GENERAL: Richard Buckminster Fuller.

From: IN%"[email protected]" "List for the discussion of Buckminster Fulle
r'
s works" 14-SEP-1992 21:33:16.18
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
CC:
Subj: Fuller's History of Industrialization

Message-id: <[email protected]>
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by PSUARCH.Bitnet; Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:32 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 0970 for [email protected]; Mon,
14 Sep 92 21:32 EDT
Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 5997; Mon, 14 Sep 92 21:26:48 EDT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:29:13 -0400
From: Contr Karl Vogel <[email protected]>
Subject: Fuller's History of Industrialization
Sender: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works
<[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: List for the discussion of Buckminster Fuller's works
<[email protected]>
X-To: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: Gary Lawrence Murphy's message of Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:57:51 -0400
<[email protected]>

>> On Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:57:51 -0400,
>> Gary Lawrence Murphy <[email protected]> said:

Gary> A far better "work ethic" is Camus' "True generosity toward the
^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary> future" accomplished by giving your all for the present. The Japanese
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary> point, his own life as proof. If you are being useful to the maximum
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gary> need you that makes you successful; effort alone just won't do it, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm doing my best not to quote you out of context. The highlighted
phrases above indicate that you don't mean effort alone, but
productive effort on the part of an individual. Not all individuals
are motivated to be productive; I believe very highly in Theory Y
management, and I don't think that people like that constitute
anything like a majority, but they do exist.

Another poster said:
> The part of Critical Path that bugs me is that when I see people willing to
> let others support them without *any* desire to participate in activities
> beneficial to society -- in fact some are even willing to *hurt* society
> and still feel they have earned a welcome place in it -- I get upset.

I think he and I have met some of the same people. I get more than
upset; I get damned resentful when I see someone who thinks the world
owes him some kind of living just because he has a body temp of 98.6.

Gary> You don't talk to these people much, do you. In Fuller's view, once
Gary> they no longer think they _must_ "earn a living", ghetto kids, being
Gary> as rich (ie fabulously) as any other kid on the planet, will cease to
Gary> feel they are disadvantaged.

You make a comment later in this post that the most important job
will be that of Consumer. Where does that leave the Producer of all
this wealth? Where is all this wealth going to come from?

Gary> Why do we have repressive regimes? Greed.

"Greed" in this case is desire for political power, which is not
necessarily the same thing as economic power. I'm paraphrasing Ayn
Rand here, but if you can't tell the difference between the power of a
gun and the power of a dollar, then you deserve to learn the
difference on your own hide.

Gary> Why do we have have-nots? Greed.

I'm sorry, but not everything on earth is the fault of greed. I'm
quite greedy, and I've never done one thing to keep anyone in the
ghetto from getting out of the ghetto.

Gary> Like Pierre Elliot Trudeau's thesis, the most important job will be
Gary> Consumer. It is the flow of goods and the exchange of capital that
Gary> makes it all work now, and some bright young exec with his Lotus 1-2-3
Gary> is bound to discover what Universe has known all along.

These goods and the capital you speak of don't come out of thin air;
they need Producers to bring them into existence. Some producers are
motivated by a desire to improve the human condition, but I guarantee
you that quite a few are not; they are more interested in their little
corner of the world, and there is no reason they shouldn't be.

I am not some reactionary pining away for the good old days of the
robber-barons, but I am a capitalist and proud of it. I'm well aware
of what cooperation between individuals can do; the Internet is the
most astounding example of such cooperation I've ever seen. I do my
work for two reasons; love and money. I'm paid well to be a
programmer, but I'd be flattered as hell if the folks at (say) the GNU
Project would include something I wrote as part of their free software
base. The only reason they would have to accept something of mine is
recognition of its merit, and that means more to me than money.

Gary> Welfare would also be obsolete, and all the kids material needs met.

How this is going to happen without some disguised redistribution
scheme is beyond me.

Another poster said:
> I just feel that the world needs to have some kind of a reward and
> punishment system so that behaviors that benefit society will be
> encouraged.

Gary> Just so long as you agree with which behaviours have official
Gary> sanction? Please keep your witch-hunting off this list. We here are
Gary> interested in a better world, not more of the same.

I most certainly do want a say in which behaviours have official
sanction. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you here; feel free to
correct me if I am. I wish to be free to produce, and to keep the
right to dispose of what I produce. That's the definition of a free
man. If that makes me a witch-hunter, so be it; I'm a witch-hunter.

--
Karl Vogel Internet: [email protected] [134.136.19.253]
1-513-255-7383 UUCP: vogel%[email protected]
Control Data Sys. Inc. ...!uunet!c-17igp.wpafb.af.mil!vogel
Partial thread listing: