powerful technology with broad applications revolutionizes lives, and nanotechnology will be no exception. Depending on one’s point of view, this may sound exciting or it may sound disturbing, but it most certainly does not sound comfortable. In comparison to many projections of the twenty-first century, though, nanotechnology may lead to comparatively comfortable change. The changes most often projected—for a future not including nanotechnology—have been ecological disaster, resource shortages, economic collapses, and a slide back into misery. The rise of nanotechnology will offer an alternative—green wealth—but that alternative will bring great changes from the patterns of recent decades. Times of rapid technological change are disconcerting. For most of humanity’s existence, people lived in a stable pattern. They learned to live as their parents had lived—by hunting and gathering, later by farming—and changes were small and gradual. A knowledge of the past was a reliable guide to the future. #RandolphHarris 18 of 22

Sudden changes, when they did occur, were apt to be ruinous: invasions of natural disasters. These sudden changes were fought or repaired or survived as best one could. Making major changes by choice was rare, and radical innovations were generally or the worse: the old ways at least ensured the ancestors’ survival, the new might not. This made cultures conservative. It is only natural that there be efforts to resist change, but before undertaking such an effort, it makes sense to examine the record of what works and what does not. The only examples of successful change fighters have been communities that have created and maintained barricades to isolate themselves from the outside World socially, culturally, and technologically. For the two centuries before 1854, Japan turned its back on the outside World, following a deliberate policy of seclusion. The leaders of Albania restricted contacts for many years; only recently have they started to open up. Isolation attempts have worked better on a smaller scale, when participation is voluntary rather than decreed by government. Today, within the Hawaiian island chain, the tiny private owned island of Niihau, sixteen miles long and six miles wide, is deliberately kept as a preserve of the nineteenth-century Hawaiian lifestyle. #RandolphHarris 19 of 22

Over two hundred full-blooded Hawaiians there speak the Hawaiian language and use no telephones, plumbing, television, and no electricity (except in school). The Amish Pennsylvania have no surrounding ocean to help maintain their isolation, but rely instead on tight social, religious, and technological rules aimed at keeping external technology and culture out, and themselves grouped in; those who leave the fold are excluded. Rumspringa is a bad idea because you are letting teenagers go out into the English World alone and there are many evils out there that they are unaware of. And people can see they are different—innocent and pure—and will prey on them. On a national scale, attempts to take only one part of the package—whether social or technological—have not done well at all. For decades, the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc nations welcomed Western Technology but attempted tight restrictions on the passage of people, ideas, and goods. Yet illegal music, thoughts, literature, and other knowledge still crept in—as they do into the Islamic countries. Fighting technological change in society at large has had little success, where that change gave some large group what it wanted. The most famous fighters of technological change—the Luddites—were unsuccessful. They smashed “automated” textile machinery that was replacing old hand looms during the early industrial revolution in England, but people wanted affordable clothing, and smashing equipment in one place just moved the business elsewhere. #RandolphHarris 20 of 22

Change has sometimes been postponed, as when a later group, under the banner of “Captain Swing,” smashed hundreds of threshing machines in a wide area of southern England in 1830. They succeeded keeping the old, labour-intensive ways of harvesting for over a generation. In previous centuries, when the World was less tightly connected by international trade, communications and transportation, delays of years and even decades could be enforced through violence or legal maneuvers such as tariffs, trade barriers, regulations, or outright banning. Attempting to stop or postpone change is less successful today, when technology moves internationally almost as easily as people do—and human travel is so easy that 25 million people cross the Atlantic each year. Change fighters find that the problems they create mount with time. Products made using the old, high-cost techniques are uncompetitive. There is no way to bring back the “old jobs”; they no longer make sense. However, the old habits die hard, and these same responses to the prospect of technological change continue today—ignoring it, denying it, and opposing it. Societies that have fought change, as Britain did, have fallen behind in a cloud of coal smoke. Why did the Luddites respond violently? Perhaps their response can be attributed to three factors: First, the change in their lives was sudden and radical; second, it affected a large group of people at one time, in one area; and third, in a World unprepared for rapid technological change, there was no safety net to be unemployed. #RandolphHarris 21 of 22

While local economies might have been able to absorb a trickle of hungry laid-off workers, they lacked the size and diversity needed to offer other employment options quickly to large numbers of unemployed. In the twenty-first century, however, societies have of necessity become somewhat better adapted to change. This has been a matter of necessity, because sluggish communities soon fall behind. In the ancient days of peasant stability, there was no need for institutions like Consumer Reports to study and rate new products, or regulators like the Environmental Protection Agency to watch over new hazards. We developed the needs, and we developed the institutions. These mechanisms represent important adaptations, not so much to the technologies of the twenty-first century, but to the increasing change in technology during the twenty-first century. There is great room for improvement, but they can perhaps provide a basis for adapting to the next century as well. Even with the best of institutions to cushion shocks and discourage abuse, there will be problems. They very act of solving problems of production—of increasing wealth—will created problems of economic change. Perhaps Darwin was right to emphasize the importance played in nature by competition. Darwin told us that those species survived best which could adapt to their environment, and he let loose a phrase which he later regretted: “the survival of the fittest,” and when applied to social interactions of man—this philosophy is already seen to be true. #RandolphHarris 22 of 22

Cresleigh Homes

Let’s imagine a day in the life at your #PlumasRanch home at #CresleighMeadows Residence 2…https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-meadows-at-plumas-ranch/quick-move-homesite-48/

The sun shines in the windows while you tidy up the living room, then lights up your lunch meal prep at the spacious island. 😎

Finally, you enjoy a great night’s sleep in the cozy bedroom. This could be your life, too; picture yourself at #CresleighHomes!