At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we are obviously big fans of science fiction. And yes, we are nerds, in that we take it seriously to the extent that even while enjoying it, we nit pick it and try to one up each other on who can spot the glaring scientific flaws in it. Star Trek obviously provides fertile ground for this (and for those who enjoy that kind of thing, google “SF Debris” and watch his great reviews) and as to Star Wars…let’s not get us started!
One of the favorite things to show in both sci fi movies and to be described in sci fi books is also one of the more laughably inaccurate things we know of. That’s where a spaceship arrives at a new star system, and they basically look out the window and see the planet, big and bright, right in front of them. Then they can pretty much manually fly the ship straight into a parking orbit. Wow. So easy.
Kind of hard to reconcile that with how hard it was for those who actually live in that star system. For assuming that other aliens are not much smarter or dumber than we are (a reasonable assumption for reasons not relevant to this article), they would have had a hard time finding all their planets themselves.
Take our own species, since obviously that’s the one we know best. It took us quite awhile to discover all of our planets, and Pluto wasn’t discovered until the 20th century. (Yes, I know what the IAU said!) You see, planets don’t actually give off light. Sure, they reflect light, but this just means that entering our Solar System would be like entering an area 20 football fields long. In the center, a bowling ball is glowing not much brighter than the other stars. And somewhere there are nine items ranging in size from a pinhead to a chestnut. Earth would be a peppercorn.
Care to guess how long it would take you to notice the reflection off of a peppercorn in circle two kilometers in diameter? And what if it was on the wrong side of the Sun to observe the reflected light? And you are not an entity the size of a human wandering about those hundreds of football fields looking for a peppercorn. No, you are the size of an atom, and are looking about that giant sphere, 20 football fields in diameter, and oh, yeah, it’s not just two dimensions! That peppercorn could be 2 kilometers above you or below you, or anywhere in between!
Or do you use your “sensors” to find the planets? One wonders what science fiction writers imagine “sensors” to be. Apparently things that let them scan a volume of space inconceivably vast for the few rocks or wisps of gas we call “planets”. After all, the diameter of the Solar System – if we confine ourselves to Pluto being the end – is very roughly 4 billion miles in radius. Or 67 billion cubic miles in volume. And 99.85 percent of all matter in that vast volume is the Sun. And the planets are part of the remaining .0015%.
Oh, and whatever those “sensors” are, Pluto is about four light hours from the Sun. So this hypothetical spaceship “scans” and one single beam the send out takes 16 hours to get all the way to the opposite end and return with whatever information it might be able to pick up. Even if we assume their “beam” is one mile in width…well, I’m not going to do the math on that, but suffice to say, that ship had best have a sustainable environment.
What we have are telescopes and math. And the couple of centuries it took when we got serious about finding the not so obvious planets. What they apparently have in books and movies is magic. But I suppose that’s understandable. Imagine if every time the Enterprise entered a new stellar system, Captain Picard announced, “All hands, you have two weeks leave to play in the holodeck while cartography pulls double shifts looking for the planet we were sent to!” (This assumes the planet is unoccupied, or by radio waves they could simply be given instructions as to where to go, though one can imagine the “no, no, my left and down” hilarity that could entail!)
(Note to sci fi nerds: The solution is that an arriving ship would confine itself to the “life zone”, greatly reducing the area to be searched. That would still be an enormous volume. But if they observed some gas giants, and could orient on the planetary plane, this would allow them to position their ship “above” or “below” the sun, closer than 90,000,000 miles to it, so that they could look about in a roughly 300,000,000 mile circle for a planet. A series of rapid photographs of each segment would be taken, and a computer would check all the thousands of photos for any points of reflected light that were changing position. Time to do this would involve many variable factors. Have they spotted a gas giant, thus being able to determine the galactic plane? How long did it take the ship to reposition within the star system? How fast are their telescopic cameras? I am picturing anywhere from a single day to months. But not seconds, minutes or hours. And a day would seem to involve some advance knowledge, some lucky breaks, or a staggering array of telescopes.)
The late great Dr. Isaac Asimov actually discussed some of this in his Foundation series, when he had Golan Trevize explain some of the difficulties in finding planets to Janov Pelorat. More notably, Robert Heinlein mentioned telling time by the planets in “Time Enough for Love” when a time traveler was going to look at the position of the planets, input them into a computer that had the data on those planets, and thus know when he was. He pointed out that unless you already had all the data on the planets, it would be easier just to ask a native what year it was!
Granting then that finding planets isn’t always as easy as it’s made out to be, can one in real life tell the time by the planets?
Yes. The planets of our Solar System have given speeds and rates of rotation and rates of revolving about our Sun that are well known, well documented and susceptible to analysis. We know where each of the planets are right now. That is, when we wish to view one, we do not then spend months or years scanning the sky hoping to come across it and recognize it – we know where it is supposed to be, and we aim our telescopes there.
We are at a point in our history where we can do this now. But we have not always been. And may not always be. So it would be wise to get a series of static shots of our Solar System now, while we can. But how does that work, what good does that actually do?
The means of telling time by the planets is simple to say, harder to do. It takes into account the varying speeds of the planets revolving about the Sun. Earth takes (obviously) one year to do this. Mars, roughly twice as far, takes 1.88 of our years to make a circle (actually an ellipse) about the Sun. Jupiter, about 12 years. Pluto (I know!), about 248 years. Mercury, conversely, only about 88 days.
Western man loves clocks, and it was Lorenzo Valpaia who in the 16th century built a very clever one that was designed to show the motions and position of the major planets. Regrettably it was destroyed. But it shows it can be done. Were a new version to be built – and I think it would be great if one was – it could have a Pluto that literally took about 247 years to circle one time. And a Jupiter taking 12 years. And even “fast” Mercury taking 88 days. (His was not configured to show a literal motion, but did show where they’d be.)
However, more simply than a clockwork mechanism or an orrery, which might not last 10,000 years, would be to have still shots of the configurations of the planets at given intervals. And all the information on the planets, how to observe them, the math involved, as described in other articles.
A person coming across this in, say, the year 6,011, might have an entirely different system for naming years. To him, it may be 441 AC (After the Cleansing) as he counts from the destruction of civilization by rogue nanites that took place 441 years before his present. Or he may think of it as 5432 AH, due to an Islamic civilization having gained world wide supremacy some millennia before.
Whichever years he uses, the odds of it being ours would seem small. However, he may yet have some knowledge of our history. He may have been taught by an Imam that man set foot on the moon in the year 1390 AH, and he could then see by a chart of historical events that we called 1390 AH “1969 CE”. A one to one correlation could be made, and all our data would make sense in historical context.
But possibly he thinks in terms even worse for us – such as regarding it as the eleventh year of the reign of Emperor Daly LXII of the Chicago Imperium, Lord of the Eastern Dominions, Protector of the Western Wastes. If he is an educated man, he may know his emperors back for more than a few centuries. However, ultimately, if knowledge of Common Era dating has been lost, it would be difficult to get a one to one correlation with our historical dates. The time before Emperors may just be a murky “ancient times”, and while they could learn all about it from our books, they’d not know for sure how long had passed since then, unless there had been a fortuitously – and improbably – unbroken line of Imperial succession back to some historical date we already knew of.
This is where the static pictures of the Solar System would come in handy. Once they know what they are, they can chart the skies for what the configuration is during their time. And as the math works backwards as well as forwards, they can know what it looked like a year or five years or 1,000 years ago. Or 4,011 years ago, back to the year 02000 CE.
And given that we’d have those pictures, one of each millennia, possibly each century, they could quickly (well, okay, not so quickly, but at least surely) find out how long ago things like the moon landing were in relation to them. The hypothetical Chicagoan scholar could report to his Imperial Highness that “the moon landing of the ancients took place 2157 years before the ascension of the First Emperor. Our year, by the ancient’s dating, is 6,011. And our observations show that the planets were in the exact formation shown on this plate 11 years ago, at the time of your coronation.”
And thus time can be told again, and all humanity, past and present and future, is on the same page again. This may seem unimportant, but as any disaster could happen any time, and inevitably some disaster will happen some time, such records of the planetary configurations and what they correspond to would be (and will be) invaluable.
So much so that at the Encyclopedia Foundation, we are going to see about adding such to our collection.
Friday, July 1, 2011
What time is it?
The Encyclopedia Foundation has as its goal the preservation of knowledge for 10,000 years. All well and good, but when will that be up? One could imagine that it would be 10,000 years from the date of our incorporation, or 12,008. Or 12,007 from our earlier incorporation. Or perhaps even 11,941, reflecting the year the late Dr. Isaac Asimov first published “Foundation” detailing our plans.
Dr. Asimov even anticipated the difficulty in labeling years in his book “Second Foundation” when he showed that the date of the start of the Stettinian War (in which the Mule’s successor on Kalgan attempted to take over the Foundation Federation) was given as 11,692 of the Galactic Era, but also 419 After Seldon, 348 Year of the Foundation or even 56 FC (Year of the First Citizenship of the Mule).
Likewise on our planet, at this time, we have a variety of year systems, and a variety of ways of starting the clock. However, and mercifully, a general acceptance of what used to be AD (Anno Domini or Year of our Lord) has been accepted, though is called CE or Common Era. And in that, the year as I write is 02011.
All well and good, but human systems of time measuring can – and usually do – vary greatly. Can we really assume that we’ll all still be using Common Era in the year (to us) of 12,011? At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we think that this would be a poor bet to make.
You see, in the past 10,000 years, it has not been common to list years out. For many thousands of years, there was no need for a tally, things were simply in your own personal past, in “my father’s time”, in the “time of my father’s father” or “in ancient times”. Later, in Biblical times and all the way through Roman times, it was common to name years after the rulers. Such as in the “fifth year of the reign of Solomon” or “the second year of the rule of Tiberius”. Or even events. “The third year after the Battle of X”.
Egyptians and many other cultures did this, too. So much so that it was a major task of historians to synchronize all those various years into our Common Era dating system. Which itself led to problems. Such as when it was realized that when Dionysius Exiguus invented the Anno Domini system, he matched it with the Roman system of “Anno Urbis Conditae”, or Year of the Founding of the City of Rome. However, he regrettably matched it wrong, so that is why even today the birth of Christ is listed as 4BC. Dr. Asimov had an excellent article on this in his essay “Of Time and Space and Other Things”, in which he described all this in detail.
But none of that actually gets us closer to the real question – what time is it?
Well, one can get almost endlessly metaphysical – and that’s always fun! – but one could say, in general, that time for our purposes is measured by astronomical bodies. The “time” it takes the Earth to rotate once (or from a human perspective, for the Sun to rise in the east, set in the west, and rise again) is a “day”. A “year” is how long it takes the Earth to revolve once about the Sun (or from a person’s perspective, for the seasons to come back around to the beginning, in ancient times, the Winter Solstice, when the Sun started getting higher in the sky again). Even a “month” was derived from the length of time the Moon goes through its phases, which while actually 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 2 plus seconds, is arbitrarily defined as four seven day “weeks” or various amounts of days varying from 28 to 31 (also known as “calendar months”).
Were we not to have astronomical bodies to measure the rates of, we’d not have “time” as we know it. Instead we’d simply have that “several winters ago” and “in my grandsire’s day” stuff that is way to imprecise for our modern purposes.
But that’s only how we measure rates of time. What shows, in a neutral, objective, non-arbitrary way, exactly what time it is now? For we can see that no matter how well we count the number of times the Earth has rotated or revolved since Rome was founded or Jesus was born, that errors do creep in. Mostly for us being admirably exact in knowing how long the periods of time are, but very inexact in the historical events we are speaking of.
When was Jesus born? And it’s not just the Christians, when was Mohammed born? We don’t have exact dates for either. Nor is it only a religious problem, there is dispute not only over George Washington’s birthday, but even Isaac Asimov was unsure as to his date of birth!
The Encyclopedia Foundation offers several things, that should be used together, to derive an “objective time” that can be agreed on, and not change, and be likely to be understood in the coming millennia.
First, a list of very important historical dates, from all around the world, in the major languages, all on one durable metal plate. It would show what year it was in Common Era for things like the founding of the city of Rome, the birth of Christ (as normally given), the year Mohammed and his followers went to Medina, the year of Johan Gutenberg’s printing press, the first man landing on the moon and such like that. It could be a large list, so that one of the cultural/historical events would be sure to be known to the person looking at it, and such a person may already have a “year” in their own system for it. Battles, discoveries, inventions, great leaders, all the usual things should be included.
Second, it would be given not just in the Common Era year, but in the Jewish year (2011 is 5771), the Hindi year (5112), the Muslim year (1432) and such. We cannot currently know what culture will be dominant in 5,000 years. Or even 500 years. Or, though it may seem hard to believe, even 50 years from now. The world has changed faster and more dramatically in less time than half a century before.
Third, and most important, it would then include a static image of the Solar System at various intervals, for our purposes, once per millennia. Thus an image of the planets as they were aligned if one was looking from “above” for the year 1,000, 2,000, 3,000…to 10,000 Common Era. Also for the year 0, 1,000 BCE (Before Common Era) and back to 10,000 BCE. That would be a good 20,000 year spread.
Included in these static pictures would be all the information necessary for calculating such things. This would be important, so they’d know “when” they were seeing this. Space and desire permitting, we could have static shots of the 100 year intervals, too. But the real trick is to show them the data and give them the instructions on lens crafting, telescope making, star gazing and the math (Newton, Kepler, Einstein) to let them do this themselves.
For it is the last that shows definitively exactly what time it is. They would know what time it was for them. And they could then know exactly when all those historical events listed took place. And they – our descendents – would know when the 10,000 year period was up.
The Encyclopedia Foundation proposes having such a metal plate or plates with such information on it. But we’d like the Long Now Foundation to have such at the sites of their 10,000 year clocks. For reasons mentioned in another article, this would be handy in case the clock needed to be reset due to accidental or purposeful damage.
It would also be handy because if this were not there, then even if nothing was ever broke on the clock, you would only have a clock, and it wouldn’t actually be measuring anything. Picture, if you will, a timer. It shows 4 millennia, 274 years, 4 months, and 8 days have passed. Passed since what? Since the Mayans ruled? Since we landed on the moon? Since the Mars colony was seized by Quato and his gang of mutinous dissidents?
A 10,000 year clock needs context. The idea of it, for encouraging a long term thinking, is accomplished by its very existence. But the addition of the metal plates described above is necessary to it having utility in the coming millennia. And again, to fix it if need be.
Dr. Asimov even anticipated the difficulty in labeling years in his book “Second Foundation” when he showed that the date of the start of the Stettinian War (in which the Mule’s successor on Kalgan attempted to take over the Foundation Federation) was given as 11,692 of the Galactic Era, but also 419 After Seldon, 348 Year of the Foundation or even 56 FC (Year of the First Citizenship of the Mule).
Likewise on our planet, at this time, we have a variety of year systems, and a variety of ways of starting the clock. However, and mercifully, a general acceptance of what used to be AD (Anno Domini or Year of our Lord) has been accepted, though is called CE or Common Era. And in that, the year as I write is 02011.
All well and good, but human systems of time measuring can – and usually do – vary greatly. Can we really assume that we’ll all still be using Common Era in the year (to us) of 12,011? At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we think that this would be a poor bet to make.
You see, in the past 10,000 years, it has not been common to list years out. For many thousands of years, there was no need for a tally, things were simply in your own personal past, in “my father’s time”, in the “time of my father’s father” or “in ancient times”. Later, in Biblical times and all the way through Roman times, it was common to name years after the rulers. Such as in the “fifth year of the reign of Solomon” or “the second year of the rule of Tiberius”. Or even events. “The third year after the Battle of X”.
Egyptians and many other cultures did this, too. So much so that it was a major task of historians to synchronize all those various years into our Common Era dating system. Which itself led to problems. Such as when it was realized that when Dionysius Exiguus invented the Anno Domini system, he matched it with the Roman system of “Anno Urbis Conditae”, or Year of the Founding of the City of Rome. However, he regrettably matched it wrong, so that is why even today the birth of Christ is listed as 4BC. Dr. Asimov had an excellent article on this in his essay “Of Time and Space and Other Things”, in which he described all this in detail.
But none of that actually gets us closer to the real question – what time is it?
Well, one can get almost endlessly metaphysical – and that’s always fun! – but one could say, in general, that time for our purposes is measured by astronomical bodies. The “time” it takes the Earth to rotate once (or from a human perspective, for the Sun to rise in the east, set in the west, and rise again) is a “day”. A “year” is how long it takes the Earth to revolve once about the Sun (or from a person’s perspective, for the seasons to come back around to the beginning, in ancient times, the Winter Solstice, when the Sun started getting higher in the sky again). Even a “month” was derived from the length of time the Moon goes through its phases, which while actually 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 2 plus seconds, is arbitrarily defined as four seven day “weeks” or various amounts of days varying from 28 to 31 (also known as “calendar months”).
Were we not to have astronomical bodies to measure the rates of, we’d not have “time” as we know it. Instead we’d simply have that “several winters ago” and “in my grandsire’s day” stuff that is way to imprecise for our modern purposes.
But that’s only how we measure rates of time. What shows, in a neutral, objective, non-arbitrary way, exactly what time it is now? For we can see that no matter how well we count the number of times the Earth has rotated or revolved since Rome was founded or Jesus was born, that errors do creep in. Mostly for us being admirably exact in knowing how long the periods of time are, but very inexact in the historical events we are speaking of.
When was Jesus born? And it’s not just the Christians, when was Mohammed born? We don’t have exact dates for either. Nor is it only a religious problem, there is dispute not only over George Washington’s birthday, but even Isaac Asimov was unsure as to his date of birth!
The Encyclopedia Foundation offers several things, that should be used together, to derive an “objective time” that can be agreed on, and not change, and be likely to be understood in the coming millennia.
First, a list of very important historical dates, from all around the world, in the major languages, all on one durable metal plate. It would show what year it was in Common Era for things like the founding of the city of Rome, the birth of Christ (as normally given), the year Mohammed and his followers went to Medina, the year of Johan Gutenberg’s printing press, the first man landing on the moon and such like that. It could be a large list, so that one of the cultural/historical events would be sure to be known to the person looking at it, and such a person may already have a “year” in their own system for it. Battles, discoveries, inventions, great leaders, all the usual things should be included.
Second, it would be given not just in the Common Era year, but in the Jewish year (2011 is 5771), the Hindi year (5112), the Muslim year (1432) and such. We cannot currently know what culture will be dominant in 5,000 years. Or even 500 years. Or, though it may seem hard to believe, even 50 years from now. The world has changed faster and more dramatically in less time than half a century before.
Third, and most important, it would then include a static image of the Solar System at various intervals, for our purposes, once per millennia. Thus an image of the planets as they were aligned if one was looking from “above” for the year 1,000, 2,000, 3,000…to 10,000 Common Era. Also for the year 0, 1,000 BCE (Before Common Era) and back to 10,000 BCE. That would be a good 20,000 year spread.
Included in these static pictures would be all the information necessary for calculating such things. This would be important, so they’d know “when” they were seeing this. Space and desire permitting, we could have static shots of the 100 year intervals, too. But the real trick is to show them the data and give them the instructions on lens crafting, telescope making, star gazing and the math (Newton, Kepler, Einstein) to let them do this themselves.
For it is the last that shows definitively exactly what time it is. They would know what time it was for them. And they could then know exactly when all those historical events listed took place. And they – our descendents – would know when the 10,000 year period was up.
The Encyclopedia Foundation proposes having such a metal plate or plates with such information on it. But we’d like the Long Now Foundation to have such at the sites of their 10,000 year clocks. For reasons mentioned in another article, this would be handy in case the clock needed to be reset due to accidental or purposeful damage.
It would also be handy because if this were not there, then even if nothing was ever broke on the clock, you would only have a clock, and it wouldn’t actually be measuring anything. Picture, if you will, a timer. It shows 4 millennia, 274 years, 4 months, and 8 days have passed. Passed since what? Since the Mayans ruled? Since we landed on the moon? Since the Mars colony was seized by Quato and his gang of mutinous dissidents?
A 10,000 year clock needs context. The idea of it, for encouraging a long term thinking, is accomplished by its very existence. But the addition of the metal plates described above is necessary to it having utility in the coming millennia. And again, to fix it if need be.
10,000 year clock - a concern
The Encyclopedia Foundation by its nature must attempt to take into account any possible catastrophe that might impede the mission of preserving knowledge for 10,000 years. We are different than the Long Now Foundation in a variety of ways, but perhaps one way is in philosophical outlook.
The Long Now Foundation is one of philosophical optimism, grounded in the theory that there is nothing particularly special about our time, therefore, instead of assuming we are at the end of time (the way Western Culture loves to imagine in the form of our various apocalyptic beliefs) they assume we are in the middle of two myrias. That is to say, they note that we have (roughly) 10,000 years of history behind us, and thus plan for 10,000 years ahead of us.
In an article in Details (January/February 2006) it was pointed out that most of us fatalistically expect the world to end. But the Long Now is trying, by means of its 10,000 year clock, to get us thinking about the long view of things, to realize that yes, there will be people here, so we need to start thinking about the future again. It points out the phenomena where we all got so used to thinking of the year 2000 as “the future” that it was kind of disappointing when it came and went!
At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we agree with this. And we do believe that humans will be around in 10,000 years. However, we aren’t quite so optimistic in general, because by the nature of our mission, we can’t afford to be.
You see, while the clock of the Long Now is admirably suited for getting people to think about the future, it is not so admirably suited for preparing people of the future to recover from disasters. That’s where we come in. Our point of preserving knowledge for 10,000 years is not simply so that advanced archaeologists of that time can have something fun to examine. It’s more along the lines of “In Case of Emergency Read This!”. We are – like in the “Foundation Trilogy” of the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, planning in advance for a collapse.
Which as far as we’re concerned, all history shows that there is always a collapse!
This tends to give us a certain philosophical “pessimism”, in that we must then orient to the negative “what ifs” and plan and guard against those.
I mention this due to reading about the 10,000 year clock being built in Texas. It is described as able to be self-powered, but to be accessible to people, so that they can help wind it up, literally. A journey of a day, and someone can look about the clock, examine it, wind it, read it, and come away inspired.
Of course, I am sorry to have to say this, but that is not all a person – or persons – can do in 10,000 years. There is a reason for there being a fence around Stonehenge.
Yes, I refer to vandalism. And while having the sphinx’s nose lopped off, or having “Go Mancs!” spray painted on a stone of Stonehenge may not actually interfere with the majesty of the Sphinx or the calculative abilities of Stonehenge, it does deface them.
And a clock is ever so much more sensitive to vandalism than a stone sphinx. Or a circle of stones. Or really, let’s be honest, it’s more sensitive than anything.
The solution that we have here at the Encyclopedia Foundation is to have a caretaker on site. To prevent that kind of thing. We also plan on redundancy, so that if one body of knowledge is destroyed, another still exists. We can – and do – hope that the Long Now Foundation is doing that. Oh, we know that they aren’t having a caretaker on the site – though we believe they should – but we do know that they are going to build more than one.
Of course, we don’t think the simple building of more than one really cuts it, given that 10,000 years is a long time for vandals to operate. And leaves out the possibility of a concerted effort, such as always happens with these types of things, every century or three. At the Encyclopedia Foundation, amongst the many apocalyptic scenarios we imagine, one involving a radical anti-time measuring movement is hardly very far fetched. Time measuring is, after all, responsible for no small portion of the woes of the common man, and such “common men” are always the shock troops of any revolution or anarchy that comes.
Is there a solution for the Long Now Foundation? Well, we understand how they can’t really have a caretaker there – though as far as we’re concerned, that might be more possible than they are thinking. But failing that, there are some things they could do. Three things, actually.
1. Have more than one clock. Ideally at least one per continent. And work to get the unit price down so that such clocks can be made smaller, more affordable, at least to the extent that you could have one in every library of every city over 100,000 people. The odds of every statue or picture of George Washington being destroyed are very, very slight. So make as many of these clocks. Sound fantastic? Well, they are planning on a ten thousand year period, and it would be surprising if they could not do this within the first 200 years. Frankly, we think they could do it in the first 100, based on certain variables of capital accumulation and public interest.
2. Have spare parts and tools for fixing the clocks on site. In a vault secure enough to deter the casual vandal. But with instructions for how to open it on the outside. Instructions? Sure. Just that it would be the type of instructions that only a serious scholar could provide. Basically, the combo – and we got this idea from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in “The Mote in God’s Eye” – would be the positions of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as of any year they cared to designate. Don’t laugh, you are thinking you know the order of the planets, I assure you that unless you are a staggeringly unusual savant, you sure don’t know what the positions were for the year 02000 or 01996 or any other year you care to think of.
Why this combo? Because besides discouraging vandals, it would do no good to have the tools to repair the clock without a way to figure out what time to reset it to. And the ability to chart the positions of the planets would tell such a person the very important piece of information needed – what time it is when they come across the clock. (More on this in a future article.)
Which leads to…
3. Have on site the written instructions for finding the positions of the planets. This could be engraved on the wall itself, on the clock itself, or on metal plates. Or all three. It would have instructions as to the math of calculating orbits, how to make lenses for telescopes, Newton’s and Einstein’s laws on how to figure it out, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary motion and such. Besides engravings, you could also have records – old fashioned records and an old fashioned gramophone – to tell them about all this. The verbal instructions need not be detailed, it would be enough if they were told the writings had meaning, that they were in English (and Spanish, Mandarin and Hindi) and they would – if they were scholars, not vandals – be able to take it from there.
You could also, if you really wished to be thorough, have glass slides and a mechanical slide projector and lamp to literally show them what you meant.
This would allow them to re-discover astronomy (if they had lost it), calculate the current time, calculate the combination to the vault, access the tools and supplies and reset the clock. And close the vault door again.
All that said, and we are serious in suggesting it, they’d also do well to have some kind of group of people living on site. Such takes enormous planning and initial funding, but is what will inevitably be the only thing that truly works to avoid vandalism for the longest of terms.
The Long Now Foundation is one of philosophical optimism, grounded in the theory that there is nothing particularly special about our time, therefore, instead of assuming we are at the end of time (the way Western Culture loves to imagine in the form of our various apocalyptic beliefs) they assume we are in the middle of two myrias. That is to say, they note that we have (roughly) 10,000 years of history behind us, and thus plan for 10,000 years ahead of us.
In an article in Details (January/February 2006) it was pointed out that most of us fatalistically expect the world to end. But the Long Now is trying, by means of its 10,000 year clock, to get us thinking about the long view of things, to realize that yes, there will be people here, so we need to start thinking about the future again. It points out the phenomena where we all got so used to thinking of the year 2000 as “the future” that it was kind of disappointing when it came and went!
At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we agree with this. And we do believe that humans will be around in 10,000 years. However, we aren’t quite so optimistic in general, because by the nature of our mission, we can’t afford to be.
You see, while the clock of the Long Now is admirably suited for getting people to think about the future, it is not so admirably suited for preparing people of the future to recover from disasters. That’s where we come in. Our point of preserving knowledge for 10,000 years is not simply so that advanced archaeologists of that time can have something fun to examine. It’s more along the lines of “In Case of Emergency Read This!”. We are – like in the “Foundation Trilogy” of the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, planning in advance for a collapse.
Which as far as we’re concerned, all history shows that there is always a collapse!
This tends to give us a certain philosophical “pessimism”, in that we must then orient to the negative “what ifs” and plan and guard against those.
I mention this due to reading about the 10,000 year clock being built in Texas. It is described as able to be self-powered, but to be accessible to people, so that they can help wind it up, literally. A journey of a day, and someone can look about the clock, examine it, wind it, read it, and come away inspired.
Of course, I am sorry to have to say this, but that is not all a person – or persons – can do in 10,000 years. There is a reason for there being a fence around Stonehenge.
Yes, I refer to vandalism. And while having the sphinx’s nose lopped off, or having “Go Mancs!” spray painted on a stone of Stonehenge may not actually interfere with the majesty of the Sphinx or the calculative abilities of Stonehenge, it does deface them.
And a clock is ever so much more sensitive to vandalism than a stone sphinx. Or a circle of stones. Or really, let’s be honest, it’s more sensitive than anything.
The solution that we have here at the Encyclopedia Foundation is to have a caretaker on site. To prevent that kind of thing. We also plan on redundancy, so that if one body of knowledge is destroyed, another still exists. We can – and do – hope that the Long Now Foundation is doing that. Oh, we know that they aren’t having a caretaker on the site – though we believe they should – but we do know that they are going to build more than one.
Of course, we don’t think the simple building of more than one really cuts it, given that 10,000 years is a long time for vandals to operate. And leaves out the possibility of a concerted effort, such as always happens with these types of things, every century or three. At the Encyclopedia Foundation, amongst the many apocalyptic scenarios we imagine, one involving a radical anti-time measuring movement is hardly very far fetched. Time measuring is, after all, responsible for no small portion of the woes of the common man, and such “common men” are always the shock troops of any revolution or anarchy that comes.
Is there a solution for the Long Now Foundation? Well, we understand how they can’t really have a caretaker there – though as far as we’re concerned, that might be more possible than they are thinking. But failing that, there are some things they could do. Three things, actually.
1. Have more than one clock. Ideally at least one per continent. And work to get the unit price down so that such clocks can be made smaller, more affordable, at least to the extent that you could have one in every library of every city over 100,000 people. The odds of every statue or picture of George Washington being destroyed are very, very slight. So make as many of these clocks. Sound fantastic? Well, they are planning on a ten thousand year period, and it would be surprising if they could not do this within the first 200 years. Frankly, we think they could do it in the first 100, based on certain variables of capital accumulation and public interest.
2. Have spare parts and tools for fixing the clocks on site. In a vault secure enough to deter the casual vandal. But with instructions for how to open it on the outside. Instructions? Sure. Just that it would be the type of instructions that only a serious scholar could provide. Basically, the combo – and we got this idea from Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle in “The Mote in God’s Eye” – would be the positions of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as of any year they cared to designate. Don’t laugh, you are thinking you know the order of the planets, I assure you that unless you are a staggeringly unusual savant, you sure don’t know what the positions were for the year 02000 or 01996 or any other year you care to think of.
Why this combo? Because besides discouraging vandals, it would do no good to have the tools to repair the clock without a way to figure out what time to reset it to. And the ability to chart the positions of the planets would tell such a person the very important piece of information needed – what time it is when they come across the clock. (More on this in a future article.)
Which leads to…
3. Have on site the written instructions for finding the positions of the planets. This could be engraved on the wall itself, on the clock itself, or on metal plates. Or all three. It would have instructions as to the math of calculating orbits, how to make lenses for telescopes, Newton’s and Einstein’s laws on how to figure it out, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary motion and such. Besides engravings, you could also have records – old fashioned records and an old fashioned gramophone – to tell them about all this. The verbal instructions need not be detailed, it would be enough if they were told the writings had meaning, that they were in English (and Spanish, Mandarin and Hindi) and they would – if they were scholars, not vandals – be able to take it from there.
You could also, if you really wished to be thorough, have glass slides and a mechanical slide projector and lamp to literally show them what you meant.
This would allow them to re-discover astronomy (if they had lost it), calculate the current time, calculate the combination to the vault, access the tools and supplies and reset the clock. And close the vault door again.
All that said, and we are serious in suggesting it, they’d also do well to have some kind of group of people living on site. Such takes enormous planning and initial funding, but is what will inevitably be the only thing that truly works to avoid vandalism for the longest of terms.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Gamma Friendly, or KISS
The Encyclopedia Foundation, while obviously big fans of the late Dr. Isaac Asimov, are fans of a wide variety of other science fiction authors, too. One is “Brave New World”, by Aldous Huxley, where he describes a future dystopia where not only are people of varying degrees of intelligence, they are deliberately bred to be that way.
There is much to be said about that book, but for our purposes, we draw attention to his Caste System of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilons as, in order, Genius, Above Average, Average, Below Average and Mentally Handicapped. These are somewhat useful labels, as they are value neutral and simply designate a given level of intelligence with no undue judgments implied.
He wrote the book in the early 20th century and much research has been done since then. We usually represent the distribution of intellect as a bell curve, in which the vast majority of mankind falls into the categories of Beta, Gamma and Delta, with the very, very bright geniuses (Alphas) and the very, very challenged (Epsilons) being a minority on either side of the giant curve.
If you are wondering what this has to do with the Encyclopedia Foundation, it is this: To succeed in long term preservation of books, it is not enough to have books on metal plates to last ten thousand years. Or even a vault or building that may last 10,000 years. Sure, we can – and will – make all efforts to see to it that it would be decipherable even if we and our inheritors no longer existed. So that someone could come upon the books and with no aid from a person learn from them.
But that’s a long shot. It’s one that again, we’ll do, but it is only a “last resort”. The best case is for the Encyclopedia Foundation as an organization to continue to last for the entire 10,000 year period. And beyond.
And this is where we need to be “Gamma Friendly”. The problem is two fold.
One, the person who comes across the books, say, 6,495 years from now is – by the odds – going to be a Gamma. Were he unusually slow, he’d not be journeying about. Were he unusually bright, he’d probably have tribal, political or business responsibilities depending on the state of the collapse and rebuild. Given this, we cannot automatically assume that they can figure out all of our clever clues as to how to make use of the books. It would be handy then if there were still people of the Encyclopedia Foundation who at the least could explain the basics.
Do not misunderstand. Frankly, we believe that some of our means that we’ll employ are such that any Gamma can figure it out. That will be just another way we seek to be “Gamma Friendly”. But the friendliest of all would be to have some curator there to explain.
Two, such people as might inherit the Encyclopedia Foundation 100 years or 1,000 years from now are probably not going to be Alphas. Again, such as the Alphas usually already have their own concerns. We could hope for there to always be at least some Betas, as we have now, but we cannot even count on that. The Encyclopedia Foundation must always be geared to be run and maintained by Gammas.
Given this, everything must be kept as simple as possible. Or as the popular idiom has it, “KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid”. We cannot be too large. We cannot take on too many things. We must strive to be very much like an ordinary household, wherein no more knowledge of math, planning, regulation following and such is required for us, then would be required for a large household.
Instructions, clearly wrote, must exist for the maintenance of the Encyclopedia Foundation. A basic literacy must be transmitted to each successive group of inheritors. Some of this may seem obvious now, but basic literacy is not always a “to be taken for granted” thing.
And of staggering importance is that the Encyclopedia Foundation always give incentive to those who are in it to stay in it. If at any time in the next 10,000 years it becomes easier for those running the Encyclopedia Foundation to leave it for a better opportunity, then all we could hope for then is that they at least shut the door behind them.
All efforts must be bent towards avoiding that. Such that even if some leave for a better opportunity, that others will be interested in joining to replace them and carry on.
While an Alpha or even a Beta can be tempted with just the goal itself, just the grand ideal, Gammas need a bit more concrete incentive. Hence our program of having the Caretaker live on site, and the attempt to grow to a size just sufficient enough to have a self-supporting monastery like group of members.
The goal for being “Gamma Friendly”, and also Self-Sufficient, is as simple to express as it is complex to carry out. An almost literal monastery. Or better put, an actual monastery, but without adhering to a specific church. This method worked for those in the Middle Ages who were laboring to preserve knowledge. And it can continue to work now.
True, such monasteries – like any other enterprise – do benefit from a Beta administrator, but such are not required. And happily enough, from any pool of Gammas going out of their way to join an organization, there is usually always at least a Gamma Plus or Beta Minus amongst them. And worst case, there is nothing inherently impossible in a regular average Joe – a Gamma – running a Monastery which when all is said and done is little more than a communal home.
As to how to form a monastery style organization, that is another article.
There is much to be said about that book, but for our purposes, we draw attention to his Caste System of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilons as, in order, Genius, Above Average, Average, Below Average and Mentally Handicapped. These are somewhat useful labels, as they are value neutral and simply designate a given level of intelligence with no undue judgments implied.
He wrote the book in the early 20th century and much research has been done since then. We usually represent the distribution of intellect as a bell curve, in which the vast majority of mankind falls into the categories of Beta, Gamma and Delta, with the very, very bright geniuses (Alphas) and the very, very challenged (Epsilons) being a minority on either side of the giant curve.
If you are wondering what this has to do with the Encyclopedia Foundation, it is this: To succeed in long term preservation of books, it is not enough to have books on metal plates to last ten thousand years. Or even a vault or building that may last 10,000 years. Sure, we can – and will – make all efforts to see to it that it would be decipherable even if we and our inheritors no longer existed. So that someone could come upon the books and with no aid from a person learn from them.
But that’s a long shot. It’s one that again, we’ll do, but it is only a “last resort”. The best case is for the Encyclopedia Foundation as an organization to continue to last for the entire 10,000 year period. And beyond.
And this is where we need to be “Gamma Friendly”. The problem is two fold.
One, the person who comes across the books, say, 6,495 years from now is – by the odds – going to be a Gamma. Were he unusually slow, he’d not be journeying about. Were he unusually bright, he’d probably have tribal, political or business responsibilities depending on the state of the collapse and rebuild. Given this, we cannot automatically assume that they can figure out all of our clever clues as to how to make use of the books. It would be handy then if there were still people of the Encyclopedia Foundation who at the least could explain the basics.
Do not misunderstand. Frankly, we believe that some of our means that we’ll employ are such that any Gamma can figure it out. That will be just another way we seek to be “Gamma Friendly”. But the friendliest of all would be to have some curator there to explain.
Two, such people as might inherit the Encyclopedia Foundation 100 years or 1,000 years from now are probably not going to be Alphas. Again, such as the Alphas usually already have their own concerns. We could hope for there to always be at least some Betas, as we have now, but we cannot even count on that. The Encyclopedia Foundation must always be geared to be run and maintained by Gammas.
Given this, everything must be kept as simple as possible. Or as the popular idiom has it, “KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid”. We cannot be too large. We cannot take on too many things. We must strive to be very much like an ordinary household, wherein no more knowledge of math, planning, regulation following and such is required for us, then would be required for a large household.
Instructions, clearly wrote, must exist for the maintenance of the Encyclopedia Foundation. A basic literacy must be transmitted to each successive group of inheritors. Some of this may seem obvious now, but basic literacy is not always a “to be taken for granted” thing.
And of staggering importance is that the Encyclopedia Foundation always give incentive to those who are in it to stay in it. If at any time in the next 10,000 years it becomes easier for those running the Encyclopedia Foundation to leave it for a better opportunity, then all we could hope for then is that they at least shut the door behind them.
All efforts must be bent towards avoiding that. Such that even if some leave for a better opportunity, that others will be interested in joining to replace them and carry on.
While an Alpha or even a Beta can be tempted with just the goal itself, just the grand ideal, Gammas need a bit more concrete incentive. Hence our program of having the Caretaker live on site, and the attempt to grow to a size just sufficient enough to have a self-supporting monastery like group of members.
The goal for being “Gamma Friendly”, and also Self-Sufficient, is as simple to express as it is complex to carry out. An almost literal monastery. Or better put, an actual monastery, but without adhering to a specific church. This method worked for those in the Middle Ages who were laboring to preserve knowledge. And it can continue to work now.
True, such monasteries – like any other enterprise – do benefit from a Beta administrator, but such are not required. And happily enough, from any pool of Gammas going out of their way to join an organization, there is usually always at least a Gamma Plus or Beta Minus amongst them. And worst case, there is nothing inherently impossible in a regular average Joe – a Gamma – running a Monastery which when all is said and done is little more than a communal home.
As to how to form a monastery style organization, that is another article.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Danger of Donations
The Encyclopedia Foundation, inspired as we are by the late great Dr. Isaac Asimov, is no stranger to the lessons to be learned from the stories within his “Foundation Trilogy”.
One story was this, as quoted from the first book, “Foundation”:
“A horse having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of his life. Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Whereupon he approached a man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at the man’s disposal. The horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him.
The horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: ‘Now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.’
Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, ‘Never!’ and applied the spurs with a will.”
That story was told by the character Salvor Hardin to the acting Head of State of a not-so-friendly power. The planet had accepted aid from Terminus, and now found that they were under the control of Terminus because of it.
Which leads us to question the value of donations. What are donations, and are they a good thing?
Well, at the Encyclopedia Foundation, we’ve noticed that donations usually don’t actually exist. No, we aren’t speaking of any failed fundraiser (we’ve never had one!) but rather our belief that “donations” as thought to be, don’t actually exist.
A donation is supposed to be distinct from a purchase. While if someone gives money to a store owner, and gets a good or service back, that is a purchase. But if you give money to a charity, you get nothing back, that is a donation.
Of course, it can be seen that this is not entirely true. One does get something from a donation, they at least get a good feeling of having supported a worthy cause. And that, while intangible, is no less of a purchased “thing” then the man who purchases the memory of a baseball game at Busch Stadium with his son. One can see that there is no actual thing as a pure donation, it is always a “purchase”.
When it comes to routine donations – such as ten bucks sent to Red Cross when tornados hit a region – it is actually a relatively simple purchase. You pay ten dollars, you now have the good feeling of knowing you helped. You also get the benefit of an additional deduction at tax time. That was “purchased”, too.
And for routine donations/purchases, that is all it is. You bought a feeling of lending a hand, and got a tax deduction.
When it comes to larger donations – purchases – it gets a bit more tricky. Those with large amounts of money to give out expect more than just a “good feeling”. They enjoy tax deductions, but can get those by giving to any charity. Thus a non-profit, a church, an educational institution, finds that they – like any business – are competing for the donation dollar.
One competes by offering more. More than just that good feeling and tax deduction. This could be as simple as a t-shirt saying “Greenpeace”. Or it could be the University Library named after you. It can be more, too.
And that’s where the problems start. “Free” things are usually the most costly of all, but while the adult child staying “rent free” at grandma’s place knows the staggeringly large hidden costs of that, many people running churches and charities and colleges seem to forget it. But donors giving “Free” money are like grandma’s giving “Free” room and board – they expect obedience, and no lip!
Consider the larger type donations, such as a wealthy patron might give. He may wish a library named after him. And he gets it. All done? No. There is next year. He might give again. What does he want? Ahh, that is for the University to figure out, and they will throw all manner of inducements at him. And he’ll take them – and then tell them what he really wants, and get that, too!
I was struck by a quote in another scifi author’s book, “The Number of the Beast” by Robert Heinlein. He had one of the character’s say, “I’ve heard that there are things no whore will do for money, but I have yet to find ANYTHING that a University Chancellor faced with a deficit will boggle at…”
The wealthy donor’s child being admitted with substandard grades? No problem, they did that without him asking. Invites to any and all campus events? Of course, of course, chump change. Was the child involved in a regrettable “incident”? That’s okay, that’s why the University has their own police force – so that they can better serve the special needs of their Alumni and students!
Now comes the actual time of the hoped for donation. The University has worked for it, they have hoped for it, they have already sold portions of their soul for it…and he asks for a spot on the Board, for himself or someone he knows. And if the donation is large enough, he’ll get it, too. Or equivalencies. Appointments or promotions or demotions of various faculty or staff. A hand in the curriculum. A say in where a construction contract for a new facility will go. Usually to a firm that has his – or a friend’s – last name in it. Etc.
Of course, no one doubts that it would take a very large donor to accomplish this at a large university. Just as no one doubts that it would take far smaller donations to accomplish the equivalent at a local church of 35 members. But be it store front church or Ivy League University, the major money is going to purchase not “good feelings” but power. The purchase is actually of the Institution itself, as much or as little as the purchaser (donor) cares to afford.
In theory, there is no problem in this. The donor has the best interests of the institution – be it church or college or charity – at heart, so obviously wishes it to succeed. True enough. But there are many paths to “success”, many ways of growing, many directions to take, and it is doubtful that his is the same as the current Board and leadership. He’d hardly need to donate if the college, church or charity was already doing exactly as he wished, and going exactly where he wished it to go.
No, the large donations are solely to purchase control and swerve the institution into a more desirable – for the donor – course.
And what if any institution accepts a large yearly gift from a donor who asks for nothing? Wait. Watch. After five years, when the institution has grown because of that counted upon annual gift, then the price will come due soon enough. For a common feature of most of our culture’s institutions is that as hard as “growing larger” is, going back to a smaller level is pretty much impossible. You grow, at least stay the same, or die.
Thus the institution seeking funds is like the horse. And the benefactor with large amounts of money to donate is the man. And the goal of the institution is the wolf. The institution accepts the donor’s “bridle and saddle” to achieve the goal, but does not find it very easy to shake the donor off afterwards. Thus one should be careful of who a large donor is and what their motivations are.
That would seem to be easy enough, and for most institutions – including the Encyclopedia Foundation – there is little danger as no long lines of large benefactors are forming at our doorsteps! But if an institution does not have a large donor/benefactor, they are not as yet out of the woods.
Other places for donations besides the mega-rich man is grant bestowing foundations, corporations, and the government. And given the sums they toss, they don’t even play at being kind like the rich man does, they just flat out tell you what you will and will not do. And there are no “no strings attached” grants, when you see one that looks like that, it just means that rather than them ask something specific from you, they’ll just let you dance even harder trying to anticipate what will secure the grant’s renewal.
Then there’s the last means of routine donations, the regular $10 man, per month or one time. These are perhaps the safest donations, in that no single person is donating enough to expect more than access to your monthly online newsletter. Perhaps a t-shirt if they are a $35 “big spender”. Or even “membership” if they agree to a monthly pittance, “membership” being semantically equal to “newsletter subscriber” at best.
Yet are these entirely safe? For all short term practical purposes, they are somewhat safe. The “membership” expects only what was offered up front. A feeling of doing good, of belonging, and perhaps a t-shirt or ball cap so as to let others know he is special. But in the aggregate, they are donating much, and an institution, especially a long term institution, should be sensitive to things that can change that.
Why? Well, it can be like the poor fool who was cursed winning the lottery. True, he feels he’s lucky. He won ten million dollars and promptly bought a 3.5 million dollar mansion. No one told him that the upkeep on such was $50,000 per month, not to mention property taxes that exceed per year what his entire extended family made in the past 20 years. He quickly blows through the remaining money, and as his level is now too high to support by his labors, the moment the lottery money stops, all is lost.
Lots of people donate. And lots do so “long term”, that is on a monthly basis. But will they always? Fads come and go, what is in, what is out, cause of the week, cause even of a generation. At one time, the John Birch Society brought in quite a bit of revenue each year from tens of thousands of members who feared the Communist Menace. For that matter, the Ku Klux Klan used to be fabulously wealthy and influential as recently as the nineteen twenties. We do not believe that either are doing quite so well today.
Finally, you have bequests. These actually are safe. Well, so long as you can comply with the request that always comes with it!!
Does this mean that one should never accept donations? No. It means this:
1. Know the large donor and know exactly what he wishes up front. If you must, then as much at hurts, pass up the donation. An atheistic free market philosopher was once said to have turned down a million dollars to re-write her individualistic philosophy to reflect a belief in God. If you wish control of your organization, you must be willing to do the same.
This can be something that affects little charities and churches. Even some “gifts” in themselves are not worth it, such as someone wishing to donate a house that is actually condemned. Such a “gift” may just stick you with the taxes and demolition costs that you don’t have. Or you may have the capital to fix it up and generate revenue for your non-profit. Know which first!
2. One can say this for grant giving Foundations and corporations – they do tell you what they expect up front. If this is where your mission is going, great. If not, one should avoid getting into the habit of modifying the mission to be able to accept more money. Money is a means to the end, and the end should be your mission. There are limits to how much you can change, before you are just now in it for the money.
3. Government grants are honest to the extent that they are up front about their interests. It was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who in a case about whether the government had any say in the type of art it subsidized, or whether the first amendment said they did not, ruled, “The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune.”
That’s pretty clear. Take their money – do as you are told. They will let you know in advance what that is, so like a grant making Foundation, it may be okay. Maybe.
4. Having a large dues paying membership can be a future trap. If you come to rely on it, if your size grows to the point where you depend on it, you will find yourself shifting your mission, not at the member’s requests, but because you’ll fear losing membership. Let your fellow director post an article in your newsletter and it generate some angry comments from your membership – and a subscription or ten cancelled – and you’ll see that those members have a bit more say than you thought.
Because your first thought – and the one you’ll ultimately go with – will be to not let that Director write another article, and probably have an apology printed, too! Congratulations, the members just took control – even if only a little – of your organization.
And there is the long term problem of their continued interest. The youth who in college joins “PETA” to impress his girlfriend with his love of our animal brothers and sisters is probably not going to be donating for more than four years, tops. True, nimble organizations can take this into account, and always be planning on existing off the donations of each new fresh crop of college idealists, with even the benefit of keeping a percent of them for longer. You can do this. But prepare for it in advance, and don’t grow too big before you have this locked in.
Another concern with having a large dues paying membership – in a church or charity – is that such large amounts of revenue can attract to your organization those who just want that revenue. Churches and charities have both found themselves “hijacked” when it turned out that some who applied for positions of power and authority within the organization really just wanted to get the money. Be that the power to award contracts to their construction friends, or to direct the charity to assist those they like, or even a flat out looting. Big money attracts those who love big money. Be prepared, and remember that bigger isn’t always better.
And of course, a large member base still almost always ends in heartache as for the real long term, causes and come and go. While some seem to have staying power – like the Red Cross – others are like the Anti-Saloon Movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dead, for lack of enough people caring any more. Or the Klan or the Birchers. Your organization does not have to be right or wrong for the long term. But if it is going to depend on the masses of donors, then it must stay relevant to the masses of donors.
Or be able to do without them.
5. Bequests. These are the simplest and easiest. The person giving them is dead, he left one clear request and that’s that. Assuming it’s not too bizarre, take it and use it. However, do not use it to grow to a size that your normal revenue cannot support.
Now then, what does all of this mean for the Encyclopedia Foundation? It means that we, like the monasteries of old, do not want to rely on donations. We wish them, yes. But we do not want any change in the mission. We do not wish to rely on any current fad. We wish to be able to survive as a self-sufficient entity so that if donations come in, great, we can use them, but if they do not, fine, we are still okay. A donation should be treated like you’d responsibly treat a lottery windfall. Use it to pay off some past projects, use it to fulfill your current projects, but don’t use it to fund new and bigger projects. You might not be able to support those – over the long haul.
As to the manner of self-sufficiency in these modern times, that is another article.
One story was this, as quoted from the first book, “Foundation”:
“A horse having a wolf as a powerful and dangerous enemy lived in constant fear of his life. Being driven to desperation, it occurred to him to seek a strong ally. Whereupon he approached a man, and offered an alliance, pointing out that the wolf was likewise an enemy of the man. The man accepted the partnership at once and offered to kill the wolf immediately, if his new partner would only co-operate by placing his greater speed at the man’s disposal. The horse was willing, and allowed the man to place bridle and saddle upon him. The man mounted, hunted down the wolf, and killed him.
The horse, joyful and relieved, thanked the man, and said: ‘Now that our enemy is dead, remove your bridle and saddle and restore my freedom.’
Whereupon the man laughed loudly and replied, ‘Never!’ and applied the spurs with a will.”
That story was told by the character Salvor Hardin to the acting Head of State of a not-so-friendly power. The planet had accepted aid from Terminus, and now found that they were under the control of Terminus because of it.
Which leads us to question the value of donations. What are donations, and are they a good thing?
Well, at the Encyclopedia Foundation, we’ve noticed that donations usually don’t actually exist. No, we aren’t speaking of any failed fundraiser (we’ve never had one!) but rather our belief that “donations” as thought to be, don’t actually exist.
A donation is supposed to be distinct from a purchase. While if someone gives money to a store owner, and gets a good or service back, that is a purchase. But if you give money to a charity, you get nothing back, that is a donation.
Of course, it can be seen that this is not entirely true. One does get something from a donation, they at least get a good feeling of having supported a worthy cause. And that, while intangible, is no less of a purchased “thing” then the man who purchases the memory of a baseball game at Busch Stadium with his son. One can see that there is no actual thing as a pure donation, it is always a “purchase”.
When it comes to routine donations – such as ten bucks sent to Red Cross when tornados hit a region – it is actually a relatively simple purchase. You pay ten dollars, you now have the good feeling of knowing you helped. You also get the benefit of an additional deduction at tax time. That was “purchased”, too.
And for routine donations/purchases, that is all it is. You bought a feeling of lending a hand, and got a tax deduction.
When it comes to larger donations – purchases – it gets a bit more tricky. Those with large amounts of money to give out expect more than just a “good feeling”. They enjoy tax deductions, but can get those by giving to any charity. Thus a non-profit, a church, an educational institution, finds that they – like any business – are competing for the donation dollar.
One competes by offering more. More than just that good feeling and tax deduction. This could be as simple as a t-shirt saying “Greenpeace”. Or it could be the University Library named after you. It can be more, too.
And that’s where the problems start. “Free” things are usually the most costly of all, but while the adult child staying “rent free” at grandma’s place knows the staggeringly large hidden costs of that, many people running churches and charities and colleges seem to forget it. But donors giving “Free” money are like grandma’s giving “Free” room and board – they expect obedience, and no lip!
Consider the larger type donations, such as a wealthy patron might give. He may wish a library named after him. And he gets it. All done? No. There is next year. He might give again. What does he want? Ahh, that is for the University to figure out, and they will throw all manner of inducements at him. And he’ll take them – and then tell them what he really wants, and get that, too!
I was struck by a quote in another scifi author’s book, “The Number of the Beast” by Robert Heinlein. He had one of the character’s say, “I’ve heard that there are things no whore will do for money, but I have yet to find ANYTHING that a University Chancellor faced with a deficit will boggle at…”
The wealthy donor’s child being admitted with substandard grades? No problem, they did that without him asking. Invites to any and all campus events? Of course, of course, chump change. Was the child involved in a regrettable “incident”? That’s okay, that’s why the University has their own police force – so that they can better serve the special needs of their Alumni and students!
Now comes the actual time of the hoped for donation. The University has worked for it, they have hoped for it, they have already sold portions of their soul for it…and he asks for a spot on the Board, for himself or someone he knows. And if the donation is large enough, he’ll get it, too. Or equivalencies. Appointments or promotions or demotions of various faculty or staff. A hand in the curriculum. A say in where a construction contract for a new facility will go. Usually to a firm that has his – or a friend’s – last name in it. Etc.
Of course, no one doubts that it would take a very large donor to accomplish this at a large university. Just as no one doubts that it would take far smaller donations to accomplish the equivalent at a local church of 35 members. But be it store front church or Ivy League University, the major money is going to purchase not “good feelings” but power. The purchase is actually of the Institution itself, as much or as little as the purchaser (donor) cares to afford.
In theory, there is no problem in this. The donor has the best interests of the institution – be it church or college or charity – at heart, so obviously wishes it to succeed. True enough. But there are many paths to “success”, many ways of growing, many directions to take, and it is doubtful that his is the same as the current Board and leadership. He’d hardly need to donate if the college, church or charity was already doing exactly as he wished, and going exactly where he wished it to go.
No, the large donations are solely to purchase control and swerve the institution into a more desirable – for the donor – course.
And what if any institution accepts a large yearly gift from a donor who asks for nothing? Wait. Watch. After five years, when the institution has grown because of that counted upon annual gift, then the price will come due soon enough. For a common feature of most of our culture’s institutions is that as hard as “growing larger” is, going back to a smaller level is pretty much impossible. You grow, at least stay the same, or die.
Thus the institution seeking funds is like the horse. And the benefactor with large amounts of money to donate is the man. And the goal of the institution is the wolf. The institution accepts the donor’s “bridle and saddle” to achieve the goal, but does not find it very easy to shake the donor off afterwards. Thus one should be careful of who a large donor is and what their motivations are.
That would seem to be easy enough, and for most institutions – including the Encyclopedia Foundation – there is little danger as no long lines of large benefactors are forming at our doorsteps! But if an institution does not have a large donor/benefactor, they are not as yet out of the woods.
Other places for donations besides the mega-rich man is grant bestowing foundations, corporations, and the government. And given the sums they toss, they don’t even play at being kind like the rich man does, they just flat out tell you what you will and will not do. And there are no “no strings attached” grants, when you see one that looks like that, it just means that rather than them ask something specific from you, they’ll just let you dance even harder trying to anticipate what will secure the grant’s renewal.
Then there’s the last means of routine donations, the regular $10 man, per month or one time. These are perhaps the safest donations, in that no single person is donating enough to expect more than access to your monthly online newsletter. Perhaps a t-shirt if they are a $35 “big spender”. Or even “membership” if they agree to a monthly pittance, “membership” being semantically equal to “newsletter subscriber” at best.
Yet are these entirely safe? For all short term practical purposes, they are somewhat safe. The “membership” expects only what was offered up front. A feeling of doing good, of belonging, and perhaps a t-shirt or ball cap so as to let others know he is special. But in the aggregate, they are donating much, and an institution, especially a long term institution, should be sensitive to things that can change that.
Why? Well, it can be like the poor fool who was cursed winning the lottery. True, he feels he’s lucky. He won ten million dollars and promptly bought a 3.5 million dollar mansion. No one told him that the upkeep on such was $50,000 per month, not to mention property taxes that exceed per year what his entire extended family made in the past 20 years. He quickly blows through the remaining money, and as his level is now too high to support by his labors, the moment the lottery money stops, all is lost.
Lots of people donate. And lots do so “long term”, that is on a monthly basis. But will they always? Fads come and go, what is in, what is out, cause of the week, cause even of a generation. At one time, the John Birch Society brought in quite a bit of revenue each year from tens of thousands of members who feared the Communist Menace. For that matter, the Ku Klux Klan used to be fabulously wealthy and influential as recently as the nineteen twenties. We do not believe that either are doing quite so well today.
Finally, you have bequests. These actually are safe. Well, so long as you can comply with the request that always comes with it!!
Does this mean that one should never accept donations? No. It means this:
1. Know the large donor and know exactly what he wishes up front. If you must, then as much at hurts, pass up the donation. An atheistic free market philosopher was once said to have turned down a million dollars to re-write her individualistic philosophy to reflect a belief in God. If you wish control of your organization, you must be willing to do the same.
This can be something that affects little charities and churches. Even some “gifts” in themselves are not worth it, such as someone wishing to donate a house that is actually condemned. Such a “gift” may just stick you with the taxes and demolition costs that you don’t have. Or you may have the capital to fix it up and generate revenue for your non-profit. Know which first!
2. One can say this for grant giving Foundations and corporations – they do tell you what they expect up front. If this is where your mission is going, great. If not, one should avoid getting into the habit of modifying the mission to be able to accept more money. Money is a means to the end, and the end should be your mission. There are limits to how much you can change, before you are just now in it for the money.
3. Government grants are honest to the extent that they are up front about their interests. It was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who in a case about whether the government had any say in the type of art it subsidized, or whether the first amendment said they did not, ruled, “The First Amendment has not repealed the ancient rule of life, that he who pays the piper calls the tune.”
That’s pretty clear. Take their money – do as you are told. They will let you know in advance what that is, so like a grant making Foundation, it may be okay. Maybe.
4. Having a large dues paying membership can be a future trap. If you come to rely on it, if your size grows to the point where you depend on it, you will find yourself shifting your mission, not at the member’s requests, but because you’ll fear losing membership. Let your fellow director post an article in your newsletter and it generate some angry comments from your membership – and a subscription or ten cancelled – and you’ll see that those members have a bit more say than you thought.
Because your first thought – and the one you’ll ultimately go with – will be to not let that Director write another article, and probably have an apology printed, too! Congratulations, the members just took control – even if only a little – of your organization.
And there is the long term problem of their continued interest. The youth who in college joins “PETA” to impress his girlfriend with his love of our animal brothers and sisters is probably not going to be donating for more than four years, tops. True, nimble organizations can take this into account, and always be planning on existing off the donations of each new fresh crop of college idealists, with even the benefit of keeping a percent of them for longer. You can do this. But prepare for it in advance, and don’t grow too big before you have this locked in.
Another concern with having a large dues paying membership – in a church or charity – is that such large amounts of revenue can attract to your organization those who just want that revenue. Churches and charities have both found themselves “hijacked” when it turned out that some who applied for positions of power and authority within the organization really just wanted to get the money. Be that the power to award contracts to their construction friends, or to direct the charity to assist those they like, or even a flat out looting. Big money attracts those who love big money. Be prepared, and remember that bigger isn’t always better.
And of course, a large member base still almost always ends in heartache as for the real long term, causes and come and go. While some seem to have staying power – like the Red Cross – others are like the Anti-Saloon Movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Dead, for lack of enough people caring any more. Or the Klan or the Birchers. Your organization does not have to be right or wrong for the long term. But if it is going to depend on the masses of donors, then it must stay relevant to the masses of donors.
Or be able to do without them.
5. Bequests. These are the simplest and easiest. The person giving them is dead, he left one clear request and that’s that. Assuming it’s not too bizarre, take it and use it. However, do not use it to grow to a size that your normal revenue cannot support.
Now then, what does all of this mean for the Encyclopedia Foundation? It means that we, like the monasteries of old, do not want to rely on donations. We wish them, yes. But we do not want any change in the mission. We do not wish to rely on any current fad. We wish to be able to survive as a self-sufficient entity so that if donations come in, great, we can use them, but if they do not, fine, we are still okay. A donation should be treated like you’d responsibly treat a lottery windfall. Use it to pay off some past projects, use it to fulfill your current projects, but don’t use it to fund new and bigger projects. You might not be able to support those – over the long haul.
As to the manner of self-sufficiency in these modern times, that is another article.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Long News: Ideas of the 2nd Millennium
The Encyclopedia Foundation recently posted a list of the top five inventions of the 2nd millennia. But we made mention in that article that a list of the top five ideas would have merit as well.
And like the inventions, we are not going to list out every cool, important, or even ground shaking idea, but rather the large and broad ideas that had many ramifications and from which other ideas could come about. One could speak of the ideas of 1,000 different religious opinions, several dozen of which were even ground shaking. Or one could speak on the granddaddy idea that one is allowed religious opinions. While the Encyclopedia Foundation listed the most important invention as “Number One” in another article, those inventions were not necessarily listed in order past that.
In this list, we will tentatively list the first one as the number one idea. However, while both ideas three and five are derived from it, we suspect that idea five, derived as it is, will become increasingly important within a century or so. More so than the idea it sprang from.
Ideas:
1. The re-introduction and refinement of the Scientific Method in the 11th, 12th and 16th century. There are many contenders as to the “name” of the person, from Alhazen and Aquinas to Roger Bacon and Renee Descartes. But the importance of the idea is unquestioned. Our technological culture depends upon the continued gathering and systemizing the data we can gather from our observations of our universe. And applying it to increase our mastery over the environment, and to develop better and cheaper technologies. (The Encyclopedia Foundation notes that it was not until the printing press that the idea stayed around and was spread far and wide.)
2. A man may know and commune with his Creator directly, 15th century through 20th century. We could credit Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson, in truth many contributed to this idea. That one could personally have a religion and a relation with a god but not be subservient to a religious hierarchy was an important breakthrough with several large ramifications. By acknowledging that how a man worshipped was his business, it led to the acceptance of those who chose not to worship any god at all. By separating religion from governmental control or societal pressure, it gave rise to the idea that a law superior to governmental edicts or cultural mores was possible. Competition was thus introduced to the way we establish rules, and Earthly governments and social movements were forced to compete with mankind’s various conceptions of “heavenly justice”. Freedom from a specific worship, and freedom not to worship also opened up more scientific inquiry, and more scientists felt free to publish findings that in other times would have got them killed. It also had an effect on the religions themselves, as with many competing types the message had to be one of peace and light, not hellfire and brimstone, so as to attract “customers” who could now attend or not as they liked.
3. Measurements from the 13th century to the 20th century. From the clock measuring time, to the French developing the Metric system, to various international bodies of scientists adopting uniform measurements of every phenomena, this has made possible a far more rapid advance of science than would otherwise have taken place. Not to mention making a global economy possible. It also made things more rigorous and precise, which means that the words and symbols we use to describe reality more closely resemble that which they are describing. None of these measurements caught on quickly, all had opposition, but they all were regarded as good afterwards. Regrettably the trend toward standardization petered out before various languages, alphabets and number system could be done.
4. Re-introduction of Rule of Law. In the sense of the law applying to all, even the leader, this was a long lost concept. Credit is generally given to the Magna Carta of the 13th century. Not always followed, slow to catch on even in England where it originated, it had many far reaching effects. One was that eventually almost every nation on Earth would adopt an official “charter” or “constitution” which – at least in theory – would demark the limits of governmental authority. It may be noted that such boundaries are routinely ignored, however, the mere existence of boundaries does tend to slow any current generation of leaders inclined to go too far.
5. The assembly line of the 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries AND the interchangeability of parts. Not reaching peak until the 20th century, this idea has had a profound effect on how we do business, how we work, and how we think about things. One large effect is that it was able to drop the unit price of almost any manufactured good to the point where the vast majority of any given market could afford it. It also allowed the employment of vast numbers of unskilled laborers who could be easily trained to perform one simple repetitive task, thus transforming a “peasant” into an integral part of the assembly line itself. Indeed, a chief complaint was that it dehumanized the workers in such an environment (they were the first “interchangeable parts”), and no small part of various corporation’s push for robotics is to remove the human from the assembly line so as to smooth out persistent “differences”. The assembly line (which actually subsumes interchangeability) as an idea was also incorporated into all aspects of corporate life, streamlining, refining and then laying out definitive “hand books” and “manual of procedures” for how all aspects of running a business would be done. This standardizing of every work environment there is, from factories to farms to offices is made possible in part by increased advances in robotics and computers. But most of all, it is the idea alone that does it, not the machines themselves.
Example: A loan officer for a bank 100 years ago – or even 50 years ago – was a position of great responsibility. But also of high intelligence and intuition. Now they are line office workers, who still need to be responsible, but no longer need be highly intelligent or intuitive. Their job has been standardized, they accept the loan application, plug the numbers into the computer, and the policy book (on the computer) will tell them “yes” or “no” and “how much”. They are “interchangeable” in that any one of a given level of education and social class can do it. So much so that those who hire them have their own procedures to follow, and the interview is simply choosing amongst the pool that the manual permits them to employ.
Currently, the complaint is no longer that it “dehumanizes” those involved. The complaint is increasingly that there are less and less people involved. A corporation used to have many tiers from the Board of Directors, the Executives, the Middle Managers, the Office Staff and the Line Workers. Now they are more likely to have a board, fewer executives, even fewer middle managers, plenty of office staff following policy manuals and far less line workers (but far more robots and machines and computers). Where that ultimately leads, time will tell. It is notable that the only thing not fully “standardized” in our machine culture is the people. Yet.
And like the inventions, we are not going to list out every cool, important, or even ground shaking idea, but rather the large and broad ideas that had many ramifications and from which other ideas could come about. One could speak of the ideas of 1,000 different religious opinions, several dozen of which were even ground shaking. Or one could speak on the granddaddy idea that one is allowed religious opinions. While the Encyclopedia Foundation listed the most important invention as “Number One” in another article, those inventions were not necessarily listed in order past that.
In this list, we will tentatively list the first one as the number one idea. However, while both ideas three and five are derived from it, we suspect that idea five, derived as it is, will become increasingly important within a century or so. More so than the idea it sprang from.
Ideas:
1. The re-introduction and refinement of the Scientific Method in the 11th, 12th and 16th century. There are many contenders as to the “name” of the person, from Alhazen and Aquinas to Roger Bacon and Renee Descartes. But the importance of the idea is unquestioned. Our technological culture depends upon the continued gathering and systemizing the data we can gather from our observations of our universe. And applying it to increase our mastery over the environment, and to develop better and cheaper technologies. (The Encyclopedia Foundation notes that it was not until the printing press that the idea stayed around and was spread far and wide.)
2. A man may know and commune with his Creator directly, 15th century through 20th century. We could credit Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson, in truth many contributed to this idea. That one could personally have a religion and a relation with a god but not be subservient to a religious hierarchy was an important breakthrough with several large ramifications. By acknowledging that how a man worshipped was his business, it led to the acceptance of those who chose not to worship any god at all. By separating religion from governmental control or societal pressure, it gave rise to the idea that a law superior to governmental edicts or cultural mores was possible. Competition was thus introduced to the way we establish rules, and Earthly governments and social movements were forced to compete with mankind’s various conceptions of “heavenly justice”. Freedom from a specific worship, and freedom not to worship also opened up more scientific inquiry, and more scientists felt free to publish findings that in other times would have got them killed. It also had an effect on the religions themselves, as with many competing types the message had to be one of peace and light, not hellfire and brimstone, so as to attract “customers” who could now attend or not as they liked.
3. Measurements from the 13th century to the 20th century. From the clock measuring time, to the French developing the Metric system, to various international bodies of scientists adopting uniform measurements of every phenomena, this has made possible a far more rapid advance of science than would otherwise have taken place. Not to mention making a global economy possible. It also made things more rigorous and precise, which means that the words and symbols we use to describe reality more closely resemble that which they are describing. None of these measurements caught on quickly, all had opposition, but they all were regarded as good afterwards. Regrettably the trend toward standardization petered out before various languages, alphabets and number system could be done.
4. Re-introduction of Rule of Law. In the sense of the law applying to all, even the leader, this was a long lost concept. Credit is generally given to the Magna Carta of the 13th century. Not always followed, slow to catch on even in England where it originated, it had many far reaching effects. One was that eventually almost every nation on Earth would adopt an official “charter” or “constitution” which – at least in theory – would demark the limits of governmental authority. It may be noted that such boundaries are routinely ignored, however, the mere existence of boundaries does tend to slow any current generation of leaders inclined to go too far.
5. The assembly line of the 16th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries AND the interchangeability of parts. Not reaching peak until the 20th century, this idea has had a profound effect on how we do business, how we work, and how we think about things. One large effect is that it was able to drop the unit price of almost any manufactured good to the point where the vast majority of any given market could afford it. It also allowed the employment of vast numbers of unskilled laborers who could be easily trained to perform one simple repetitive task, thus transforming a “peasant” into an integral part of the assembly line itself. Indeed, a chief complaint was that it dehumanized the workers in such an environment (they were the first “interchangeable parts”), and no small part of various corporation’s push for robotics is to remove the human from the assembly line so as to smooth out persistent “differences”. The assembly line (which actually subsumes interchangeability) as an idea was also incorporated into all aspects of corporate life, streamlining, refining and then laying out definitive “hand books” and “manual of procedures” for how all aspects of running a business would be done. This standardizing of every work environment there is, from factories to farms to offices is made possible in part by increased advances in robotics and computers. But most of all, it is the idea alone that does it, not the machines themselves.
Example: A loan officer for a bank 100 years ago – or even 50 years ago – was a position of great responsibility. But also of high intelligence and intuition. Now they are line office workers, who still need to be responsible, but no longer need be highly intelligent or intuitive. Their job has been standardized, they accept the loan application, plug the numbers into the computer, and the policy book (on the computer) will tell them “yes” or “no” and “how much”. They are “interchangeable” in that any one of a given level of education and social class can do it. So much so that those who hire them have their own procedures to follow, and the interview is simply choosing amongst the pool that the manual permits them to employ.
Currently, the complaint is no longer that it “dehumanizes” those involved. The complaint is increasingly that there are less and less people involved. A corporation used to have many tiers from the Board of Directors, the Executives, the Middle Managers, the Office Staff and the Line Workers. Now they are more likely to have a board, fewer executives, even fewer middle managers, plenty of office staff following policy manuals and far less line workers (but far more robots and machines and computers). Where that ultimately leads, time will tell. It is notable that the only thing not fully “standardized” in our machine culture is the people. Yet.
Long News: Inventions of the 2nd Millennium
The Encyclopedia Foundation recently posted a blog article about “long news”. This term apparently is subject to differing interpretations, all valid. For the Long Now Foundation, it has to do with contemporary news stories that may still be of relevance up to 10,000 years from now.
The Encyclopedia Foundation posted a differing interpretation, that of considering a 200 year span a “day”, and thus reporting on the events since 01811 which in this system of measurement would be noon yesterday.
The point was that, as commentators on TV who speak of “The Trial of the Century” may justly be thought to be jumping the gun, so attempting to predict what news will be relevant 10,000 years from now maybe premature when the “news” has only come out in the last cosmic second or two.
But might it not be appropriate, after a century is over, to judge from the perspective of time which trial was indeed the “Trial of the Century”? Sure. The facts are all in when the century is over, and if you allow a bit of time for mulling it over, one could then offer up a good suggestion as to what would ultimately – even more years from now – bear the title. One could suggest that not only must the period of time be over, but that all those alive when it took place be dead. Distance does lend perspective. However, there is certainly no harm in giving opinions. Those too are “data” and can be reviewed by future generations who have no personal interest – or at least less personal interest – in the outcome.
At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we can’t help but notice that the second millennium is now over. So it occurs to us that this would be an opportune time for a “first assessment” of exactly what the “long news” of it was, what things are worth remembering, what things made a difference, and what might – just might – last as a noteworthy item for the next 10,000 years.
They are, of course, only suggestions. Time will tell how relevant they actually are from a longer historical perspective.
We are aware that such lists have been made before. However, we note a very superficial focus on “inventions” that while important, and even making for enormous cultural changes, are off springs of earlier inventions. One could list every make and model of each car, but wouldn’t it make more sense to cite the invention of the car? Likewise, and from a broad perspective, aren’t all the mechanized means of transport from a steam locomotive to an automobile to a plane to a rocket all a result of the original harnessing of steam power?
With that broader view in mind, the Encyclopedia Foundation will not be listing out a thousand unique inventions, no matter how clever and original each of them may have been. We are focusing on the broadest of the broad, of the past 1,000 years.
Also, when it comes to events that may be of millennial importance, more than “inventions” should be on the list. Ideas would seem to have a place. In government, in religion, in philosophy. Discoveries would also have a place. Of new lands, new moons, new worlds. Of course, the same criterion applies to ideas and discoveries as applies to inventions. One does not list out each island and continent discovered, or each moon or planet. Or every innovation in religion, government and philosophy.
Which were the key ones? Which were the roots that grew into trees with a variety of branches?
For this article, the Encyclopedia Foundation offers the top five inventions. Ideas and discoveries are for later.
Inventions:
1. The Printing Press by Gutenberg in the 15th century. Of all the inventions, this is the one that led all other inventions, ideas and discoveries being known and built off of. Prior to this, one could only learn about new things by word of mouth or if one had a staggeringly valuable hand wrote book on the topic. The ability to describe one’s discovery, idea or invention in print and mass produce it let ideas spread more rapidly than ever before. Were it not for the printing press freezing into words the other ideas and discoveries listed here, then those may have died early deaths, or been confined to local regions.
2. The Clock by monks of the 13th century. Without the clock the concept of “time” was far different than nowadays. And without the ability to measure time, all manner of science and technology would not only be impossible, but would not even occur to a person raised with no concept of it. Not only that, but the changes this made in the manner in which we work and exchange goods and services would revolutionize labor, creating situations which led to substantial unrest until the masses could be trained to accept this. We note that the invention of the Gregorian Calendar of the 16th century was important in this regard, too, but the clock was the “something new”.
3. The lenses of the 16th and 17th century (telescope and microscope). These would open up two new worlds to mankind, the macroscopic heavens and the microscopic cellular life and chemicals. This would have a profound impact in philosophy and religion as well, calling into question the Earth’s role in the Universe and man’s role as a unique being amongst animals. It would be what allowed the eventual breakthroughs in medical science, hygiene and manipulation of chemicals. Also space flight, our satellites and even our methods of warfare, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles.
4. The Steam Engine of the 18th century. While played with before, this time people took it seriously. Due perhaps to being able to build more precise and powerful versions than before. It led to the mechanization of the world, freeing mankind from reliance on muscle, wind, water and animal power which had been our mainstays for all of history. The rise in productivity, and existence of the scientific method, let the steam engine lead to ever more applications and usages, and spurred more inventions based on the idea of the machine. Internal combustion engines and electrical and electronic machines are each a result of the original harnessing of steam power in mechanical form.
5. The Computer of the 19th century. Invented by Charles Babbage in 01822, it was not until it was done in an electronic form – as opposed to mechanical – that it really took off. The ability to store and manipulate staggeringly large volumes of data is so recent a development that we are still only now exploring all the possibilities and ramifications. While very recent, it has done so much so fast that it can be confidently included in this list.
The Encyclopedia Foundation posted a differing interpretation, that of considering a 200 year span a “day”, and thus reporting on the events since 01811 which in this system of measurement would be noon yesterday.
The point was that, as commentators on TV who speak of “The Trial of the Century” may justly be thought to be jumping the gun, so attempting to predict what news will be relevant 10,000 years from now maybe premature when the “news” has only come out in the last cosmic second or two.
But might it not be appropriate, after a century is over, to judge from the perspective of time which trial was indeed the “Trial of the Century”? Sure. The facts are all in when the century is over, and if you allow a bit of time for mulling it over, one could then offer up a good suggestion as to what would ultimately – even more years from now – bear the title. One could suggest that not only must the period of time be over, but that all those alive when it took place be dead. Distance does lend perspective. However, there is certainly no harm in giving opinions. Those too are “data” and can be reviewed by future generations who have no personal interest – or at least less personal interest – in the outcome.
At the Encyclopedia Foundation, we can’t help but notice that the second millennium is now over. So it occurs to us that this would be an opportune time for a “first assessment” of exactly what the “long news” of it was, what things are worth remembering, what things made a difference, and what might – just might – last as a noteworthy item for the next 10,000 years.
They are, of course, only suggestions. Time will tell how relevant they actually are from a longer historical perspective.
We are aware that such lists have been made before. However, we note a very superficial focus on “inventions” that while important, and even making for enormous cultural changes, are off springs of earlier inventions. One could list every make and model of each car, but wouldn’t it make more sense to cite the invention of the car? Likewise, and from a broad perspective, aren’t all the mechanized means of transport from a steam locomotive to an automobile to a plane to a rocket all a result of the original harnessing of steam power?
With that broader view in mind, the Encyclopedia Foundation will not be listing out a thousand unique inventions, no matter how clever and original each of them may have been. We are focusing on the broadest of the broad, of the past 1,000 years.
Also, when it comes to events that may be of millennial importance, more than “inventions” should be on the list. Ideas would seem to have a place. In government, in religion, in philosophy. Discoveries would also have a place. Of new lands, new moons, new worlds. Of course, the same criterion applies to ideas and discoveries as applies to inventions. One does not list out each island and continent discovered, or each moon or planet. Or every innovation in religion, government and philosophy.
Which were the key ones? Which were the roots that grew into trees with a variety of branches?
For this article, the Encyclopedia Foundation offers the top five inventions. Ideas and discoveries are for later.
Inventions:
1. The Printing Press by Gutenberg in the 15th century. Of all the inventions, this is the one that led all other inventions, ideas and discoveries being known and built off of. Prior to this, one could only learn about new things by word of mouth or if one had a staggeringly valuable hand wrote book on the topic. The ability to describe one’s discovery, idea or invention in print and mass produce it let ideas spread more rapidly than ever before. Were it not for the printing press freezing into words the other ideas and discoveries listed here, then those may have died early deaths, or been confined to local regions.
2. The Clock by monks of the 13th century. Without the clock the concept of “time” was far different than nowadays. And without the ability to measure time, all manner of science and technology would not only be impossible, but would not even occur to a person raised with no concept of it. Not only that, but the changes this made in the manner in which we work and exchange goods and services would revolutionize labor, creating situations which led to substantial unrest until the masses could be trained to accept this. We note that the invention of the Gregorian Calendar of the 16th century was important in this regard, too, but the clock was the “something new”.
3. The lenses of the 16th and 17th century (telescope and microscope). These would open up two new worlds to mankind, the macroscopic heavens and the microscopic cellular life and chemicals. This would have a profound impact in philosophy and religion as well, calling into question the Earth’s role in the Universe and man’s role as a unique being amongst animals. It would be what allowed the eventual breakthroughs in medical science, hygiene and manipulation of chemicals. Also space flight, our satellites and even our methods of warfare, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles.
4. The Steam Engine of the 18th century. While played with before, this time people took it seriously. Due perhaps to being able to build more precise and powerful versions than before. It led to the mechanization of the world, freeing mankind from reliance on muscle, wind, water and animal power which had been our mainstays for all of history. The rise in productivity, and existence of the scientific method, let the steam engine lead to ever more applications and usages, and spurred more inventions based on the idea of the machine. Internal combustion engines and electrical and electronic machines are each a result of the original harnessing of steam power in mechanical form.
5. The Computer of the 19th century. Invented by Charles Babbage in 01822, it was not until it was done in an electronic form – as opposed to mechanical – that it really took off. The ability to store and manipulate staggeringly large volumes of data is so recent a development that we are still only now exploring all the possibilities and ramifications. While very recent, it has done so much so fast that it can be confidently included in this list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)