I've been reflecting on this essay and what else I wish I'd said, especially in the conclusion of the article.
One point I think worth mentioning is that the Pencil story itself undermines it's central premise of the world needing corporate behemouths to accomplish complex tasks: the producing of the pencil in his example requires the co-operation of several smaller groups and processes, something which differing exchange rates, competing and fluctuating market values surely all get in the way of.
Which then only leaves the question of incentive. I do address this somewhat, but I could have developed upon this theme by showing the massive accomplishments of pre-capitalist non-hierarchal civilisations such as cities such as Uruk, Çatalhöyük, and Göbekli Tepe, as well as civilizations such as the Mayans, The Minoans, The Iroquois Confederacy, Indus Valley, Pueblos Peoples, and Zomia. Many of them accomplishing great feats of engineering, due to a shared purpose and sense of vision.
Capitalism didn’t invent the pencil. It was invented before and without it. Despite what Friedman says, pencils don't need Capitalism to exist, and people don't need Capitalism to have pencils. What Capitalism did was enslave people to get the filament cheaply. Capitalism wants you to buy cheap pencils made by slave labour overseas, that break and wear out quickly, because it wants reliable customers and high profits. According to one article, “Pencil fragility is actually a big issue in public education debates, which largely hinge on shoddy, Chinese-made no. 2s that are imported under enormous tax breaks and in mass quantities in a situation known as ‘pencil dumping.’”
I would like to know how many million kilometres of lines I drew in my over 30-year career in drafting and building design, with a bit of sketching when I could. Loved the idea and kinaesthetic experience of 'drawing out' ideas from the mind onto paper. (So, wasn't eager to transition to Computer Aided Design). Now writing seems to have similar qualities of 'drawing out.' It looks like you engage in this process also. Expression 'externalises' the concept to be then looked at from various angles and shaped and reshaped for clarity and concise communication. The communication is going on out and back for us, and out and back to others. I like this idea of commenting on your own work.
I've been reflecting on this essay and what else I wish I'd said, especially in the conclusion of the article.
One point I think worth mentioning is that the Pencil story itself undermines it's central premise of the world needing corporate behemouths to accomplish complex tasks: the producing of the pencil in his example requires the co-operation of several smaller groups and processes, something which differing exchange rates, competing and fluctuating market values surely all get in the way of.
Which then only leaves the question of incentive. I do address this somewhat, but I could have developed upon this theme by showing the massive accomplishments of pre-capitalist non-hierarchal civilisations such as cities such as Uruk, Çatalhöyük, and Göbekli Tepe, as well as civilizations such as the Mayans, The Minoans, The Iroquois Confederacy, Indus Valley, Pueblos Peoples, and Zomia. Many of them accomplishing great feats of engineering, due to a shared purpose and sense of vision.
Capitalism didn’t invent the pencil. It was invented before and without it. Despite what Friedman says, pencils don't need Capitalism to exist, and people don't need Capitalism to have pencils. What Capitalism did was enslave people to get the filament cheaply. Capitalism wants you to buy cheap pencils made by slave labour overseas, that break and wear out quickly, because it wants reliable customers and high profits. According to one article, “Pencil fragility is actually a big issue in public education debates, which largely hinge on shoddy, Chinese-made no. 2s that are imported under enormous tax breaks and in mass quantities in a situation known as ‘pencil dumping.’”
I would like to know how many million kilometres of lines I drew in my over 30-year career in drafting and building design, with a bit of sketching when I could. Loved the idea and kinaesthetic experience of 'drawing out' ideas from the mind onto paper. (So, wasn't eager to transition to Computer Aided Design). Now writing seems to have similar qualities of 'drawing out.' It looks like you engage in this process also. Expression 'externalises' the concept to be then looked at from various angles and shaped and reshaped for clarity and concise communication. The communication is going on out and back for us, and out and back to others. I like this idea of commenting on your own work.