Buckys 1947 essay Earth, Inc. is the first chapter in his 1973 book of the same name. It includes an updated Profile of the Industrial Revolution which shows the exponential curve of the discovery of the ninety-two basic elements. Since his chart includes Lawrencium Lr with atomic number 103 (discovered 1961), it is surprising that he is fixated on the number 92. He suggests those numbered above ninety-two, ... are split-second twist-openings of negative Universe. But Plutonium Pl has a half-life of 80 million years (much longer than a split-second) whereas atomic number 59 praseodymium Pr whose most stable isotope Pr-143 has a half-life of only 13.57 days. Bucky is simply wrong here and renaming them the 92 regenerative elements in his later works shows he never understood this detail of chemistry. I suspect Bucky suffered from the effects of confirmation bias based on the geometrically significant number of balls in the first 3 layers of closest packing of spheres which is 92. This numerology has nothing to do with the stability of atoms by atomic number nor with atomic regenerativity. Bzzst, wrong. Interestingly Bucky cites H. G. Wells Outline of History which I take to be a strong influence. This may be the source of some of his overly-simplistic and controversial innovation diffusion arguments in Critical Path for instance. He emphasizes pure science events represent openings of windows through the wall of ignorance whereas Inventions are extemporaneous. They represent trial balances of immediate resource and principle drawn off in the light of shifting needs. Inventions are always imperfect and always become obsolete or may never be realized. This is probably the influence of Vannevar Bush who in 1945 wrote a seminal report Science---the Endless Frontier (nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm) which advised that pure science is prerequisite to technological advancement. This so-called linear model of R&D is refuted effectively by Henry Petroski in his penetrating 2010 book The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems. Although below in the discussion on Technocracy, Bucky puts the engineer in an exalted position. So although he is parroting some of Bushs ideas, he may have understood the mutually interdependent role of engineering and pure science at some level. Buckys use of the innovation diffusion model in history (in his later works) and the linear model of R&D show that he was influenced by important thinking of his time which is now highly controversial if not discredited. [I might add: just like me!] It is the last two sections of Earth, Inc. that are most interesting to me as they provide interesting clues about his socio-political-economic philosophy: [Causal events of pure science] inherent benefit can be acquired by man only through direct world-wide referendum. ... this new objective [of civilization] must embody a universal conviction superior to that now held supreme by all political creeds of the world. His politics is ostensibly radical! But his use of referendum is unusual here. A universal conviction obiously superior to that of inevitable war would be one which assumes as mandatory a preventative pathology in treating with all of mans affairs. Aha, he emphasizes planning and prevention as the highest objectives in socio-political-economics. This idea is pseudo-socialistic. Unfortunately, he then says Ipso facto this is a technical rather than a political scheme. No, it is either a politics by some other means or just rhetoric. Then he brings in his old favorite a transcendental world-girdling service industry. ... Patronage of service industry by world peoples will constitute a spontaneous and fundamental referendum. People, however, cannot demonstrate their preference without progressive competitive submissions. New industry can only be initiated by free will. ... new industry is the pure product of free initiative, imagination and personal risk of the individual, or small groups of individuals, in tendering new service to the industrial referendum. ... Only individual enterprise risk can convert scarcity to socializable plenty. This isnt socialistic! This is free enterprise with the added twists of planning and prevention as the highest objectives in industrial referendum which I take to be voting by our actions instead of voting by representatives or ballots (that is, I take him to mean social evolution). But he has begged the question of politics: isnt our socio-political-economics already essentially determined by industrial referendum albeit one that admits warfaring, coercion, and applies only the most ad hoc considerations about prevention? Would simply adding planning and prevention as fundamental objectives fix the unfettered free enterprise that Bucky advocates much like the neo-cons which led to our recent Great Recession? Note well: Bucky does not advocate regulation in this essay! Naivete? Also, how do you add planning and prevention as fundamental objectives to a free enterprise system? I see a big gap here. Then he defends his philosophy from the criticism of being technocratic. Technocracy sought to establish an autocracy of engineers schematically similar to national socialism in aim. Technocracy sought to convert the engineer to the role of politician. But the engineer proved no more effective than the most ignorant and slothful in the ballot box game, and much too forthright by training to be a good politician. ... Technocracy failed as an out for society, primarily because the engineer must vacate his creative and causal function for a negative and restraining function. More evidence that Bucky is anti-regulation. Is he a neo-con? Unfettered free enterprise will solve all our problems? He ends saying To be cogent to an eager public, [submission on the screen of a scientifically evolved timetable and schedule of priorities governing conversion of total physical environment] must be punctuated with periodic or milestone objectives, and means for intermittent readjustments to include progressively acquired data and principle. In this essay, Bucky has an interesting blend of free enterprise socialism, but I find it to be hopelessly idealistic. I think his vision can be fixed by integrating more of his humanistic values. Even in his later works, I think he failed to express an incisively effective philosophy of socio-political-economics. But he has some very interesting and enticing thoughts on the subject. Although it is a bit muddy, there are pearls of insight which if handled gingerly may yet lead to a more effecitve preventative pathology for Humanitys socio-political-economic evolution. I think he tried to pull together the best ideas from both socialism and free enterprise, but the result is not compelling to me. What do you think?
Posted on: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 20:59:01 +0000