Overpopulated and over-proselytized, The Earth’s land which houses the generation’s of oscillating cities and suburbs began to erode as quickly as quickly as the illusion has. The green lawns and pavement echo with love’s demise. The discarded remains of “youthquake” were now street-smart hustlers. Those left behind after the COVID pandemic can only anesthetize themselves from the World’s mourning and especially, the confusion at hand. The whitewashing euphoria of a pre-tyrannical America turned into an interment camp left behind faces that were convoluted, masked, and void of expression. All that remained was paranoia, phobia and frustration. Hate became the first turned-on revelation. The masses continued to recruit mask police to make sure everyone had on a mask, even if it was dirty and had been worn several times. Men, women, and children were starving in the street. Minds and bodies have become maimed as we watched a much larger scaled model of 9/11. Now someone had to have an answer. The remnants of those evaporated souls awaited remedy by a savior. In the coming years, saviors appeared to supply the demand: pimps, pushers, scientologists, yang, yin, payday loans. Well dressed, Jesuses in silk suits, draped in gold jewelry and driving brand new BMWs and Cadillac Escalades. The Process Church of the Final Judgment. The witches from “Charmed,” who claimed “In love there is no wrong.” Anyone who posed an answer to a perennial question was God-for-a-day. The preachers pontificated, “To all who would know, I am the truth and I speak the truth. In all humility I tell you that I am the greatest an in the World and it does not trouble me in the least. I am going to attack everything you believe in, everything you cling to and put this New Man in you. I am going to shed light on your dark truths.” #RandolphHarris 1 of 22

The preachers when on to announce, “Love does not exist, but only in rare feeling moments. Therefore, wives, cleave unto your husbands and honor his wishes. For love is something you become after there is no more you. This takes complete sacrifice of the personality, mind, body, heart and soul to Jesus Christ. You must give up everything you want for yourself. All these weaklings who are not clinging to God for support are just putting off their own crucifixions. And you must be reborn in Jesus Christ. Amen.” The COVID pandemic presciently brought on this apocalyptic conundrum, regeneration for the price of self-sacrifice. Manson would have called it, “losing the ego” or “cease to exist.” Baptists translate it as being reborn. Either way, breaking oneself down to be built up again was not hard for the lost souls of Hate and Socialism. They were already broken. However, for many, the vaccine and masks took on the role of God, and to a degree, many were convinced they were. The vaccine and these masks secured themselves as a legend, a cure all. They took getting a vaccine and using a mask as a request from God Himself. These tools began to seduce the nation’s press. There was something strange about people walking around with their faces covered, and making galactic claims about the vaccine. These tools, however, answered the prayers emanating from the deathbeat of Americana. They became quit the perfect garden variety God in a materialist World turned upside-down. The vaccines and masks became the World’s universal savior as they eased most everyone’s inner torment, but the COVID measures also fostered their isolation. Many people were too full of dope and alcohol to know what was good anyone, as the Churches had shutdown, but the liquor stores and neighborhood pushers were still open for business. #RandolphHarris 2 of 22

The cities started to drain the people of their souls and financial resources with these empty slogans of “flattening the curve” and convincing them that the President would support them with “$2,000 a month stimulus checks until the pandemic was over,” and “cancel student load dept.” Yet, many Americans are left homeless, farms have gone bankrupt, cattle are starving, people had to decide to buy fuel for their cars so they could get to work or food to put on the table, as their heads got more wrinkled and their hair turned grey waiting for theses unfulfilled promises. The original intention of the reformed academies and universities was to provide a publicly respectable place—and a means of support—for theoretical men, of whom at best there are only  few in any nation, to meet, exchange their thoughts and train young persons in the ways of science. The academies and universities were to be engines in the progress of science. The right that reformers attempted to establish was for scientists to be unhindered in the use of their reason, in the areas in which they are competent, to solve the problems posed by nature. Reason and competence are to be underlined here. “Intellectual honesty,” “commitment” and that kind of thing have nothing to do with the university, belong in the arenas of religious and political struggle, only get in the way of the university’s activity, and open it to suspicion and criticism of which it has no need. Freedom of thought and freedom of speech were proposed in theory, and in the practice of serious political reformers, in order to encourage the still voice of reason in a World that had always been comminated by fanaticisms and interests. #RandolphHarris 3 of 22

How freedom of thought and speech came to mean the special encouragement and protection of fanaticism and interests is another of those miracles connected with the decay of the ideal of the rational political order. The authors of The Federalist hoped their scheme of government would result in the preponderance of reason and rational men in the United States of America. They were not particularly concerned with protecting eccentric or mad opinions or life-styles. Such protection, which we now often regard as the Founders’ central intention, is only an incidental result of the protection of reason, and it loses plausibility if reason is rejected. These authors did not respect the many religious sects or desire diversity for its own sake. The existence of many sects was permitted only to prevent the emergence of a single dominant one. The moment of the Enlightenment’s success seems also to have been the beginning of its decay. The obscuring of its intention as a result of its democratization is symptomatic of the inner difficulties of its project. That project entailed freedom for the rare theoretical men to engage in rational inquiry in rational inquiry in the small number of disciplines that treat the first principles of all things. This requires an atmosphere where the voice of reason is not drowned by the loud voices of the various “commitments” prevailing in political life. Knowledge is the goal; competence and reason are required of those who pursue it. The disciplines are philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and the science of man, meaning a political science that discerns the nature of man and the end of government. This is the academy. Dependent on it are a number of applied sciences—particularly engineering, medicine and law—that are lower in dignity and derivative in knowledge, but produce the fruits of science that benefit the unscientific and make them respectful of science. #RandolphHarris 4 of 22

Thus the advantage of the knowers, who want to pursue knowledge, and that of those who do not know, those who want to pursue their well-being, are served simultaneously, establishing a harmony between them. And thus the age-old gulf separating the wise from those who hold power is bridged, and the problem of the wise in civil society is solved. The project was unity reflecting the unity of the intelligible order of nature, its parts organized according to the order of the parts of the whole, joined together finally in a survey of the articulated whole made by the culminating science-philosophy. This project has lost its unity and is in crisis. Reason is unable to establish its unity, to decide what should be in it, to divide up the intellectual labor. It floats without compass or rudder. If the university is indeed the product of the Enlightenment and is its visible presence in modern democracy, and if Enlightenment was a political project that undertook to alter the age-old character of the relation between wisdom and power, knowledge and society, it might be suspected that the crisis of knowledge that has become politically useful—id est, the crisis of university—and the crisis of liberal democracy, the political order dependent on knowledge, have something to do with the new relationship between the two promoted by Enlightenment. I have included among the Enlightenment philosophers men like Machiavelli, Bacon, Montaigne, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, and Locke, along with the eighteenth-century thinkers like Montesquieu, Diderot and Voltaire, whose teachings are usually held to constitute the Enlightenment, because these latter were quite explicit about their debt to the originators of what the Enlightenment was in large measure only popularizing. #RandolphHarris 5 of 22

The men of the Enlightenment proper were the first whose teachings were addressed not only, or primarily, to other philosophers or potential philosophers of the same rank, and who were concerned not only with those who understand but also with changing the opinions of mankind at large. Enlightenment was the first philosophically inspired “movement,” a theoretical school that is a political force at the same time. The very word Enlightenment conveys this mixture of elements, as does Marxism, whereas Platonism and Epicureanism refer strictly to theories—which may have had this or that effect but whose essence is only theoretical. Although Plato and Aristotle had political philosophies, there is no regime to which one can point as a Platonic or an Aristotelian regime, in the sense that either thinker had founded the movement or party that actually established the regime. However, Enlightenment is certainly responsible for liberal democracy, as is Marxism for communism. Intellectual historians have frequently been too impressed by these recent events in philosophy and politics to recognize how recent they are, that they constitute a new phenomenon in both domains, and that what is most profound and interesting about Enlightenment is its radical and self-conscious break with the philosophical tradition in the mode and degree of its political activity. The scale of the electronic war rises when whole industries mobilize to do battle. Rather than individual firms, industry-wide groups are taking collective action. Such industry-wide networks are especially notable in Japan, where their formation is strongly encouraged by the ubiquitous Ministry of International Trade and Industry. Thus MITI is prodding the petroleum industry to complete a net that will link refiners, oil tank facilities, and retailers. #RandolphHarris 6 of 22

Industry-wide Value Added Networks have already appeared in fields as disparate as frozen foods, eyeglasses, and sporting goods. Similar industry-wide nets are springing up elsewhere. In Australia two competing Value Added Networks, Woolcom and a service offered by Talman Pty., Ltd., for wool brokers and exporters, are vying for business and looking ahead to link-ups with Tradegate, an international trade net, and EXIT, an export clearance system. In the United States of America a major drive is under way to complete a network that will tie together not only textile manufacturers like Burlington, but apparel makers and the giant retailers like Wal-Mart and K Mart. To stoke up support for this effort, business leaders like Roger Millikin, chairman of Millikin & Company, make speeches, hold seminars, fund studies, and preach the network gospel. A key problem in the industry has been slow response time. Clothing fashions change swiftly, so the industry wants to compress the time between order and delivery from weeks to days by installing an electronic network that runs from the textile mill to the retail checkout counter. By speeding response, huge cuts in inventory become possible. The electronic system allows retailers to order smaller batches and replace the fast-sellers more frequently as styles and consumer tastes change, instead of sitting on slow-moving merchandise. Milliken cites the experience of one department store chain that was able to sell 25 percent more slacks while, at the same time, carrying 25 percent fewer slacks in its inventory. Indeed, with the system only partly in place, results have been dramatic. #RandolphHarris 7 of 22

The campaign began in 1986. By 1989, according to Arthur Andersen & Company, more than seventy-five retailers had invested an estimated $3.6 billion in the system, called Quick Response, and had already benefited to the tine of $9.6 billion. In fact, Millikin and many others believe so many more billions can be saved that electronic intelligence can serve as a weapon in international trade wars. If efficiency can be raised enough, and rapidly enough, the reasoning goes, the American textile and apparel industries would be able to compete more effectively against affordable labor imports. As individual companies and entire industries race to position themselves for the future by building their own special-purpose networks, other giants are racing to lay in place global multipurpose networks that will carry message for anyone. What we are seeing, therefore, is the emergence of several types or layers of electronic networks: private nets primarily designed for the employees of a single firm; EDI hookups between individual companies and their customers and/or vendors; and industry-wide networks. To these, however, must now be added generic networks—so-called common carriers—which are needed to connect these lower-level networks to one another and to transport messages for everyone else. The volume of messages and data now surging through this neural system is so huge that an even larger-scale battle has erupted among big companies who wish to dominate this common carrier service. Giants like British Telecom, AT&T, and Japan’s KDD are racing to expand their capacity and speed up data flows. To complicate matters, large companies that have their own global nets sell services to outsiders and compete with the common carriers. #RandolphHarris 8 of 22

Thus Toyota, for example, and IBM fight for business that might otherwise go to one of the old telephone companies. General Electric operates a network in more than 180 countries, and Benetton, based in Italy, relies on GE to connect 90 percent of its employees. What is forming under our eyes, therefore, the entirely new, multilayered system, the economy’s infrastructure of the 21^st century. Meanwhile, a short man with a friendly face and a helmet of long silver hair falling over his ears climbed a few steps onto the stage, clipped a microphone to his gray Nehru jacket, and began speaking in a voice so soft and gentle that one strained to hear it even over the loudspeakers as he called up slide after slide in his presentation. We were in New Delhi in 2003 at a conference entitled “India—Giant or Pygmy?” Although his name is little known outside India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, son of an impoverished boatbuilder, is a Muslim in a predominately Hindu nation and the former chief scientist/engineer behind India’s satellite, missile and nuclear programs. He is also president of India. Kalam does not govern the nation—politicians do that. However, he is a widely admired symbol of up-from-poverty success and a commitment to interreligious harmony. He is also coauthor of India 2020—a Vision for the New Millennium. Kalam’s priority project, when we spoke with him later in the residential palace, was connectivity. Now among technologies but among villages—tiny, remote villages distant from one another. Kalam has developed a program to slow urbanization by linking villages physically, electronically, economically—and in terms of access to knowledge. #RandolphHarris 9 of 22

Counter to the belief that advanced technologies do nothing for the poor, it is the knowledge economy and the technologies associated with it that have awakened India from a half century of postcolonial slumber, helping to life more than 100 millions Indians out of poverty and placing it, according to some estimates, only ten or fifteen years behind China. That lag, according to some, may be offset by three advantages that India brings to the race. First, the wide prevalence of English makes contact and communication with the Anglophone World easier. Second, India is less export-dependent than China, thus less vulnerable to currency and other risks. And third, its less authoritarian, relatively open society is more likely to promote innovation. The growth of the developing World is causing new struggles for the control of knowledge and communication, struggles that are shifting power among people, companies, industries, sectors, and countries. Yet the “neuralization” of the economy has scarcely begun and new players enter the power game every day. They include credit card companies, the great Japanese trading houses, equipment manufacturers, and many others. Crucial to this emerging system is the plastic card in the consumer’s wallet. Whether it is an automatic teller machine card, a conventional credit card, or a “smart” debit card, the card is a network’s link to the individual. That link can, in principle, be expanded vastly. As everyone from banks and oil companies to local merchants moves more deeply into the electronic age…as the cards themselves become smarter, carrying and conveying vast amounts of information…and as money itself becomes “super-symbolic,” no longer pegged to either metal or paper…the card provides the missing link in the emerging neural system. #RandolphHarris 10 of 22

Whoever controls the card—bankers or their rivals—has a priceless channel into the home and daily life. Thus we see a push to link individual customers to the specialized networks. In Japan, JCB. Co., a credit card firm, together with NTT Data Communications, is launching a card women can use at their hairdressers’. It hopes to connect 35,000 hairdressers with 10 million card-carrying customers in a two-year period. The long-rage dream of the World’s network builders is a single integrated loop, running from the customer (who will electronically tell business what goods or services to make)…to the producer…through what remains of distribution intermediary firms…to the retailer or the electronic home shopping service…to the ATM or the credit card payment system…and ultimately back into the home of the consumer. Any company or industrial group that can seize control of the main steps in this cycle will wield decisive economic power—and hence considerable political power as well. However, seizing it will depend less on capital than on brains—intelligence embedded in computers, software, and electronic networks. In order for cooperation to get started in the first place, one more condition is required. The problem is that in a World of unconditional defection, a single individual who offers cooperation cannot prosper unless others are around who will reciprocate. On the other hand, cooperation can emerge from small clusters of discriminating individuals as long as these individuals have even a small proportion of their interactions with each other. So there must be some clustering of individuals who use strategies with two properties: the strategies will be the first to cooperate, and they will discriminate between those who respond to the cooperation and those who do not. #RandolphHarris 11 of 22

Television is not a great way to get people to cooperate. Verbal information is easier to convey than sensory information since television can deliver words with little information loss. If the former is confined to two operative sense of television, sensory information is easier to convey than intuitive information. Intuitive information, which has no form at all, can barely be sent or received. Feelings of conflict, and their embodiment in actions, work better on television than feelings of agreement and their embodiment in calm and unity. Conflict is outward, agreement is inward, and so the former is more visible than the latter. This is often why President visit states they are seeking votes from. Not only to show they care, but also so the crowd can not only hear, but feel the message they are sending out, and ask questions or make comments. It is a great way to get people to cooperate. The conditions for the evolution of cooperation tell what is necessary, but do not, by themselves, tell what strategies will be most successful. For this question, there is evidence in favor of the robust success for the simplest of all discriminating strategies: TIT FOR TAT. By cooperating on the first move, and then doing whatever the other individual did on the previous move, TIT FOR TAT managed to do well with a wide variety of more or less sophisticated decision rules. It also usually a win when it comes to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. TIT FOR TAT again is the most successful rule, indicating that it can do well with good and bad rules alike. “Do unto others as you would have then do unto you,” reports Luke 6.31. TIT FOR TAT is close to the “Golden Rule,” which simply means to treat others the way we want them to treat us, but it also goes a step further that we must learn to watch and gauge their behavior so we are not taken advantage of. #RandolphHarris 12 of 22

TIT FOR TAT’s robust success is due to being nice, provocable, forgiving, and clear. Its niceness means that it is never the first to defect, and this property precents it from getting into unnecessary trouble. Its retaliation discourages the other side from persisting whenever defection is tired. Its forgiveness helps restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes its behavioral pattern easy to recognize; and once recognized, it is easy to perceive that the best way of dealing with TIT FOR TAT is to cooperate with it. However, this contradicts what was said earlier. Despite its robust success, TIT FOR TAT cannot be called the ideal strategy to play in the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. For one thing, TIT FOR TAT and other nice rules require for their effectiveness that the shadow of the future be sufficiently great. However, even then there is no ideal strategy independent of the strategies used by the others. In some extreme environments, even TIT FOR TAT would do poorly—as would be the case if there were not enough others who would ever reciprocate its initial cooperative choice. And TIT FOR TAT does have its strategic weakness as well. For example, if the other individual defect once, TIT FOR TAT will always respond with a defection, and then if the other party does the same in response, the result would be an unending echo of alternating defections. In this sense, TIT FOR TAT is not forgiving enough. However, another problem is that TIT FOR TAT is too forgiving to those rules which are totally unresponsive, such as a completely random rule. What can be said for TIT FOR TAT is that it does indeed perform well in a wide variety of settings where the other players are all using more or less sophisticated strategies which themselves are designed to do well. #RandolphHarris 13 of 22

If a nice strategy, such as TIT FOR TAT, does eventually come to be adopted by virtually everyone, then individuals using this nice strategy can afford to be generous in dealing with any others. In fact, a population of nice rules can also protect itself from clusters of individuals using any other strategy just as well as they can protect themselves against single individuals. These results give a chronological picture for the evolution of cooperation. Cooperation can begin with small clusters. It can thrive with rules that are, nice, provocable, and somewhat forgiving. And once established in a population, individuals using such discriminating strategies can protect themselves from invasion. The overall level of cooperation tends to go up and not down. In other words, the machinery for the evolution of cooperation contains a rachet. The operation of this ratchet was seen in the development of the norm of reciprocity in the United States of America’s Congress. In the early days of the republic, members of Congress were known for their deceit and treachery. They were quite unscrupulous and frequently lied to each other. Yet, over the years, cooperative patterns of behavior emerged and proved stable. These patterns were based upon the norm of reciprocity. Many other institutions have developed stable patters of cooperation based upon similar norms. Diamond markets, for example, are famous for the way their members exchanged millions of dollars worth of good with only a verbal pledge and a handshake. The key factors is that the participants know they will be dealing with each other again and again. Therefore any attempts to exploit the situation will simply not pay. #RandolphHarris 14 of 22

A wonderful illustration of this principle is provided in the memoirs of Ron Luciano, a baseball umpire who sometimes had his “bad days.” “Over a period of time I learned to trust certain catchers so much that I actually let them umpire for me on the bad days. The bad days usually followed the good nights. On those days there wasn’t much I could do but take two aspirins and call as little as possible. If someone I trusted was catching…I’d tell them, ‘Look, it’s a bad day. You’d better take it for me. If it’s a strike, hold you glove in place for an extra second. It it’s a ball, throw it right back. And please, don’t yell.” This reliance on the catcher could work because if Luciano ever suspected that he was being taken advantage of, he would have many opportunities to retaliate. “No one I worked with ever took advantage of the situation, and hitter ever figure out what I was doing. And only once, when Ed Herrman was calling the pitches, did a pitcher ever complain about a call. I smiled; I laughed; but I didn’t say a word. I was tempted, though, I was really tempted.” Ordinary business transactions are also based upon the idea that a continuing relation allows cooperation to develop without the assistance of a central authority. Even though the courts do provide a central authority for the resolution of business disputes, this authority is usually not invoked. A common business attitude is expressed by a purchasing agent who said that “if something comes up, you get the other man on the telephone and deal with the problem. You don’t real legalistic contract clauses at each other if you ever want to do business again.” This attitude is so ell established that when a large manufacturer of packaging materials inspected its records, it found that it had failed to create legally binding contracts in two-thirds of the orders from its customers. #RandolphHarris 15 of 22

The fairness of the transactions is guaranteed not by the threat of a legal suit, but rather by the anticipation of mutually rewarding transactions in the future. It is precisely when this anticipation of future interaction breaks down that an external authority is invoked. Perhaps the most common type of business contracts case fought all the way to the appellate courts is an action for a wrongful termination of a dealer’s franchise by a parent company. This pattern of conflict makes sense because once a franchise is ended, there is no prospect for further mutually rewarding transactions between the franchiser and the parent company. Cooperation ends, and costly court battles are often the result. In other contexts, mutually rewarding relations become so commonplace that the separate identities of the participants can become blurred. For example, Lloyd’s of London began as a small group of independent insurance brokers. Since the insurance of ship and its cargo would be a large undertaking for one dealer, several brokers frequently made trades with each other to pool their risks. The frequency of the interactions was so great that the underwriters gradually developed into a federated organization with a formal structure of its own. The importance of future interactions can provide a guide to the design of institutions. To help promote cooperation among members of an organization, relationships should be structured so that there are frequent and durable interactions among specific individuals. Corporations and bureaucracies are often structured in just this way. As nowhere else in the early literature of the human race preserved to us, good and evil as principia are here brought together and put asunder. They came forth from a primary initial community, as “twins.” #RandolphHarris 16 of 22

From what seed and womb they steam is not told us, but another time we hear that the highest god, Ahura Mazdah, the “Wise Lord,” is the father of the benignant spirit. So the two primal opposites proceeded from him. Of a mother by whose participation the contradiction could be explained we learn nothing. The god indeed surrounds himself with good powers, makes them battle with the evil ones and will make them conquer the latter, but the opposite he is warring against was manifestly encompassed by himself and he put it out from himself into the begin of the principia. It is as thought he had first to discard evil in order to be able to subdue it. If, with the confrontation of the twins, creation which is effected through them is commence, then the god before creation is the not-yet-good one; but in the creation the god become good strives with that which he has cast out from himself. Thus understood, God’s primal act is a decision within himself, a primal choice, therefore, between still companionate good and evil, which prepares and makes possible their elected actions: The self-choice of good, which first renders it effectual and factual good, and the self-choice of evil, which renders it effectual and factual evil. However, the primal choice is not directed towards creation, the latter being done for the sake of the “turning point” at the end of the struggles. Created man is ordained into the struggle for salvation as one who is himself called upon to choose between good and evil. Since the Wise Lord, creating by His spirit made man’s life incarnate, the power of decision was entrusted to man. With a choice his daena, his self, embarked upon the Earthly path; but ever anew must he, confronted by fresh interminglings of deception and truth, divide, and decide. #RandolphHarris 17 of 22

One must be assisted from above: “because the better path does not stand open to the choice,” says Zarathustra, “I come to you all that we may live according to the truth”; his task is “to place men before the choice” and show them the right path, so that, as the verse concerning the twins concludes, they may of their own decision accede to the Wise Lord with works of truth. Those who do so assist him “to bring this existence to transfiguration.” “And the chief judge stood before them, and smote them again, and said unto them: If ye have the power of God deliver yourselves from these bands, and then we will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words,” reports Alma 14.24. When Catholic priests use spirits, wafers, and incantations to embody spiritual ideas, they acknowledge the mystery and the metaphor being used. However, experts of Technopoly acknowledge no such overtones or nuisances when they use forms, standardized tests, polls, and other machinery to give technical reality to ideas about intelligence, creativity, sensitivity, emotional imbalance, social deviance, or political opinion. They would have us believe that technology can plainly reveal the true nature of some human condition or belief because the score, statistic, or taxonomy has given it technical form. There is no denying that the technicalization of terms and problems is a serious form of information control. Institutions can make decisions on the basis of scores and statistics, and there certainly may be occasions where there is no reasonable alternative. However, unless such decisions are made with profound skepticism—that is, acknowledged as being made for administrative convenience—they are delusionary. #RandolphHarris 18 of 22

In Technopoly, the delusion is sanctified by our granting inordinate prestige to experts who are armed with sophisticated technical machinery. All professionals are conspiracies against the laity. We can go further: in Technopoly, all experts are invested with the charisma of priestliness. Some of our priest-experts are called psychiatrists, some psychologist, some sociologist, some statisticians. The god they serve does not speak of righteousness or goodness or mercy or grace. Their god speaks of efficiency, precision, objectivity. And that is why such concepts as sin and evil disappear in Technopoly. They come from a moral universe that is irrelevant to the theology of expertise. And so the priests of Technopoly call sin “social deviance,” which is a statistical concept, and they call evil “psychopathology,” which is a medical concept, which alludes to the idea that sin (social deviance) and psychopathology (evil) can be corrected with medication. Sin and evil disappear because they cannot be measured and objectified, and therefore cannot be dealt with by experts. As the power of traditional social institutions to organize perceptions and judgment declines, bureaucracies, expertise, and technical machinery become the principal means by which Technopoly hopes to control information and thereby provide itself with intelligibility and order. We will talk about why this cannot work, and the pain and balderdash that are the consequence in future reports. Now, some may be wonder, how far can proximal probes take us? Proximal probes have advantages as a tool for developing nanotechnology, but also weakness. Today, their working tips are rough and irregular. To make stable bonds form, John Foster’s group used a pulse of electricity, but the results proved hard to control. #RandolphHarris 19 of 22

The “IMB” spelled out by Donald Eigler’s group when he made the World’s smallest logo with xenon atoms, it was very precise, but stable only at temperatures near absolute zero—such patterns vanish at room temperature because they are not based on stable chemical bonds. Building structures that are both table and precise is still a challenge. To form stable bonds in precise patterns is the next big challenge. John Foster says, “We’re exploring a concept which we call ‘molecular herding,’ using the STM to ‘herd’ molecules the way my Shetland sheep dog would hard sheep…Our ultimate goal with molecular herding is to make one particular molecule move to another particular one, and then essentially force them together. If you could put two molecules that might be small parts of a nanomachine on the surface, then this kind of herding would allow you to hual one of them up to the other. Instead of requiring random motion of a liquid and specific chemical lock-and-key interactions to give you exactly what you want in brining two molecules together [as in chemical and biochemical approaches], you could drive that rection on a local level with the STM. You could use the STM to put things where you want them to be.” Proximal-probe instruments may be a big help in building the first generation of nanomachines, but they have a basic limit: Each instrument is huge on a molecular scale, and each could bond only one molecular piece at a time. To make anything large—say, large enough to see with the unassisted eye—would take an absurdly long time. A device of this sort could add one piece per second, but even a pinhead contains more atoms than the number of seconds since the formation of Earth. Building a Pocket Library this would be a long-term project. How can such slow systems ever build anything big? Rabbits and dandelions contain structures put together one molecular piece at a time, yet they grow to reproduce quickly. How? They build in parallel, with many billions of molecular machines working at once. #RandolphHarris 21 of 22

To gain the benefits of such enormous parallelism, researchers can either use proximal probes to build a better, next-generation technology, or use a different approach from the start. The techniques of chemistry and biomolecular engineering already have enormous parallelism and already build precise molecular structures. Their methods, however, are less direct than the still hypothetical proximal probe—based molecule-positioners. They use molecular building blocks shaped to fit together spontaneously, in a process of self-assembly. David Biegelsen, a physicist who works with STMs at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, put it this way at the nanotechnology conference: “Clearly, assembly using STMs and other variants will have to be tried. But biological systems are an existence proof that assembly and self-assembly can be done. I don’t see why one should try to deviate from something that already exists.” A huge technology bas for molecular construction already exists. Tools originally developed by biochemists and biotechnologist to deal with molecular machines found in nature can be redirected to make new molecular machines. The expertise built up by chemists in more than a century of steady progress will be crucial in molecular design and construction. Both disciplines routinely handle molecules by the billions and get them to form patterns by self-assembly. Biochemists, in particular, can begin by copying designs from nature. Molecular building-block strategies could work together with proximal-probe strategies, or could replace them, jumping directly to the construction of large numbers of molecular machines. Either way, protein molecules are likely to play a central role, as they do in nature. #RandolphHarris 22 of 22

Cresleigh Homes

When you’re the largest home in the neighborhood, you’ve got the space to spread out…both indoors and outdoors!

#Havenwood Residence 4 offers a covered porch along with the patio, so you’ll have plenty of room to entertain in the sunshine.

Homesite 75 is ready for new owners! If you’re in the market to make moves to an incredible community, contact us via the link in bio. https://cresleigh.com/havenwood/residence-four/

#CresleighHomes
#Havenwood

When his name first exploded into the headlines, Michael Milken was an intensely private, work-obsessed an in his early forties, nominally a senior vice-president of Drexel Burnham Lambert, an investment banking firm actually co-founded by Morgan in 1871. Despite this deceptive title, Milken was more than just another senior vice-president. He was the architect of a whole new order in American finance. He was, as many soon recognize, the J.P. Morgan of our time. In the 1980s, Drexel became one of Wall Street’s hottest investment banking firms. And because Milken’s hard-driving efforts were mainly responsible for its spectacular growth, he was allowed to run his own largely independent shop, three thousand miles from the firm’s headquarters in the East. His office was just across from the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Milken would arrive at his office as early as 4.30 or 5.00 A.M., in time to squeeze in a few meetings before the opening of the New York Stock Exchange, three time zones away. CEOs of major corporations, trekking in from New York or Chicago, would drag themselves red-eyed to these conferences, hat in hand, seeking financing for their companies. One might want to build a new plant; another might wish to expand into new markets; a third might wish to make an acquisition. They were there because they knew Milken could find the capital for them. Throughout the day Milken would sit at the center of a huge X-shaped trading desk, whispering, wheeling, dealing, shouting, surrounded by a frenzy of employees working the telephones and computer screens. It was from this desk that he and his team reshaped modern American industry, as Morgan had done in an earlier day. #RandolphHarris 1 of 24

A comparison of how each did it tells a lot about how the control of capital—and hence the power of money in society—is changing today. And it begins with the personal. While J.P. Morgan was paunchy, fierce-looking, and imposing, Milken is tall, slender, clean-shaven, with curly black hair and the look of a startled doe. While Morgan was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his baby mouth, Milken, son of a CPA, collected soiled spoons off tables at the coffee shop where he worked for a time as a busboy. Morgan commuted between Wall Street, mid-Manhattan, an estate on the Hudson, and palatial residence in Europe. Milken still lives in a far-from-palatial wood and brick home in Encino, in the not-quite-fashionable San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. Seldom far from the Pacific Ocean, he keeps his eyes focused on Japan, Mexico, and the developing economies to the south. Morgan surrounded himself with compliant young ladies and left his wife and family to languish in his absence; Milken is, by all accounts, a family man. Morgan disliked Jewish people. Milken was Jewish. Morgan despised trade unions; Milken has served as a financial consultant for rail, airline and maritime unions. The idea that employees might own their own firms would have struck Morgan as arrant communism. Milken favors worker-ownership and believes it is going to play a major role in American industry in the years to come. Both men accumulated vast power for themselves, because notorious in the press, came under government investigation for real and/or alleged wrongdoing. However, far more important, they shifted the structure of power in America in remarkably different ways. #RandolphHarris 2 of 24

When Milken was born on July 4, 1946, the America economy was still dominated by huge companies formed, for the most part, in the Morgan era. These were Genera Motors, and Goodyear Tires, the Burlington Mills and Bethlehem Steels of the World. These smokestake firms, the so-called Blue Chips, along with their lobbyists, political fund-raisers, and trade associations, plugs organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers, had enormous political, as well as economic, clout. Collectively, they sometimes acted as though the country belonged to them. This corporate power was magnified by their influence on the media through the control of immense advertising budgets, and their ability, at least in theory, to shut down a plant in a recalcitrant congressman’s district, and shift the investments and jobs to another where the political climate was more favourable. Often they were able to induce the labor unions representing their blue-collar workers to join them in a lobbying effort. This “smokestack power,” moreover, was further protected by a financial industry that made it difficult for competitors to challenge Blue Chip dominance. As a result, the basic structure of industrial power remained largely unchanged through mid-century in the United States of America. Then something happened. Milken was still in elementary school in 1956, when, for the first time, service and white-collar workers came to outnumber blue-collar workers in the United States of America. And by the time he began his career as a young investment banker the economy had already begun its rapid transition to a new system of wealth creation. Computers, satellites, vastly varied services, glocalization, were creating a totally new, change-filled business environment. However, the financial industry, hidebound and protected by legislation, formed a major barrier to change. #RandolphHarris 3 of 24

Until the 1970s, long-term capital was readily available for Blue Chip dinosaurs, but much more difficult for smaller, innovative and entrepreneurial firms to obtain. Wall Street was the financial Vatican of the World, and in the United States of America two “rating services”—Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s—guarded the gates of the capital. These two private firms assigned risk ratings to bonds, and only some 5 percent of American companies were considered by them to be of “investment grade.” This locked thousands of companies out of the long-term debt market or sent them to banks and insurance companies for loans rather than to investors in the bond market. A student, first at the University of California in Berkeley and later at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Milken studied investor risk. He discovered that many of the smaller firms frozen out of Wall Street had good records for paying their debts. If anyone would buy bonds from them, they seldom defaulted and were prepared to pay higher than usual interest. From this counterintuitive insight came the so-called high-yield or “junk” bond, and Milken, now a young underling at Drexel, proceeded to sell them to investors with missionary zeal. The details of the story are not important for our purposes. What matters is that Milken succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. The result was that he almost single-handedly broke the financial isolation that had hitherto been imposed on this secondary tier of companies. It was like a dam bursting. Capital poured into these companies, passing through Drexel on its way. By 1989 the junk-bond market reached an astronomical $180 billion. Rather than creating a “money trust,” therefore, as Morgan had done, Milken made finance more competitive and less monopolistic, opening the gates, as it were, and freeing thousands of companies from dependence on banks and insurance companies. #RandolphHarris 4 of 24

They also bypassed the snooty Wall Street firms that existed to serve the Blue Chips. Milken’s bonds permitted managers to go directly to the public and to institutional lenders like pension funds for the capital with which to build new plants, to expand markets, to do research and development—or to take over other firms. Roughly 75 percent of junk bonds were quietly used for investment in new technology, or to open new markets, and for other noncontroversial purposes. Drexel’s advertising made much of the fact that while employment in the Blue Chips, the old giants, was not keeping pace with the economy’s expansion, jobs in the smaller firms they financed multiplied more rapidly than in the economy at large. However, some of the capital Milken supplied was used in pitched takeover battles. These dramatic financial showdowns filled the headlines and kept the stock market and the nation itself spellbound. Stock prices soared and plunged on rumors of more, and still more, takeovers and raids affecting some of the nation’s best-known companies. Deals were made that no longer provided a reasonable balance of risk and reward for the investor. Debt was pyramided on top of unrealistic debt in any orgy of speculation. Taxi drivers and waitresses knowingly discussed the latest news and called their stockbrokers, hoping to cash in on the killings to be made as competing raiders bid up the stock of corporations marked for takeover. As other Wall Street firms entered the junk-bond market, the money machine created by Milken a Drexel, no longer in their hands alone, became a runaway juggernaut. Such violent upheavals, often led to a slaughter of the innocents. Companies were “downsized,” workers ruthlessly laid off, executive ranks decimated. Not surprisingly, a massive counterattack was launched with Milken as the principal target. #RandolphHarris 5 of 24

By forcing open the sluice gates of capital, Milken had rattled the entire structure of smokestack power in America. While enriching Drexel Burnham (and feathering his own nest to the amazing tune of $550 million in 1987 alone), he also made bitter enemies of two extremely powerful groups. One consisted of the old-line Wall Street firms who previously had had a stranglehold on the flow of capital to American corporations; the other consisted of the top managers of many of the largest firms. If they could, both had every reason to destroy him. Both also had powerful allies in government and the media. First savaged in the press, which pictured him as the very embodiment of capitalist excess, Milken was then hit with a ninety-eight-count federal indictment charging him with securities fraud, market manipulation, and “parking” (illegally holding stock that belonged to Ivan Boesky, the arbitrageur who was jailed for insider trading). Threatening to use sweeping legal powers designed to deal with the Mafia, rather than with stock market wrongdoings, the federal government forced Drexel to sever its relationship with Milken and pay a crushing $650 million fine to the government. At the same time, some of the worst-case buy-outs began to come apart, panicking investors and pushing down the value of most junk bonds, safe and unsafe alike. Soon Drexel, struggling to stabilize itself after the $650 million fine, and itself holding $1 billion in junk bonds, fund itself driven to the wall. Drexel collapsed with a thunderous crash. Milken, already tried and convicted in the press, ultimately pled guilty to six violations in a complex deal that erased all other criminal charges. #RandolphHarris 6 of 24

However, as in the case of Morgan, the question of whether or not he broke the law is far less important for the country than his net impact on American business. For while finance was restructuring other industries, Milken was restricting finance. The conflict between those, like Morgan, who wanted to restrict assess to capital so that they could themselves control it, and those like Milken, who fought to widen access, has a long history in every country. “There has been a long struggle,” writes Professor Glenn Yago of the State University of New York (Stony Brook), “to innovate U.S. capital markets to make them more accessible. Farmers fought for credit in the 19^th century, and agricultural productivity increases…were the outcome. In the 1930s, small businessmen got relief from being squeezed out from bank credit windows. After World War II, workers and consumers sought credit for home ownership and college education. In spite of resistance by those who would restrict popular access to credit, financial markets responded to demand and the country flourished.” While an excess of credit can unleash inflation, there is a difference between excess and access. By broadening access, Milken’s firm could, as Connie Bruck, one of his most savage critics, admits, “reasonably sustain the claim…that it had furthered the ‘democratization of capital,’” which is why some trade unionists and African-Americans rallied to his defense in his time of trouble. Morgan and Milken, in short, change American finance in contrary ways. Furthermore, while Morgan was the ultimate centralizer and concentrator, operating on the assumption that the whole was worth more than its parts, Milken and the people he financed often started from the opposite assumption. #RandolphHarris 7 of 24

Thus the 1960s and 1970s had seen the formation of gigantic, unwieldy, unfocused “conglomerates”—huge companies built on bureaucratic management and a blind belief in “economies of scale” and “synergy.” The bonds Milken sold financed takeovers designed to bust up these behemoths and create slimmer, more maneuverable and more strategically focused firms. Virtually every Milken-funded takeover resulted in the sell-off of divisions or units, because, in fact, the parts were worth more than the whole; the synergy, less than imagined. A striking case in point was the breakup of the Beatrice Companies, an ungainly agglomeration that combined, with little logic, Avis car rentals, Coca-Cola bottling, Playtex brassieres, the manufacture of tampons, along with the food processing that had once formed its core business. After its parts were sold to other companies, Beatrice was a much smaller firm operating more sensibly in the food, cheese, and meat business. Borg-Warner, an industrial firm, sold off its financial operations. Revlon, after takeover, sold off its medical business and other units unrelated to its central skills—the cosmetic industry. Milken’s easing of access to capital also helped nourish upstart firms in the new service and information sectors that are key to the advanced economy. Surely this was not Milken’s primary purpose. He was more than willing to fund rust-belt industries as well. However, operating at a moment when the entire economy was in transit out of the smokestack era, he was certainly aware of this fundamental change and, in some ways, helped spur it on. Thus at one point he told Forbes magazine that much of the restructuring going on had to do with the country’s transition out of the industrial age, adding that “in an industrial society, capital is a scarce resource, but in today’s information society, there is plenty of capital.” #RandolphHarris 8 of 24

Since Milken’s high-yield or junk bonds worked to the advantage of newer, less established companies rather than the Blue Chips, all of whom had easy access to conventional financing, it is not surprising that many of his beneficiaries were in the fast-expanding service and information sectors where newer companies were likely to be found. Thus Milken helped reorganize or channeled capital into cellular telephones, cable television, computers, health services, day care, and other advanced business sectors—whose growing power challenged the dominance of the old smokestack barons. In short, Morgan and Milken alike, but in almost diametrically different ways, shook the established power structure in their time and for this reason, quite apart from legal issues, called down upon themselves hailstorms of controversy and calumniation. For good or ill, legally or not, each changed finance in ways that corresponded to the emerging needs of the economy in their time. It required a leap of imagination on the part of Muhammad Yunus to create a bank that lends money to some of the World’s most desperately impoverished people—village entrepreneurs who might need as little as thirty of fifty dollars to start a tiny business. Conventional banks could not afford to make and service such minute loans, and borrows did not have collateral or credit histories. In 1976 Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist, created the Grameen Bank. Instead of requiring collateral, it asked borrowers to recruit a group of cosigners in their own community to guarantee repayment. The group would have a collective interest in the success of the borrower’s small business and could exert social pressure or provide help if payments fell behind. If the debt was repaid, its members might themselves qualify for loans. #RandolphHarris 9 of 24

By 2005, Grameen had made loans to 4.3 million people in tiny amounts totaling $4.7 billion, almost entirely to women—who turn out to be more apt to succeed in their enterprises and also more likely to make full repayment. Grameen has sparked similar operations in at least thirty-four countries and has set up a foundation to help NGOs and others replicate the Grameen model. Today microfinance is a sizeable global industry. Two keys to its success are its interest rates on these loans—very high by U.S. or European standards—and the remarkable 98 percent repayment rate it claims. In truth, Grameen has had collection difficulties. Yet, these borrowers are less risky than loaning money to some millionaires and billionaires. What is even more interesting about this social invention is the transformative impact it is having on other institutions. To begin with, Grameen has had many imitators of the model it launched in Bangladesh. By 2001, according to The Wall Street Journal, “shopkeepers playing cards in the village of Bagil Bazar can cite from memory the terms being offered by seven competing microlenders.” Because Grameen’s profits are unusually strong, some twenty-six NGOs working in poor countries have created microloan banks of their own to help fund their nonprofit activities. In turn, the spread of microfinance had led to the creation of MicroRate, a rating agency for microfinance banks—itself a novelty. According to its founder, Damian von Stauffenberg, more and more NGO banks will transform themselves into conventional banks in the decade to come, because that would greatly increase their ability to both borrow and lend. As many as two hundred have already taken the preliminary steps. Some will become competitive with conventional banks, and that, he suggests, will bring big global retail banks and local commercial banks into the microloan business. #RandolphHarris 10 of 24

In a word, one new organization, Grameen, has had a transformatory impact—not just on the lives of the poor entrepreneurs it has helped but on the way NGOs raise money for their activities. It could alter conventional banking as well, as it blurs the boundaries between the profit and nonprofit Worlds. Grameen is not the only example of high-impact social invention. Amazon.com has created the bookstore without a store. EBay has developed an auction bureau in which the customers do the auctioneering. Google, Yahoo! and other search engines process 600 million queries a day, altering what libraries do and compelling changes—perhaps transformation—in the staid book-publishing industry. Attacking the industrial-age social welfare model, Vern Hughes in Australia charged that “politicians are still able to get away with promising more schools, more hospitals, more nurses and more police,” as if pouring more money int them will cure the crises they face. In this model, the many social agencies deliver one-size-fits-all services to “disconnected, passive and disempowered ‘clients.’” As an alternative, Hughes cites a program in Melbourne called Person to Person, made up of families of kids with disabilities. These families were “sick of standardized services for their children,” all of whom had different needs. The families persuaded Australia’s Department of Human services to provide cash instead of services, and pay it to a group “support coordinator” the families selected. The coordinator would then buy and allocate “a mix of services chosen by the families (education, home help, day care, etcetera).” As Hughes puts it, the emerging paradigm in human services “shifts focus away from supply-side delivery to demand-side personalization.” This demassification is the welfare-service equivalent of product customization in the marketplace. #RandolphHarris 11 of 24

The technocracy that emerged, fully armed, in nineteenth-century America disdained such beliefs, because holy men and sin, grandmothers and families, regional loyalties and two-thousand-year-old traditions, are antagonistic to the technocratic way of life. They are a troublesome residue of tool-using period, a source of criticism of technocracy. They represent a thought-World that stands apart from technocracy and rebukes it—rebukes its language, its impersonality, its fragmentation, its alienation. And so technocracy disdains such a thought-World but, in America, did not and could not destroy it. We may get a sense of the interplay between technocracy and Old World values in the work of Mark Twain, who was fascinated by the technical accomplishments of the nineteenth century. He said of it that it was “the plainest and sturdiest and infinitely greatest and worthiest of all the centuries the World has seen,” and he once congratulated Walt Whiteman on having lived in the age that gave the World the beneficial products of coal tar. It is often claimed that he was the first writer regularly to use a typewriter, and he invested (and lost) a good deal of money in new inventions. In his Life on the Mississippi, he gives lovingly detailed accounts of industrial development, such as the growth of the cotton mills in Natchez: “The Rosalie Yarn Mill of Natchez has a capacity of 6000 spindles and 160 looms, and employs 100 hands. The Natchez Cotton Mills Company began operations four years ago in a two-story building of 50 x 190 feet, with 4000 spindles and 128 looms….The mill works 5000 bales of cotton annually and manufactures the best standard quality of brown shirtings and sheetings and drills, turning out 5,000,000 yards of these good per year.” #RandolphHarris 12 of 24

Twain liked nothing better than to describe the giantism and ingenuity of America industry. However, at the same tie, the totality of his work is an affirmation of preindustrial value. Personal loyalty, regional tradition, the continuity of family life, the relevance of the tales and wisdom of the elderly are the soul of his work throughout. The story of Huckleberry Finn and Jim making their way to freedom on a raft is nothing less than a celebration of the enduring spirituality of pretechnological man. If we ask, then, why technocracy did not destroy the Worldview of a tool-using culture, we may answer that the fury of industrialism was too new and as yet too limited in scope to alter the needs of inner life or to drive away the language, memories, and social structures of the tool-using past. It was possible to contemplate the wonders of a mechanized cotton mill without believing that tradition was entirely useless. In reviewing nineteenth-century American history, one can hear the groans of religion in crisis, of mythologies under attack, of a politics and education in confusion, but the groans are not yet death-throes. They are the sounds of a culture in pain, and nothing more. The ideas of tool-using cultures were, after all, designed to address questions that still lingered in a technocracy. The citizens of a technocracy knew that science and technology did not provide philosophies by which to live, and they clung to the philosophies of their fathers. They could not convince themselves that religion, as Dr. Freud summed it up at the beginning of the twentieth century, is nothing but an obsessional neurosis. Nor could they quite believe, as the new cosmology taught, that the Universe is the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms. And they continued to believe, as Mark Twain did, that, for all their dependence on machinery, tools, ought still to be their servants, not their masters. #RandolphHarris 13 of 24

They would allow their tools to be presumptuous, aggressive, audacious, impudent servants, but that tools should rise above their servile station was an appalling thought. And though technocracy found no clear place for the human soul, its citizens held to the belief that no increase in material wealth would compensate them for a culture that insulted their self-respect. And so two opposing World-views—the technological and the traditional—coexisted in uneasy tension. The technological was the stronger, of course, but the traditional was there—still functional, still exerting influence, still too much alive to ignore. This is what we find documented not only in Mark Twain but in the poetry of Walt Whiteman, the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, the prose of Thoreau, the philosophy of Emerson, the novels of Hawthorne and Melville, and, most vividly of all, in Alexis de Tocqueville’s monumental Democracy in America. In a word, two distinct thought-Worlds were rubbing against each other in nineteenth-century America. If our future will include nanotechnology, then it would be useful to understand what it can do, so that we can make more sensible plans for our families, careers, companies, and society. However, many intelligent people will respond that understanding is impossible, that the future is just too unpredictable. This depends, of course, on what you are trying to predict: The weather a month from now? Forget it; weather is too chaotic, even weather applications get predictions wrong. The position of the Moon a century from now? Easy; the Moon’s orbit is like clockwork. Which personal-computer will lead twenty years from now? Good luck; major companies today did not even exist twenty years ago. That personal computers will become even more enormously powerful? A virtual certainty. #RandolphHarris 14 of 24

And so on. If you aim to say something sensible about the future of technology, the tick is to ask the right questions and to avoid the standard pitfalls. Here are our suggestions for how to blunder into a Megamistake in forecasting: Ignore the scientific facts, or guess. Forget to ask whether anyone wants the projected product or situation. Ignore the costs. Try to predict which company or technology will win. In looking at what to expect from nanotechnology—or any technology—all of these must be avoided, since they can lead to some grand absurdities. In a classic demonstration of the first error, someone once concocted the notion that pills would someday replace food. However, people need energy to live, and energy means calories, which means fuel, which takes up room. To subsist on pills, one would need to gobble them by the fistful. This would be like eating a tasteless kibbled dog food, which was hardly the idea. In short, the pills-for-food prediction ignored the scientific facts. In a similar vein, we once heard promises of a cure for cancer—but this was based on a guess about scientific facts, a guess that “cancer” was in some sense a single disease, which might have a single point of vulnerability and a single cure. This guess was wrong, and progress against cancer has been slow. Earlier, we presented a scenario that includes the routine cure of a cancer using nanotechnology. This scenario takes account of the currently known facts: Cancers differ, but each kind can be recognized by its molecular makers. Molecular machines can recognize molecular makers, and so can be primed to recognize and destroy specific kind of cancer cells as they turn up. #RandolphHarris 15 of 24

Even nanotechnology cannot cram a meal into a pill, but this is just as well. The pills-for-food proposal did not just ignore the facts, it also ignored what people want—things like dinner conservation and novel ethnic cuisines. Magazines once promised cities beneath the sea, but who wants to live in the ultimate damp, chilly climate? California and the sunbelt have somehow proved more popular. And again, we were promised talking cars, but after giving them a try, people prefer luxury cars from companies that promise silence. Many human wants are easy to predict, because they are old and stable: People want better medical care, housing, consumer goods, transportation, education, and so forth, preferably at lower costs, with greater safety, in a cleaner environment. When our limited abilities force us to choose better quality or lower cost or greater safety or a cleaner environment, decision become sticky. Molecular manufacturing will allow a big step in the direct of better quality and lower costs and increased safety and a cleaner environment. (Choices of how much of each will remain.) There is no existing market demand for “nanotechnology,” as such, but a great demand for what it can do. Neglecting costs has also been popular among prognosticators: Building cities under the sea would be expensive, with few benefits. Building in space has more benefits, but would be far more expensive, sing past or present technologies. Many bold projections gather dust on shelves because development or manufacturing costs are too high. Some examples include personal robots, flying cars, and Moon colonies—they still sound more like 1950s science fiction than practical possibilities, and costs is one major reason. #RandolphHarris 16 of 24

Molecular manufacturing is, in part, about cost reduction. As mentioned above, molecular machines in nature make things inexpensively, like wood, potatoes, and hay. Trees are more complex than spacecraft, so why should spacecraft stay more expensive? Gordon Tullock, professor of economics and political science at the University of Arizona, says of molecular nanotechnology, “its economic effect is that we will all be much richer.” The prospect of building sophisticated products for the price of potatoes gives reason to pull a lot of old projections down from the shelf. We hope you will not find the dust when we brush them off for a fresh look. Even staying within the bounds of known science, focusing on things people want, and paying attention to costs, it is still hard to pick a specific winner. Technology development is like a horse race: everyone knows that some horses will win, but knowing which is harder (and worth big bucks). Both corporate managers betting money and researchers betting their careers have to play this game, and they often lose. A technology may work, provide something useful, and be less expensive than last year’s alternative, yet still be clobbered in the market by something unexpected but better. To know which technologies will win, you would have to know all the alternatives, whether they have been invented yet or not. Good luck! We will not try to play that game here. “Nanotechnology” (like “modern industry”) describes a huge range of technologies. Nonetheless, nanotechnology in one form or another is a monumentally obvious idea: it will be the culmination of an age-old trend toward more thorough control of the structure of matter. Predicting that some form of nanotechnology will win most technology races is like predicting that some will win a horse race (as opposed to, say, a dachshund). #RandolphHarris 17 of 24

A technology based on through control of the structure of matter will almost always beat one based on crude control of the structure of matter. Other technologies have already won races in the literal sense of being first. Few, however, will win in the sense of being best. Television cannot transmit information that comes in the form of smell, touch or taste. Furthermore, as we discussed, the information it can transmit through the visual and auditory senses is extremely narrow. The ranges of color, brightness, depth are confined by the technology. The sounds are blotted out by the whistle of the electron fields. Unfortunately, given the human tendency to accept the information of our senses as total and reliable, we are not aware of the aspects of the visual and aural information that are dropped out of this new information package. We assume that when we see and hear something, we are seeing and hearing everything that is being transmitted, as though we were actually observing the event directly. Or else we assume that what is lost is too minor to matter. We are inclined to believe the information as though it had not been processed, reduced and reshaped before we experienced it. In addition to the elimination of three sensory systems and the narrowing of two others, there is another sensory oddity in the television experience. Television disconnects the two operative sense modes—visual and sural. You are sitting in a room watching an image from miles away. You see the place, but the image you see and the sounds which reportedly connect to the image are not really connected. The sounds are “nearer” to you than the images are. Let us say you are watching two people walking on a faraway hillside. In real life, you could not make out what the characters are saying, but on television you can. #RandolphHarris 18 of 24

The voices are amplified or dubbed in, so you can hear a conversation that would otherwise be inaudible. The natural informational balance between aural and visual has been shattered. Now, information that you take in with the visual sense cannot be used to modify or help process the information from the aural sense because they have each been isolated from each other and reconstructed. Furthermore, while you are watching and listening with your disconnected aural and visual senses, you are smelling some chicken roasting in the kitchen and you are drinking a glass of premium cranberry juice So television has attached two of your sensory modes to a distant sot, altered their natural arrangement to each other, but left other aspects of your sensory apparatus at home in present time. This is a very peculiar arrangement and in a way it is sort of funny, like playing a perceptual game in a technology museum. It takes on importance when we understand that the average person submits to this condition for four hours every day, and while in this state is receiving important information about life All of the information is narrowed to fit the sensory transmission limits of the medium and distorted by the sensory disconnections in the human. One can imagine the emergence of a new psychological syndrome: “sensory schizophrenia.” The cure will involve exercises to resynchronize wildly confused senses with each other, with the mind, and with the World. Because of all the preceding it ought to go without saying that any messages that are dependent upon sensory understanding and interaction are not going to work on television. This is very unfortunate for the ecology movement. #RandolphHarris 19 of 24

It always surprises me whenever any attempts are made to show wilderness or wildlife on television. The fuzzy image previously described is the first problem: forests become blurs, ocean depths are impossibly foggy, the details of plants are impossible to see. So the viewer depends on the voice-over to know what is going on. Because of the blur naturalist programs focus on such objective behavior as playing, fighting, mating, eating, just as they do with human sitcoms and soap operas. There are more animal programs than plant programs because animals come through better on the fuzzy medium, and the larger and more rambunctious the animal the better. However, even if TV images were not as coarse as I have described them, there would still be no way to understand a forest or swamp or desert without all the senses fully operative, receiving information in all ranges, and freely interacting with each other. An interesting recent illustration of the problem was a news feature concerned with a decision that a town council had to make. A land developer sought a permit to convert a large marsh area into a new community of homes. Should the permit be okayed? It was quite a thoroughgoing, earnest report. Considering the subject, not ordinarily conceived as “good television” by producers, it was also an extraordinarily lengthy report, about eight minutes of an evening newscast. The report presented interviews with a local conservation group that opposed the project. It presented several minutes of images of the plants in the marshland, flocks of birds, nesting grounds, all with the appropriate wild-sounding calls. Having worked as a publicist for many years, in fact, as a publicist for environmental groups, I knew how much work the environmentalists had put into this program and how important they felt it to be. #RandolphHarris 20 of 24

In the end, though, I knew they had failed no matter how this particular vote came out, because if there is anything which cannot be conveyed on television it is a feeling for a marsh. I suspect that the result of the program would be to decrease concern for marshes. These images and words about marshes were probably more than they had ever seen or heard before. Since the news report told them interesting things they did not know—how many varieties of creatures lived there, for example—they may have considered it quite a complete story. In terms of popular media, indeed it was. However, while the viewers knew more than before, they were not likely to be aware of what they did not know and were not getting. As the images of the marsh went hurtling into their brains, accompanied by a news reporter’s description of an egret nesting ground, they probably assumed that most of the relevant data were hand, that they had learned enough to make a judgment. Images and words about a marsh do not convey what a marsh is. You must actually sense and feel what a strange, rich, unique and unhuman environment it is. The ground is very odd, soft, sticky, wet and smelly. It is not attractive to most humans. The odor emanates from an interaction between the sometimes-stagnant pools and the plants that live in the mud in varying stages of growth and decay. If the wind is hot and strong there can be a nearly maddening mixture of sweet and rotting odors. To grasp the logic and meaning of marsh life, the richest biological system on Earth, one need to put one’s hand into the mud, overturn it, discover the tiny life forms that abound. One needs to sit for long hours in it, feeling the ebbs and flows of the waters, the creatures and the wind. And this is something television cannot do at this time. #RandolphHarris 21 of 24

The sexuality and violence in the news and on TV serve as metaphors in life which acts directly on consciousness through the Image-ination—or else in the correct circumstances they can be openly deployed and enjoyed, imbued with a sense of the holiness of every thing from the ecstasy and wine to garbage and corpses. Those who ignore their World outside themselves risk destruction. It is creative nihilism to spend life in unreality. For those who follow life, it promises enlightenment and even wealth, a share of temporal power. Capital just does not persuade its readers that it is the truth about economics or about the inevitable future of man, and therefore worth the hard work it demands to be digested. A few brilliant essays still charm but are not enough on which to found a Worldview. The intellectual death of their eponymous hero has not stopped much of the Left from continuing to call itself Marxist, for he represents the poor in their perennial struggle against the rich, and their demand for more equality than liberal societies provided. However, beyond that, the Left’s nourishment comes from elsewhere. Nothing in Marx resonates in souls furnished by Sartre, Camus, Kafka, Dostoyevski, Nietzsche and Heidegger. Rousseau can still overpower where Marx falls flat. In Marx, ideology meant the false system of thought elaborated by the ruling class to justify its rule in the eyes of the ruled, while hiding its real selfish motives. Ideology was sharply distinguished in Marx from science, which is what Marx’s system is—id est, the truth based on disinterested awareness of historical necessity. In Communist society there will be no ideology. “The pure mind,” to use Nietzsche’s formulation, still exists in Marx’s thought, as it hard in all philosophy—the possibility of knowing the ways things are, an intellectual capacity irreducible to anything else. #RandolphHarris 22 of 24

Ideology is a term of contempt; it must be seen through in order to be seen for what it is. Its meaning is not in itself but requires translation back into the underlying reality of which it is a misleading representation. The man without ideology, the one possessing science, can look to the economic infrastructure and see that Plato’s political philosophy, which teaches that the wise should rule, is only a rationalization for the aristocrats’ position in a slave economy; or that Hobbes’s political philosophy, which teaches man’s freedom in the state of nature and the resulting war of all against all, is only the over for the political arrangements suitable for the rising bourgeoisie. This point of view provides the foundation for intellectual history, which tells the story behind the story. Instead of looking at Plato and Hobbes for information about what courage is—a subject important to us—we should see how their definitions of courage suited those who controlled the means of production. However, what applies to Plato and Hobbes cannot apply to Marx; otherwise the very assertion that these thinkers were economically determined would be itself a deception, simply the ideology for the new exploiters Marx happens to serve. The interpretation would self-destruct. He would not know what to look for in the thinkers who were inevitably and unconsciously in the grip of the historical process, for he would be in the same condition as they were. There are certainly historical preconditions of Marx’s science; but they do not detract from the truth of his insight, which is therefore a kind of absolute moment in history that no further history can alter. This truth is the warrant for revolution, and the moral equivalent of the natural rights that warranted the American Revolution. Without it all the killing is unjust and frivolous. #RandolphHarris 23 of 24

As we have talked about, cooperation based on reciprocity can thrive and be evolutionarily stable in a population with no relatedness at all. A case of cooperation that fits this scenario, at least on first evidence, has been discovered in the spawning relationships in sea bass. These fish have the sexual organs of both the male and the female. They form pairs and roughly may be said to take turns at being the high investment partner (laying eggs) and ow investment partner (providing sperm to fertilize eggs). Up to ten spawnings occur in a day and only a few eggs are provided each time. If gender roles are not divided evenly, pairs tend to break up. The system appears to allow the evolution of much economy in the size of testes, but these testes condition many have evolved when the species was sparser and more inclined to inbreed. Inbreeding would imply relatedness in the pairs and this initially may have promoted cooperation without the need of further relatedness. As the angels as the Heavenly, so of the king of the Earthly representative of God, that He knows all things. God discerns good and the evil, this refers specifically to the knowledge of the right and the wrong, the guilty and the innocent, which the Earthly judge, like the Heavenly who rules over the nations receives from His divine commissioner, so that He may give it practical realization. However, added to this is the fact that the word sequence “good and evil” does not permit us to suppose it a rhetorical flourish. Neither is it the case that “cognition in general only came to the first human when they partook of the fruit: it is not before a create without knowledge that, even before the creation of the woman, God brings the beasts that he may give them their appointed names, but before the bearer of his own breath, the beings upon whom, at the very hour of creation, he had manifestly bestowed the abundance of knowledge contained in speech, of which that being is now the master. “And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives,” reports Mormon 2. 14. #RandolphHarris 24 of 24

Cresleigh Homes

Our #MillsStation Residence 1 shows how airy a single story home can be – it’s 1,932 sq. ft. of effortlessly livable space.

It’s so much fun to picture all the events that might happen in this kitchen…and how many late night sandwiches might get munched at that spacious island! 😍

#CresleighHomes