Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why America deserves better than Puritan values
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
May 22, 2012, 8:29:37 AM5/22/12
to
A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back to Puritan
settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
core American values. There are several huge problems with that
stance.
First of all, America is a vast nation of 300 million people. The vast
bulk of these people are not descended from the Puritans; and of those
who are, most have since then moved away from Puritanism to bigger and
better things. To claim that a tiny group of people, four centuries
ago, represent the true values of a nation of 300 million people is
ridiculous. Most Americans have never had contact with Puritanism, and
of those who did most are now doing something else. As, I will later
explain, they well should.
Secondly, America was never meant to be a nation stuck in a timewarp.
It is meant to be a nation that changes and grows all the time; and it
is this that has been the cause of America's enduring greatness. Its
ability to grow, to adapt, and then to lead has made America the
world's greatest country for over a century. As Jefferson said, "a
little revolution is a good thing, God forbid that America should go
without one for 20 years." It is this intention that has kept America
from either sinking into hidebound stagnation and decline, as did a
number of European countries, or exploding in the kind of brutal
revolutionary movements that we've seen in Russia, China and Africa.
Ongoing change is recognized as a factor, and a workable framework is
provided for dealing with it. This was a wise intention, and it
worked.
Finally, many of Puritan values were wrong. They were severely violent
and made laws about the size of the stick with which a husband could
beat his wife. They hung people for simply having natural psychic
abilities, as many people do regardless of whether or not they
practice witchcraft deliberately. They dealt brutally and deceptively
with America's indigenous population, who had welcomed them and showed
them how to survive in American continent only to be rewarded with
systemic extermination and full-scale robbery of their land. I do not
say, as do the relativists, that Puritan values do not apply to
everyone. I say that the Puritan values are wrong absolutely, and that
America would be a better country if it moves away from Puritan values
entirely and toward a more life-affirming ethic.
What do I mean by life-affirming ethic? I mean an ethic that honors
and celebrates life, both life natural and life human, and creates
sustainable outcomes in which people have the benefit of both nature
and civilization. I mean an ethic that honors and rewards such
endeavors as science, art and prudent technology that add to human
benefit and to people's experience of life. I mean an ethic that
recognizes the richness and beauty of nature, while also recognizing
the benefit accomplished by human intelligence, work and creativity
and allows people to have the maximal benefit of both worlds. I mean
creating a sustainable, livable arrangement that puts into place
technologies that create the greatest benefit to people while doing
the least damage to nature. And, yes, I mean an ethic that allows
people to experience one another through mutually fulfilling
relationships in which both parties are treated with love and respect
rather than with sticks, belts and guns.
Many of the people who hearken back to Puritanism, either under the
guise of American patriotism or of family values, also want to see the
world end in our lifetime. What this means in reality is that they
have less than nothing to offer for America's future or for the future
of the children. A person who cares about his family would not be
wishing that the world end before his children have reached maturity,
and a person who cares about his country would not be wishing that it
meet a full-scale demise. The person who does has no business claiming
to have either family values or American patriotism.
America deserves a better future than what these people have in mind,
and it also deserves better people to run it. A person who wants an
end of the world in our lifetime would not plan for the future and
would implement policies that are short-sighted, destructive and
ruinous. A person who thinks that Puritans had the right idea would
inflict upon his country the same kind of brutality, bigotry and
mendacity as did the Puritans. America deserves better, and the
children deserve better.
Most changes that have happened in America since the time of the
Puritans have been an improvement, not a degradation. America's
greatest successes - its economic prosperity, its scientific and
technological achievement, its military strength, its arts and
entertainment, its political freedoms and the leadership that it has
exercised in the world - had nothing to do with Puritanism and were
initiated centuries after the landing of Mayflower. The real source of
most of these was the European Enlightenment philosophy and its
outgrowths - science, capitalism and democracy - along with everyone,
man, woman, Christian, atheist, white, black, Asian, liberal, moderate
or conservative - who worked hard to contribute to these pursuits.
Others still come from political action, from investigation of human
mind and human behavior, from creative or productive activity, and of
course from incorporation of knowledge that was achieved in other
parts of the world. It is time that more people see the actual source
of America's accomplishments and cease giving credit for them to
people who had nothing to do with them, to political groups that not
only did not cause them but in many cases resisted them, or to a creed
that existed long before America had existed and did very little to
save the places in which it was practiced.
In short, stop looking back to a tiny and dirty period in America's
history and look at everything else that America has accomplished. And
then look toward the future with an eye for longevity, sustainability
and livability. America's greatest days may still very well be ahead,
but America will not get there by trying to act like the Puritans or
by hoping for Armageddon in our lifetime. It will get there by
availing itself of the genius that lives in the people and applying it
toward creating a livable, sustainable and beautiful long-term future
that anyone who actually cares about his family or about his country
would want his children and his country to have.
settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
core American values. There are several huge problems with that
stance.
First of all, America is a vast nation of 300 million people. The vast
bulk of these people are not descended from the Puritans; and of those
who are, most have since then moved away from Puritanism to bigger and
better things. To claim that a tiny group of people, four centuries
ago, represent the true values of a nation of 300 million people is
ridiculous. Most Americans have never had contact with Puritanism, and
of those who did most are now doing something else. As, I will later
explain, they well should.
Secondly, America was never meant to be a nation stuck in a timewarp.
It is meant to be a nation that changes and grows all the time; and it
is this that has been the cause of America's enduring greatness. Its
ability to grow, to adapt, and then to lead has made America the
world's greatest country for over a century. As Jefferson said, "a
little revolution is a good thing, God forbid that America should go
without one for 20 years." It is this intention that has kept America
from either sinking into hidebound stagnation and decline, as did a
number of European countries, or exploding in the kind of brutal
revolutionary movements that we've seen in Russia, China and Africa.
Ongoing change is recognized as a factor, and a workable framework is
provided for dealing with it. This was a wise intention, and it
worked.
Finally, many of Puritan values were wrong. They were severely violent
and made laws about the size of the stick with which a husband could
beat his wife. They hung people for simply having natural psychic
abilities, as many people do regardless of whether or not they
practice witchcraft deliberately. They dealt brutally and deceptively
with America's indigenous population, who had welcomed them and showed
them how to survive in American continent only to be rewarded with
systemic extermination and full-scale robbery of their land. I do not
say, as do the relativists, that Puritan values do not apply to
everyone. I say that the Puritan values are wrong absolutely, and that
America would be a better country if it moves away from Puritan values
entirely and toward a more life-affirming ethic.
What do I mean by life-affirming ethic? I mean an ethic that honors
and celebrates life, both life natural and life human, and creates
sustainable outcomes in which people have the benefit of both nature
and civilization. I mean an ethic that honors and rewards such
endeavors as science, art and prudent technology that add to human
benefit and to people's experience of life. I mean an ethic that
recognizes the richness and beauty of nature, while also recognizing
the benefit accomplished by human intelligence, work and creativity
and allows people to have the maximal benefit of both worlds. I mean
creating a sustainable, livable arrangement that puts into place
technologies that create the greatest benefit to people while doing
the least damage to nature. And, yes, I mean an ethic that allows
people to experience one another through mutually fulfilling
relationships in which both parties are treated with love and respect
rather than with sticks, belts and guns.
Many of the people who hearken back to Puritanism, either under the
guise of American patriotism or of family values, also want to see the
world end in our lifetime. What this means in reality is that they
have less than nothing to offer for America's future or for the future
of the children. A person who cares about his family would not be
wishing that the world end before his children have reached maturity,
and a person who cares about his country would not be wishing that it
meet a full-scale demise. The person who does has no business claiming
to have either family values or American patriotism.
America deserves a better future than what these people have in mind,
and it also deserves better people to run it. A person who wants an
end of the world in our lifetime would not plan for the future and
would implement policies that are short-sighted, destructive and
ruinous. A person who thinks that Puritans had the right idea would
inflict upon his country the same kind of brutality, bigotry and
mendacity as did the Puritans. America deserves better, and the
children deserve better.
Most changes that have happened in America since the time of the
Puritans have been an improvement, not a degradation. America's
greatest successes - its economic prosperity, its scientific and
technological achievement, its military strength, its arts and
entertainment, its political freedoms and the leadership that it has
exercised in the world - had nothing to do with Puritanism and were
initiated centuries after the landing of Mayflower. The real source of
most of these was the European Enlightenment philosophy and its
outgrowths - science, capitalism and democracy - along with everyone,
man, woman, Christian, atheist, white, black, Asian, liberal, moderate
or conservative - who worked hard to contribute to these pursuits.
Others still come from political action, from investigation of human
mind and human behavior, from creative or productive activity, and of
course from incorporation of knowledge that was achieved in other
parts of the world. It is time that more people see the actual source
of America's accomplishments and cease giving credit for them to
people who had nothing to do with them, to political groups that not
only did not cause them but in many cases resisted them, or to a creed
that existed long before America had existed and did very little to
save the places in which it was practiced.
In short, stop looking back to a tiny and dirty period in America's
history and look at everything else that America has accomplished. And
then look toward the future with an eye for longevity, sustainability
and livability. America's greatest days may still very well be ahead,
but America will not get there by trying to act like the Puritans or
by hoping for Armageddon in our lifetime. It will get there by
availing itself of the genius that lives in the people and applying it
toward creating a livable, sustainable and beautiful long-term future
that anyone who actually cares about his family or about his country
would want his children and his country to have.
raven1
May 22, 2012, 9:03:58 AM5/22/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:29:37 -0700 (PDT), Ilya Shambat
<ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back to Puritan
>settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
>core American values. There are several huge problems with that
>stance.
The first being that they were religious fanatics who wore out their
<ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back to Puritan
>settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
>core American values. There are several huge problems with that
>stance.
welcome in both England and the Netherlands before bringing their
witch-hunting idiocy across the Atlantic. Enough said, really.
Immortalist
May 22, 2012, 9:48:42 AM5/22/12
to
who refuse to employ new technology. It's well known the strictest of
them don't use electricity, or automobiles, but rather farm with
manual tools and ride in a horse and buggy. In any debate about the
merits of embracing new technology, the Amish stand out as offering an
honorable alternative of refusal. Yet Amish lives are anything but
anti-technological. In fact on my several visits with them, I have
found them to be ingenious hackers and tinkers, the ultimate makers
and do-it-yourselfers and surprisingly pro technology.
First, the Amish are not a monolithic group. Their practices vary
parish by parish. What one group does in Ohio, another church in New
York may not do, or a parish in Iowa may do more-so. Secondly, their
relationship to technology is uneven. On close inspection, most Amish
use a mixture of old and very new stuff. Thirdly, Amish practices are
ultimately driven by religious belief: the technological,
environmental, social, and cultural consequences are secondary. They
often don't have logical reasons for their policies. Lastly, Amish
practices change over time, and are, at this moment, adapting to the
world at their own rate. In many ways the view of the Amish as old-
fashioned luddites is an urban myth.
Like all legends, the Amish myth is based on some facts. The Amish,
particular the Old Order Amish -- the stereotypical Amish depicted on
calendars – really are slow to adopt new things. In contemporary
society our default is set to say "yes" to new things, and in Old
Order Amish societies the default is set to "no." When new things come
around, the Amish automatically start by refusing them. Thus many Old
Order Amish have never said yes to automobiles, a policy established
when automobiles were new. Instead, they travel around in a buggy
hauled by a horse. Some orders require the buggy to be an open
carriage (so riders – teenagers, say – are not tempted with a private
place to fool around); others will permit closed carriages. Some
orders allow tractors on the farm, if the tractors have steel wheels;
that way a tractor can't be "cheated" to drive on the road like a car.
Some groups allow farmers to power their combine or threshers with
diesel engines, if the engine only drives the threshers but is not
self-propelled, so the whole smoking, noisy contraption is pulled by
horses. Some sects allow cars, if they are painted entirely black (no
chrome) to ease the temptation to upgrade to the latest model.
Behind all of these variations is the Amish motivation to strengthen
their communities. When cars first appeared at the turn of last
century the Amish noticed that drivers would leave the community to go
shopping or sight-seeing in other towns, instead of shopping local and
visiting friends, family or the sick on Sundays. Therefore the ban on
unbridled mobility was aimed to make it hard to travel far, and to
keep energy focused in the local community. Some parishes did this
with more strictness than others.
A similar communal motivation lies behind the Old Order Amish practice
of living without electricity. The Amish noticed that when their homes
were electrified with wires from a generator in town, they became more
tied to the rhythms, policies and concerns of the town. Amish
religious belief is founded on the principle that they should remain
"in the world, not of it" and so they should remain separate in as
many ways possible. Being tied to electricity tied them into the
world, so they surrendered its benefits in order to stay outside the
world. For many Amish households even today, you'll see no power lines
weaving toward their homes. They live off the grid.
To live without electricity or cars eliminates most of what we expect
from modernity. No electricity means no internet, TV, or phones as
well, so suddenly the Amish life stands in stark contrast to our
complex modern lives.
But when you visit an Amish farm, that simplicity vanishes. The
simplicity vanishes even before you get to the farm. Cruising down the
road you may see an Amish kid in a straw hat and suspenders zipping by
on roller blades. In front of one school house I spied a flock of
parked scooters, which is how the kids arrived there. Not Razors, but
hefty Amish varieties. But on the same street a constant stream of
grimy mini-vans paraded past the school. Each was packed with full-
bearded Amish men sitting in the back. What was that about?
Turns out the Amish make a distinction between using something and
owning it. The Old Order won't own a pickup truck, but they will ride
in one. They won't get a license, purchase an automobile, pay
insurance, and become dependent on the automobile and the industrial-
car complex, but they will call a taxi. Since there are more Amish men
than farms, many men work at small factories and these guys will hire
vans driven by outsiders to take them to and from work. So even the
horse and buggy folk will use cars – under their own terms. (Very
thrifty, too.)
The Amish also make a distinction between technology they have at work
and technology they have at home. I remember an early visit to an
Amish man who ran a woodworking shop near Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Most of the interior of the dark building was lit naturally from
windows, but hanging over the wooden meeting table in a very cluttered
room was a single electrical light bulb. The host saw me staring at
it, and when I looked at him, he just shrugged and said that it was
for the benefit of visitors like myself.
However while the rest of his large workshop lacked electricity beyond
that naked bulb, it did not lack power machines. The place was
vibrating with an ear-cracking racket of power sanders, power saws,
power planers, power drills and so on. Everywhere I turned there were
bearded men covered in saw dust pushing wood through screaming
machines. This was not a circle of Renaissance craftsman hand tooling
masterpieces. This was a small-time factory cranking out wooden
furniture with machine power. But where was the power coming from? Not
from windmills.
The boss, Amos (not his real name: the Amish prefer not to call
attention to themselves), takes me around to the back where a huge
dump-truck-sized diesel generator sits. It's massive. In addition to a
gas engine there is a very large tank, which I learn, stores
compressed air. The diesel engine burns fuel to drive the compressor
that fills the reservoir with pressure. From the tank a series of high-
pressure pipes snake off toward every corner of the factory. A hard
rubber flexible hose connects each tool to a pipe. The entire shop
runs on compressed air. Every piece of machine is running on pneumatic
power. Amos even shows me a pneumatic switch, which you can flick like
a light switch, to turn on some paint-drying fans.
The Amish call this pneumatic system "Amish electricity." At first
pneumatics were devised for Amish workshops, but it was seen as so
useful that air-power migrated to Amish households. In fact there is
an entire cottage industry in retrofitting tools and appliances to
Amish electricity. The retrofitters buy a heavy-duty blender, say, and
yank out the electrical motor. They then substitute an air-powered
motor of appropriate size, add pneumatic connectors, and bingo, your
Amish mom now has a blender in her electrical-less kitchen. You can
get a pneumatic sewing machine, and a pneumatic washer/dryer (with
propane heat). In a display of pure steam-punk nerdiness, Amish
hackers try to outdo each other in building pneumatic versions of
electrified contraptions. Their mechanical skill is quite impressive,
particularly since none went beyond the 8th grade. They love to show
off this air-punk geekiness. And every tinkerer I met claimed that
pneumatics were superior to electrical devices because air was more
powerful and durable, outlasting motors which burned out after a few
years hard labor. I don't know if this is true, or just justification,
but it was a constant refrain.
I visited one retrofit workshop run by a strict Mennonite. Marlin was
a short beardless man (no beards for the Mennonites). He uses a horse
and buggy, has no phone, but electricity runs in the shop behind his
home. They use electricity to make pneumatic parts. Like most of his
community, his kids work along side him. A few of his boys use a
propane powered fork lift with metal wheels (no rubber so you can't
drive it on the road) to cart around stacks of heavy metal as they
manufacture very precise milled metal parts for pneumatic motors and
for kerosene cooking stoves, an Amish favorite. The tolerances needed
are a thousand of an inch. So a few years ago they installed a
massive, $400,000 computer-controlled milling (CNC) machine in his
backyard, behind the horse stable. This massive half-million dollar
tool is about the dimensions of a delivery truck. It is operated by
his 14-year old daughter, in a bonnet. With this computer controlled
machine she makes parts for grid-free horse and buggy living.
One can't say "electricity-free" because I kept finding electricity in
Amish homes. Once you have a huge diesel generator running behind your
barn to power the refrigeration units that store the milk (the main
cash crop for the Amish), it's a small thing to stick on a small
electrical generator. For re-charging batteries, say. You can find
battery-powered calculators, flashlights, electric fences, and
generator-powered electric welders on Amish farms. The Amish also use
batteries to run a radio or phone (outside in the barn or shop), or to
power the required headlights and turn signals on their horse buggies.
One clever Amish fellow spent a half hour telling me the ingenious way
he hacked up a mechanism to make a buggy turn signal automatically
turn off when the turn was finished, just as it does in your car.
Nowadays solar panels are becoming popular among the Amish. With these
they can get electricity without being tied to the grid, which was
their main worry. Solar is used primarily for utilitarian chores like
pumping water, but it will slowly leak into the household. As do most
innovations.
The Amish use disposable diapers (why not?), chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and are big boosters of genetically modified corn. In
Europe this stuff is called Frankenfood. I asked a few of the Amish
elders about that last one. Why plant GMOs? Well, they reply, corn is
susceptible to the corn borer which nibbles away at the bottom of the
stem, and occasionally topples over the stalk. Modern 500 horsepower
harvesters don't notice this fall; they just suck up all the material,
and spit out the corn into a bin. The Amish harvest their corn semi-
manually. It's cut by a chopper device and then pitched into a
thresher. But if there are a lot of stalks that are broken, they have
to be pitched by hand. That is a lot of very hard sweaty work. So they
plant Bt corn. This genetic mutant carries the genes of the corn
borer's enemy, Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a toxin deadly
to the corn borer. Fewer stalks are broken, the harvest can be semi-
mechanized, and yields are up as well. One elder Amishman whose sons
run his farm told me that he'd only help his sons harvest if they
planted Bt corn. He said he told them he was too old to be pitching
heavy broken corn stalks. The alternative was to purchase expensive,
modern harvesting equipment. Which none of them want. So the
technology of genetically modified crops allowed the Amish to continue
using old, well-proven, debt-free equipment, which accomplished their
main goal of keeping the family farm together. They did not use these
words, but they considered genetically modified crops as appropriate
technology for family farms.
Artificial insemination, solar power, and the web are technologies
that Amish are still debating. They use the web at libraries (using
but not owning). From cubicles in public libraries Amish sometimes set
up a website for their business. So while Amish websites seem like a
joke, there's quite a few of them. What about post-modern innovations
like credit cards? A few Amish got them, presumably for their
businesses at first. But over time the bishops noticed problems of
overspending, and the resultant crippling interest rates. Farmers got
into debt, which impacted not only them but the community since their
families had to help them recover (that's what community and families
are for). So, after a trial period, the elders ruled against credit
cards.
One Amish-man told me that the problem with phones, pagers, and PDAs
(yes he knew about them) was that "you got messages rather than
conversations." That's about as an accurate summation of our times as
any. Henry, his long white beard contrasting with his young bright
eyes told me, "If I had a TV, I'd watch it." What could be simpler?
But no looming decision is riveting the Amish themselves as much as
the question of whether they should accept cell phones. Previously,
Amish would build a shanty at the end of their driveway that housed an
answering machine and phone, to be shared by neighbors. The shanty
sheltered the caller in rain and cold, and kept the grid away from the
house, but the long walk outside reduced use to essential calls rather
than gossip and chatting. Cell phones were a new twist. You got a
phone without wires. You could take business calls without being wired
to the world. As one Amish guy told me, "What is the difference if I
stand in my phone booth with a wireless phone or stand outside with a
cell phone. There's no difference." Further cell phones were embraced
by women who could keep in touch with their far-flung family since
they didn't drive. But the bishops also noticed that the cell phone
was so small it could be kept hidden, which was a concern for a people
dedicated to discouraging individualism. Ten years ago when I was
editing Wired I sent Howard Rheingold to investigate the Amish take on
cell phones. His report published in January 1999 makes it clear that
the Amish had not decided on cell phones yet. Ten years later they are
still deciding, still trying it out. This is how the Amish determine
whether technology works for them. Rather than employ the
precautionary principle, which says, unless you can prove there is no
harm, don't use new technology, the Amish rely on the enthusiasm of
Amish early adopters to try stuff out until they prove harm.
For being off the grid, without TV, internet, or books, the Amish are
perplexingly well-informed. There's not much I could tell them that
they didn't know about, and already had an opinion on. And
surprisingly, there's not much new that at least one person in their
church has not tried to use. The typical adoption pattern went like
this:
Ivan is an Amish alpha-geek. He is always the first to try a new
gadget or technique. He gets in his head that the new
flowbitzmodulator would be really useful. He comes up with a
justification of how it fits into the Amish orientation. So he goes to
his bishop with this proposal: "I like to try this out." Bishop says
to Ivan, "Okay Ivan, do whatever you want with this. But you have to
be ready to give it up, if we decide it is not helping you or hurting
others." So Ivan acquires the tech and ramps it up, while his
neighbors, family, and bishops watch intently. They weigh the benefits
and drawbacks. What is it doing to the community? Cell phone use in
the Amish began that way. According to anecdote, the first Amish alpha
geeks to request permission to use cell phones were two ministers who
were also contractors. The bishops were reluctant to give permission
but suggested a compromise: keep the cell phones in the vans of the
drivers. The van would be a mobile phone shanty. Then the community
would watch the contractors. It seemed to work so others early
adopters picked it up. But still at any time, even years later, the
bishops can say no.
I visited a shop that built the Amish's famous buggies. From the
outside the carts look simple and old fashioned. But inspecting the
process in the shop, they are quite high tech and surprisingly
complicated rigs. Made of lightweight fiberglass, they are hand cast,
and outfitted with stainless steel hardware and cool LED lights. The
owner's teenage son, David, worked at the shop. Like a lot of Amish
who work along side their parents from an early age, he was incredibly
poised and mature. I asked him what he thought the Amish would do
about cell phones. He snuck his hand into his overalls and pulled one
out. "They'll probably accept them," he said and smiled. He then
quickly added that he worked for the local volunteer fire department,
which was why he had one. (Sure!) But, his dad chimed in, if cell
phones are accepted "there won't be wires running down the street to
our homes."
In their goal to remain off the grid, yet modernize, some Amish have
installed inverters on their diesel generators linked to batteries to
provide them with off-grid 110 volts. They power specialty appliances
at first, like an electric coffee pot. I saw one home with an electric
copier in the home office part of their living room. Will the slow
acceptance of modern appliances creep along until 100 years hence the
Amish have we have now (but have left behind)? What about cars? Will
the Old Order ever drive old-fashioned internal combustion clunkers,
say when the rest of the world is using personal jet packs? Or will
they embrace electric cars? I asked David, the 18-year old Amish, what
he expects to use in the future. Much to my surprise he had a ready
teenage answer. "If the bishops allow the church to leave behind
buggies, I know exactly what I will get: a black Ford 460 V8." That's
a 500 hp muscle car. But it is in black! His dad, the carriage maker,
again chimed in, "Even if that happens there will always be some horse
and carriage Amish."
David then admitted, "When I was deciding whether to join the church
or not, I thought of my future children and whether they would be
brought up without restrictions. I could not imagine it." A common
phrase among the Amish is 'holding the line." They all recognize the
line keeps moving, but a line must remain.
My impression is that the Amish are living about 50 years behind us.
They don't adopt everything new but what new technology they do
embrace, they take up about half a century after everyone else does.
By that time, the benefits and costs are clear, the technology stable,
and it is cheap. Consider this chart I found in the book "Living
Without Electricity". You can see the hint of a delay pattern in Amish
adoption.
The Amish are steadily adopting technology -- at their pace. They are
slow geeks. As one Amish man told Howard Rheingold, "We don't want to
stop progress, we just want to slow it down," But their manner of slow
adoption is instructive.
1) They are selective. They know how to say "no" and are not afraid to
refuse new things. They ban more than they adopt.
2) They evaluate new things by experience instead of by theory. They
let the early adopters get their jollies by pioneering new stuff under
watchful eyes.
3) They have criteria by which to select choices: technologies must
enhance family and community and distance themselves from the outside
world.
4) The choices are not individual, but communal. The community shapes
and enforces technological direction.
This method works for the Amish, but can it work for the rest of us? I
don't know. It has not really been tried yet. And if the Amish hackers
and early adopters teach us anything, it's that you have to try things
first. Try first and relinquish later if need be. We are good at
trying first; not good at relinquishing – except as individuals. To
fulfill the Amish model we'd have to get better at relinquishing as a
group. Social relinquishing. Not merely a large number (as in a
movement) but a giving up that relies on mutual support. I have not
seen any evidence of that happening, but it would be a telling sign if
it did appear.
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/amish_hackers_a.php
http://www.kk.org/books/what-technology-wants.php
Ramon F. Herrera
May 22, 2012, 10:20:25 AM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 7:29 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back
> to Puritan settlers as being the true character of America
> or as representing
Don't forget the Pilgrims, Ilya. The Puritans settled north of Boston,
> A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back
> to Puritan settlers as being the true character of America
> or as representing
the Pilgrims south, while the Mormoms were told to take a hike
westward: kicked out of Mass, New York, Ohio, Illinois, etc. Until
they finally found an empty land in Utah, where they could abuse women
and children (*), until today.
-Ramon
(*) Not to mention performing forced Greco-Roman Hair Stylishings.
Zerkon
May 23, 2012, 11:41:15 AM5/23/12
to
In article <ef3abc15-15ab-4c39-b606-
c89f3e...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com
says...
historically supported as refering ownership of the machinery.
Positive proposition being the ones who actually works with it should
own it. Maybe this fits the Amish to a large degree.
c89f3e...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, reanima...@yahoo.com
says...
> The Amish have the undeserved reputation of being luddites
>
Luddites can be seen as anti-technology but idea also can be
>
historically supported as refering ownership of the machinery.
Positive proposition being the ones who actually works with it should
own it. Maybe this fits the Amish to a large degree.
Immortalist
May 23, 2012, 12:10:41 PM5/23/12
to
Bret Cahill
May 23, 2012, 12:14:20 PM5/23/12
to
> A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back to Puritan
> settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
> core American values. There are several huge problems with that
> stance.
>
> First of all, America is a vast nation of 300 million people. The vast
> bulk of these people are not descended from the Puritans;
True. Some are Muslims.
> settlers as being the true character of America or as representing
> core American values. There are several huge problems with that
> stance.
>
> First of all, America is a vast nation of 300 million people. The vast
> bulk of these people are not descended from the Puritans;
> and of those
> who are, most have since then moved away from Puritanism to bigger and
> better things.
increasing ignorance on the political history of the U.S.?
> To claim that a tiny group of people, four centuries
> ago, represent the true values of a nation of 300 million people is
> ridiculous.
church and state to the point it would be considered obscene by the
Puritans themselves.
> Most Americans have never had contact with Puritanism,
about, _New York Times_ "liberals" as well as rightards.
> and
> of those who did most are now doing something else. As, I will later
> explain, they well should.
>
> Secondly, America was never meant to be a nation stuck in a timewarp.
than today.
> It is meant to be a nation that changes and grows all the time; and it
> is this that has been the cause of America's enduring greatness.
4 years.
> Its
> ability to grow, to adapt, and then to lead has made America the
> world's greatest country for over a century.
> As Jefferson said, "a
> little revolution is a good thing,
revolution going?
> God forbid that America should go
> without one for 20 years."
> It is this intention that has kept America
> from either sinking into hidebound stagnation and decline, as did a
> number of European countries, or exploding in the kind of brutal
> revolutionary movements that we've seen in Russia, China and Africa.
> Ongoing change is recognized as a factor, and a workable framework is
> provided for dealing with it. This was a wise intention, and it
> worked.
down.
religion."
-- Tocqueville on the Puritans, "Point of Departure" _Democracy in
America_ (1833)
Message has been deleted
tooly
May 24, 2012, 3:32:37 AM5/24/12
to
this place. One was, as Illya says, the Pilgrim spirit; people
seeking new religious freedom. The other was the Opportunist, here
simply for personal profit and gain. Pilgrims and opportunists...the
character of America's foundation. [No room for marxists in that].
The opportunists instilled things like slavery, and the Pilgrims
eventually forced us to war to get rid of it. Illya sees the Pilgrims
as 'puritans', and many of course were. But I think, the better
descriptor is that these people were "moralists" as a group, who
saught inner conscience first, to prescribe higher purview of how
their human behavior 'should be'. Right or wrong, they were 'trying'
to be better...and in that desire to 'be better', I think was the
general goodness of this society to always seek to correct it's
errors. How many societies would have fallen into such a bloody
struggle as our civil war, mainly over 'correcting moral wrongs' [in
slavery]. If one studies American history from the various private
communications found in letters and journals and chronicals, they will
find a general sense of moral footing; so much of our existence stood
on pure conscience; and a constant critique of self and those around
us. How we measured up as private citizens to our models of morality
have always been a prime consideration in our behaviors. Read the
'Red Badge of Courage' to understand how we never took our actions
lightly without great inner conflict...right or wrong.
And conscience always drove our national character, we've improved and
even at times, excelled.
Anyway, an unbeatable combo IMHO; moralists and opportunists; where
one finds innovation for growth and prosperity, while the other
creates constraints to what is acceptable without government
oversight. No government short of full tyranny can contain any people
who have lost their moral center as a grand mean.
Unfortunately, the Pilgrim spirit slowly dies in us; much of it by
concerted effort of those who want to bring our free markets to a
close [first prioirity of a cultura marxist manifesto was to bring
down Christianity in the west]. As our high sense of moral center
dies, well, if there was ever any claim to 'exceptionalism' I think
that was the harbinger. Our high sense of purpose wanes, our high
cohesive zeal for nationhood fades, and common ground of the people
as a 'one people' slowly dissolves. Like a giant stripmall
supplanting a botanical gardens, we now become common consumers, no
longer bound by any moral high ground, but a rabble, reformed under
socialist design to make us into something less redemptive than those
who founded the place.
I find it amazing recent immigrants from disparate lands, some of
which ran totally counter to the values of America for so long, can
come here and in a fortnight [or less]...figure us all out.
People are people everywhere of course, as writers like Tolstoy and
Solzhenitsyn surely understood. But the American identity was a
complex one, full of vim and vigor in hubris and pride, audacity and
boldness, but all the while 'contained' by that Pilgrim spirit. We
were a MORAL and GOOD people.
This is why it is so criminal that our schools now can only find
criticism for what we were; redefining that character as Indian
killers or Slavers or Atom Bomb droppers. Whatever ills that existed,
that moral character far outweighed to be the TRUE national identity
of America, and one reason, at least for a time last century, was a
REAL hope for all human beings in the world. You didn't have to be
born here to realize something of the majesty that existed here, not
as a bragadocious flag waving, but simply as a raft on tumultous seas,
where there would always be [so it seemed], hope for anyone and
everyone and a common decency that we all aspired to.
America, was the human species' finest hour...for about an hour
anyway, LOL.
Now...well, it's become just a stripmall as the Piligrm spirit dies in
us; and we are overrun by pure opportunists who no longer even KNOW of
that original spirit and noble aspiration, but only as something to
come here and rape, change, and make into the 'old world'...replete
with all the 'old world' flaws and prurient selfish desires...
Marx. how UNAMERICAN can you get. And yet, we now hear Karl Marx
being 'entertained' if not embraced, as a 'real' particpant in the
American character and debate. It is a telltale sign of how far we
have fallen now, how we lose whatever exceptionalism we may have once
been, and degrade into that 'old world' our originators came here to
escape.
Nomen Nescio
Jun 4, 2012, 2:37:09 PM6/4/12
to
"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:ccef760e-053f-4fbf-b214-
3de6c2...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> On May 22, 7:29 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back
> > to Puritan settlers as being the true character of America
> > or as representing
>
> Don't forget the Pilgrims, Ilya. The Puritans settled north of Boston,
> the Pilgrims south, while the Mormoms were told to take a hike
> westward: kicked out of Mass, New York, Ohio, Illinois, etc. Until
> they finally found an empty land in Utah, where they could abuse women
> and children (*), until today.
Have you brought this stirling information to Harry Reid's attention and
demanded his resignation?
How about these nasty child abusing, wife bashing believers?
Now in his sixth term as Utah's senator, Orrin Hatch was first elected in 1976.
He is the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
LDS members of the U.S. Senate
Other Latter-day Saint senators include:
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.
Newly elected Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, elected in 2008.
LDS members of the U.S. House
Latter-day Saints serving in the U.S. House of Representatives include:
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, elected in 2002.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, elected in 2008.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., elected in 2000.
Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, elected in 2006.
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., elected in 1986.
Newly elected Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, elected in 2000.
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., elected in 1992.
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa, is one of five territorial
representatives in the House. He is in his 13th term as American Samoa's
nonvoting delegate.
LDS Governor
Utah Governor Gary Herbert was sworn in for his first term as a governor Jan. 3.
Click here for another story on Governor Herbert. He is currently the only
Latter-day Saint governor in office.
Mike Lee, a newly elected Church member in the Senate, had not held a political
office prior to being elected.
A native of Provo, Utah, Sen. Lee is a graduate of Brigham Young University. He
has been a constitutional lawyer in Utah and Washington, D.C.
Raul Labrador, a newly elected Latter-day Saint in the U.S. House, is a native
of Puerto Rico.
Educated at Brigham Young University, he received a law degree from the
University of Washington. He most recently served in the Idaho House of
Representatives
3de6c2...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
> On May 22, 7:29 am, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A number of conservative politicians keep hearkening back
> > to Puritan settlers as being the true character of America
> > or as representing
>
> Don't forget the Pilgrims, Ilya. The Puritans settled north of Boston,
> the Pilgrims south, while the Mormoms were told to take a hike
> westward: kicked out of Mass, New York, Ohio, Illinois, etc. Until
> they finally found an empty land in Utah, where they could abuse women
> and children (*), until today.
demanded his resignation?
How about these nasty child abusing, wife bashing believers?
Now in his sixth term as Utah's senator, Orrin Hatch was first elected in 1976.
He is the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
LDS members of the U.S. Senate
Other Latter-day Saint senators include:
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.
Newly elected Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, elected in 2008.
LDS members of the U.S. House
Latter-day Saints serving in the U.S. House of Representatives include:
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, elected in 2002.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, elected in 2008.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., elected in 2000.
Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, elected in 2006.
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., elected in 1986.
Newly elected Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, elected in 2000.
Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., elected in 1992.
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa, is one of five territorial
representatives in the House. He is in his 13th term as American Samoa's
nonvoting delegate.
LDS Governor
Utah Governor Gary Herbert was sworn in for his first term as a governor Jan. 3.
Click here for another story on Governor Herbert. He is currently the only
Latter-day Saint governor in office.
Mike Lee, a newly elected Church member in the Senate, had not held a political
office prior to being elected.
A native of Provo, Utah, Sen. Lee is a graduate of Brigham Young University. He
has been a constitutional lawyer in Utah and Washington, D.C.
Raul Labrador, a newly elected Latter-day Saint in the U.S. House, is a native
of Puerto Rico.
Educated at Brigham Young University, he received a law degree from the
University of Washington. He most recently served in the Idaho House of
Representatives
Nomen Nescio
Jun 4, 2012, 3:55:13 PM6/4/12
to
EXCLUSIVE - THE VETTING - SENATOR BARACK OBAMA ATTENDED BILL AYERS BARBECUE,
JULY 4, 2005
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama disavowed any connection with
former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who was
one of Obama's early backers and his colleague on the board of the Woods Fund in
Chicago. We now have proof that Obama's association with Ayers continued even
after Obama had been elected to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate--in the
form of a now-scrubbed blog post placing Obama at the home of Ayers and his
wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn, on July 4, 2005.
Dr. Tom Perrin, Assistant Professor of English at Huntingdon College in
Montgomery, Alabama, was a graduate student at the University of Chicago at the
time, and maintained a blog called "Rambling Thomas." He lived next door to
Ayers and Dohrn in Hyde Park. He wrote at 8:44 a.m. on July 6, 2005:
Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama!
Actually, that's a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by
a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw
him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining
and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.
Dohrn is a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and
Chicago did, in fact, record rainfall on the Fourth of July holiday in 2005.
Breitbart News attempted to contact Dr. Perrin for further comment:
~~~~
Dear Dr. Perrin,
My name is Joel Pollak, and I am the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News.
We came across your blog entry from July 2005 in which you mentioned that then-
Senator Obama had been a guest at the Ayers/Dohrn house next door.
http://ramblingthomas.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html
I was wondering if you could provide more detail.
Many thanks,
Joel Pollak
~~~~
Dr. Perrin did not respond. He did, however, delete his entire blog from the
Internet.
Of course, Breitbart News had saved a screen grab of the blog beforehand:
(http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/06/04/Perrin-
Ayers.png)
Obama's presence--as a U.S. Senator--at the Ayers barbecue has been confirmed by
another source, who told Breitbart News: "I too saw Obama at a picnic table in
the Ayers/Dohrn backyard, munching away--on the 4th of July."
The fact that Obama socialized with Ayers and Dorn contradicts the statement
that Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt gave the New York Times in 2008:
Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the
Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in
public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or
exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States
Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into
each other on the street in Hyde Park.
That statement now appears to be "Clintonian" in its dance around the truth.
Obama and Ayers may not have emailed or spoken by phone, but they had, we now
know, spoken face to face--at least on July 4, 2005, and perhaps at other times
as well.
The continued connection between Obama and his radical, domestic terrorist
associates until mere months before he launched his presidential campaign is
sharply at odds with the way Obama minimized the relationship, as well as the
way the media largely sought to portray it as an insignificant part of Obama's
past.
Whatever differences may have emerged between Obama and Ayers--and other far-
left fellow travelers--since Obama took office and grappled with the realities
of governing, Obama's migration towards the mainstream of American politics is
very recent, and likely opportunistic. His intellectual and political roots
remain extreme.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/Exclusive-The-Vetting-Senator-
Barack-Obama-Attend-Bill-Ayers-Barbecue-July-4-2005
JULY 4, 2005
As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama disavowed any connection with
former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who was
one of Obama's early backers and his colleague on the board of the Woods Fund in
Chicago. We now have proof that Obama's association with Ayers continued even
after Obama had been elected to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate--in the
form of a now-scrubbed blog post placing Obama at the home of Ayers and his
wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn, on July 4, 2005.
Dr. Tom Perrin, Assistant Professor of English at Huntingdon College in
Montgomery, Alabama, was a graduate student at the University of Chicago at the
time, and maintained a blog called "Rambling Thomas." He lived next door to
Ayers and Dohrn in Hyde Park. He wrote at 8:44 a.m. on July 6, 2005:
Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama!
Actually, that's a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by
a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw
him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining
and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.
Dohrn is a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and
Chicago did, in fact, record rainfall on the Fourth of July holiday in 2005.
Breitbart News attempted to contact Dr. Perrin for further comment:
~~~~
Dear Dr. Perrin,
My name is Joel Pollak, and I am the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News.
We came across your blog entry from July 2005 in which you mentioned that then-
Senator Obama had been a guest at the Ayers/Dohrn house next door.
http://ramblingthomas.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html
I was wondering if you could provide more detail.
Many thanks,
Joel Pollak
~~~~
Dr. Perrin did not respond. He did, however, delete his entire blog from the
Internet.
Of course, Breitbart News had saved a screen grab of the blog beforehand:
(http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/06/04/Perrin-
Ayers.png)
Obama's presence--as a U.S. Senator--at the Ayers barbecue has been confirmed by
another source, who told Breitbart News: "I too saw Obama at a picnic table in
the Ayers/Dohrn backyard, munching away--on the 4th of July."
The fact that Obama socialized with Ayers and Dorn contradicts the statement
that Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt gave the New York Times in 2008:
Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the
Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in
public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or
exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States
Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into
each other on the street in Hyde Park.
That statement now appears to be "Clintonian" in its dance around the truth.
Obama and Ayers may not have emailed or spoken by phone, but they had, we now
know, spoken face to face--at least on July 4, 2005, and perhaps at other times
as well.
The continued connection between Obama and his radical, domestic terrorist
associates until mere months before he launched his presidential campaign is
sharply at odds with the way Obama minimized the relationship, as well as the
way the media largely sought to portray it as an insignificant part of Obama's
past.
Whatever differences may have emerged between Obama and Ayers--and other far-
left fellow travelers--since Obama took office and grappled with the realities
of governing, Obama's migration towards the mainstream of American politics is
very recent, and likely opportunistic. His intellectual and political roots
remain extreme.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/Exclusive-The-Vetting-Senator-
Barack-Obama-Attend-Bill-Ayers-Barbecue-July-4-2005
Jason
Jun 4, 2012, 5:58:37 PM6/4/12
to
In article <cc944e4f9833553f...@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
Ayers was once filmed and the film is on the internet. In that film. Ayers
claimed to have been the ghost writer of one of Obama's famous books.
He did not actually write the book. Instead, he took the manuscript that
Obama had written and re-wrote it to make it easier and more fun to read.
That is what excellent ghost writers do. In the film--Ayers mentioned that
he was not paid as much as he should have been paid for his work on that
book.
claimed to have been the ghost writer of one of Obama's famous books.
He did not actually write the book. Instead, he took the manuscript that
Obama had written and re-wrote it to make it easier and more fun to read.
That is what excellent ghost writers do. In the film--Ayers mentioned that
he was not paid as much as he should have been paid for his work on that
book.
Jeanne Douglas
Jun 4, 2012, 10:03:54 PM6/4/12
to
In article
<Jason-04061...@67-150-125-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
video of Ayers giving a talk to some university students where he
jokingly says he wrote the book and could anybody help him get his due
royalties to the sound of great laughter and is too humor-impaired to
understand a joke when he hears one (as anyone who's read his lame
attempts at jokes will understand).
So don't even bother responding to this piece of Jason nonsense. NOTHING
you can say will change his mind (hmmm, I wonder if Ayers went to his
home and told him that, no, he did not write the book and, yes, he was
joking, whether Jason would believe him). You'll just end up banging
your head against the wall. Save yourself the frustration.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
<Jason-04061...@67-150-125-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> Ayers was once filmed and the film is on the internet. In that film. Ayers
> claimed to have been the ghost writer of one of Obama's famous books.
For those of you not familiar with the "wonder" that is Jason. He saw a
> Ayers was once filmed and the film is on the internet. In that film. Ayers
> claimed to have been the ghost writer of one of Obama's famous books.
video of Ayers giving a talk to some university students where he
jokingly says he wrote the book and could anybody help him get his due
royalties to the sound of great laughter and is too humor-impaired to
understand a joke when he hears one (as anyone who's read his lame
attempts at jokes will understand).
So don't even bother responding to this piece of Jason nonsense. NOTHING
you can say will change his mind (hmmm, I wonder if Ayers went to his
home and told him that, no, he did not write the book and, yes, he was
joking, whether Jason would believe him). You'll just end up banging
your head against the wall. Save yourself the frustration.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
0 new messages