est: The Steersman Handbook, by L Clark Stevens

(I'm borrowing it right now)

https://archive.org/details/eststeersmanhand00stev/page/8/mode/1up?view=theater

Guy might have been crazy, but he wasn't necessarily *wrong*

<< Electronic information can now cope with vast ranges of data in extreme detail. This flow of information "softens" apparently rigid forms into changing patterns. The overall field of observation is now the planet earth. Social processes covering the planet are no more fixed than are cloud-cover systems observed by satellites. >>

Est: the steersman handbook; charts of the coming decade of conflict : Stevens, L. Clark : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Aha! And another thing just clicked into place.

Now I understand why New Age literature is full of references to "transformation".

Stevens deliberately pitches "Transformation" here as a cybernetic alternative to the Marxist concept of "Revolution".

Oddly enough I hadn't picked up on that until now. But the Evangelical Christian anti-New Age literature certainly did (except they wrongly assumed New Agers were just Marxists and also Fascists, because to conservatives those are the same thing)

<< Transformation differs from revolution qualitatively. Transformation does not arrive at a fixed, rigid, linear entity. Transformation transforms and continues to transform. It does not stop. It is the on-going transformative process of change itself, ever changing. >>

Reads like a manifesto for a capitalist reimagining of Leftist ideas through a cybernetic-ecological framework...

...which is exactly the Silicon Valley doctrine, isn't it? Can almost hear "you weary giants of flesh and steel"

But the accumulation of wealth generated by Silicon Valley hypercapitalism is gonna stop all this transformation.

How can anything transform when the 0.00000001% are the only ones owning all the extremely literal property, ie, the houses people can't live in because they now cost a million dollars that people don't have because wages got all Uber-ized? (massively accelerated by COVID)

Something's gonna give and if not Revolution, then capital is gonna get Transformed in a way it won't like.

Lol ok Boomer. How's that Youth Revolution going fifty years later? Still absolutely separate from The Establishment?

That was a fun weekend. and then they stopped cosplaying and cut their hair and got back to work.

Some parts of it did stick. Just not the "not doing capitalism" part because they figured the USSR was scarier, and, frankly, they weren't entirely wrong on that point.

But now capitalism is getting back to USSR-scary levels again, like it was in the 1920s.

Some things, like the imminent ecological crisis about to destroy all life on Earth unless we ACT NOW, haven't changed in 50 years.

Again: maybe crazy, certainly way over-optimistic about Boomers; not necessarily wrong.

But having heard this message repeated for literally my entire life while the planet's population has doubled, I'm not sure how effective it actually is.

The 1970s: that decade when even Richard Freaking Nixon was a longhair hippie environmentalist.

It's all those darned screens what's doing it to our kids

(and to our grandparents, now)

Facebook used Algorithms against World-Wide Consensus. It's super effective!

World-Wide Fragmentation: Achievement Unlocked

<< Today, when we have extended all parts of our bodies and senses by technology, we are haunted by the need for an outer consensus of technology and experience that would raise our communal lives to the level of a world-wide consensus. When we have achieved a world-wide fragmentation, it is not unnatural to think about a world-wide integration.... Marshall McLuhan >>

In some ways this very optimistic reading of the situation in 1970 is even more true now that we have Youtube and Tiktok

and in a lot of ways it also turns out that the hairy patchwork grab-bag of uncivilization can also have downsides to it, like literal apocalyptic cults eating people's brains

also I shouldn't type in all that text so someone who's blind can read it, because text is a limited, linear mode of perception and conception, imposed by the Establishment to keep the Movement down.

<< Design-systems, controlled-environments, climate control, geodesics, bionics, recycling systems, cybernetics, synergetics; all are achievements of the electronic era and cannot be attributed to the Industrial Age when hardware ruled supreme. >>

I mean maybe, sorta, but also, no, the age of "hardware" was just as disruptive and innovative as software. Though software is *faster* at it.

Also it's sad to be reminded that "synergy" once meant something more than "increasing shareholder value".

But I love being reminded just how freaky far-out science-fictional 1970 was. Compared to, say, the 1990s, or even the 1980s.

I mean humans were landing on THE FREAKING MOON. The impossible had just become possible. Rewiring the human sensorium with electronic media, compared to that? Child's play.

But it's taken 50 years for what was imagined then - constant always-on contact in our pockets to the whole globe - to become something we just

(ping!)

deal with

(ping!)

every

(buzzz!)

day.

teh

What in heck spelling this is I don't know. I *think* by "teh" he probably means 德de as in "virtue". Even in Wade-Giles, that's "te", not "teh".

Petty, I know. But this sort of thing just annoys me. Still, this was 1970, and Americans knew less about China than they did about the Moon, because they'd at least landed people on the Moon.

On the other hand, I only know enough to be petty because of Wikipedia. Which again: electronic social transformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching

Tao Te Ching - Wikipedia

A quick status check on where we're at, 51 years later, in terms of achieving Leslie Clark Stevens' requirements for "est people":

* capable of handling technologies necessary to the whole earth: LOL NOPE ZERO COMPETENCE WE'RE ACCELERATING THIS BIG MACHINE TOTALLY BLIND DRUNK

* not specialists: um maybe? Still plagued by silos, but a LITTLE more cross-communication

* dedicated to construction not destruction: LOL NOPE NOT YET

* willing to give love and care: not significantly more, no

A glimpse into how labour unions lost the hearts and minds of the Baby Boomers, which is why 10 years after this manifesto the "Movement Generation" had become Reagan-voting capitalists, and 50 years later, Silicon Valley VCs who grew up on this kind of rhetoric could cheer Amazon and Uber and promise "disrupting" the entire world into a Gig Economy hellscape without once asking "did we become the actual baddies?"

I guess the unions did it to themselves, but, this is how the USA's Left died.

The influence of Stewart Brand and the Back-to-the-Land movement still strong in 1970. I guess everyone was expecting civilization, and especially cities, to implode overnight, which wasn't that unreasonable a thing to expect.

Growing up as a child of the 70s, I guess I'm still haunted by this; it's just been my default expectation all my life that there'll one day be The Big Crash where centralised tech just stops working.

This is why the Cloud scares me.

Oh you sweet summer child, you thought it would all be happening by 1980

Well, the mass arrests didn't really come as expected because "The Movement" just fell apart in the 1970s due to its own internal incoherencies and increasing disillusionment with the crime and drugs that came with it. Instead of intensifying as Clark expected, it faded away and they all went into business.

But the crime and drugs, then, did become the excuse for a massively expanded prison system.

So sort of one out of two for prediction, here?

1976 as year zero. Lol. Complete miss. As we all know, it was 1977 - the release of Star Wars and the TRS-80 - that shattered America and changed everything. That's why Radio Shack jetpack stormtroopers patrol the superhighways even today.

But! A lot of US conservatives sure were worried also that the election of Carter would end the world.

(It probably didn't help here that longstanding spooky Theosophical tradition held that 1975 would be some kind of massive change point)

I reckon probably if Nixon had served out his second term, he could have succeeded in uniting the hippies for a thousand years.

But he didn't, and Jimmy Carter happened instead, and the rivers of blood didn't flow. Except in Afghanistan, and nothing bad ever resulted from that.

It remains absolutely wild to me that this kind of rhetoric pivoted *immediately* into extremely corporate-friendly training seminars via Werner Erhard becoming inspired by the word "est" and making his own thing.

And in fact that it didn't even have anything to pivot *from* because Stewart Brand and Buckminster Fuller were both happily doing extremely capitalism (Fuller never saw a patent/copyright he didn't love) even while raging at "money" and "corporations".

And yet there's still something deeply inspiring about this passage, I guess probably the closest to the kernel of a manifesto - why "Electronic" Social Transformation.

OMG "Flash Mobs" in 1970!

Nothing is new in the last 50 years is it.

(looks at Apple Computer)

Empathize With and Take on the Vibrational Frequency of the Establishment: Achievement Unlocked!

New Achievement begun!

Gradually Destroy the Establishment (0/999999)

$5 trillion more in iPhone sales required before you can progress this Achievement to 1/999999

The libertarian-hippie coalition capture of California worked out great and certainly didn't just end up giving vast tax breaks to insanely wealthy computer corporations while homeless set up tent cities next to unaffordable houses. And definitely at 62 in 1974, California Governor Ronald Reagan was WAY too ancient to ever participate in US politics again so whew, dodged two bullets there.

I mean seriously, if California is America's "Left" then... uh...

... what, actually, does a "capitalist" run state look like?????

one where there are playboy pentillionaires? actual hereditary aristocrats? Every city is run by a King?

I suppose my mistake is to start by assuming that the American "Left" in 2021 even has any aspirations of defining itself in opposition to Capital rather than as Capital's HR Department.
@natecull Isn't that what Labour parties typically do though?

@dredmorbius

Certainly snce the 1990s and the ascendency of Clinton/Blair style "New Labour", yes. (Or in New Zealand, the 1984 Lange/Douglas Labour government, which was much more Libertarian than it ever was Labour).

Not quite so blatantly in the decades before that, no.

The New Zealand Labour Government was once able to build state houses, back in the 1950s.

They just can't do that anymore. Don't have either the will or the competence.

@dredmorbius

I guess on the other hand, NZLP of 2021 has at least mitigated the pandemic by imposing some fairly harsh restrictions on business, to much protest from the conservative National party.

But housing? They have no story. It's just an unending generational catastrophe that is impoverishing millions and they can't seem to bring themselves to do anything except *slightly* raise taxes a little.

@natecull Housing (land) is ... a perpetual issue.

See my earlier post re: Rome.

@natecull In the grander scheme of things, I'm finding it interesting that representational politics seems to have a profound tendency (dating to Roman times, literally) of dividing into parties of Capital and Labour.

Employers and HR department, as you note.

"Capital" was initially: land and oligarchical access to government as in the hereditary role of Roman senators, since the Industrial Revolution, capital, finance, and distributional networks.

"Labour" in Roman times were the populares, the non-slave working class and most of the Roman colonies.

The swing voters were the equites, which included what we'd call the professional, skilled trades, merchants, and business classes. Their allegiances varied between the optimates and populares depending on political circumstances.

I think I've pointed out A.H.M. Jones's Augustus and its introductory paragraphs before. Realising that the political battle lines were drawn over 2,000 years ago was something of an insight:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/

#AHMJones #Augustus #optimates #populares #equites #politics #capital #labour

A.H.M. Jones, "Augustus", The Breakdown of the Republic (1970)

The following is the introduction to Arnold Hugh Martin Jones' 1970 biography of the Roman emperor...

reddit
×
Oh you sweet summer child, you thought it would all be happening by 1980

Well, the mass arrests didn't really come as expected because "The Movement" just fell apart in the 1970s due to its own internal incoherencies and increasing disillusionment with the crime and drugs that came with it. Instead of intensifying as Clark expected, it faded away and they all went into business.

But the crime and drugs, then, did become the excuse for a massively expanded prison system.

So sort of one out of two for prediction, here?

1976 as year zero. Lol. Complete miss. As we all know, it was 1977 - the release of Star Wars and the TRS-80 - that shattered America and changed everything. That's why Radio Shack jetpack stormtroopers patrol the superhighways even today.

But! A lot of US conservatives sure were worried also that the election of Carter would end the world.

(It probably didn't help here that longstanding spooky Theosophical tradition held that 1975 would be some kind of massive change point)

I reckon probably if Nixon had served out his second term, he could have succeeded in uniting the hippies for a thousand years.

But he didn't, and Jimmy Carter happened instead, and the rivers of blood didn't flow. Except in Afghanistan, and nothing bad ever resulted from that.

It remains absolutely wild to me that this kind of rhetoric pivoted *immediately* into extremely corporate-friendly training seminars via Werner Erhard becoming inspired by the word "est" and making his own thing.

And in fact that it didn't even have anything to pivot *from* because Stewart Brand and Buckminster Fuller were both happily doing extremely capitalism (Fuller never saw a patent/copyright he didn't love) even while raging at "money" and "corporations".

And yet there's still something deeply inspiring about this passage, I guess probably the closest to the kernel of a manifesto - why "Electronic" Social Transformation.

OMG "Flash Mobs" in 1970!

Nothing is new in the last 50 years is it.

(looks at Apple Computer)

Empathize With and Take on the Vibrational Frequency of the Establishment: Achievement Unlocked!

New Achievement begun!

Gradually Destroy the Establishment (0/999999)

$5 trillion more in iPhone sales required before you can progress this Achievement to 1/999999

The libertarian-hippie coalition capture of California worked out great and certainly didn't just end up giving vast tax breaks to insanely wealthy computer corporations while homeless set up tent cities next to unaffordable houses. And definitely at 62 in 1974, California Governor Ronald Reagan was WAY too ancient to ever participate in US politics again so whew, dodged two bullets there.

I mean seriously, if California is America's "Left" then... uh...

... what, actually, does a "capitalist" run state look like?????

one where there are playboy pentillionaires? actual hereditary aristocrats? Every city is run by a King?

I suppose my mistake is to start by assuming that the American "Left" in 2021 even has any aspirations of defining itself in opposition to Capital rather than as Capital's HR Department.

Truly an inspiring vision, and absolutely the opposite of what happened when Stewart Brand's flavour of Movement gained control of California.

I suppose tougher environmental protection laws (started by Nixon!) did happen. But reining in corporate money power? Lol.

Would sure have been nice if it had happened, though.

I admit back in the late 1990s, early 2000s, with Open Source becoming a thing, I did feel like there was a chance for the Internet to truly decentralise and for money to not be its motivating power.

But now cryptocurrency has hijacked the brains of even the people who once were interested in decentralised systems.

There's got to be a new way forward from this whole mess somehow. But how?

@natecull Stay true to the idea, not any celebrities. Be welcoming to those who wish to join us without placing expectations upon them (beyond calling out toxicity). Consider who the projects you choose to tackle benefit. Explore how software freedom can benefit other movements. You have acknowledged there's no good mainstream platform to build upon, select from the bad options are make freedesktops more attractive.

Do what interests you & what you think will make a difference!

@alcinnz

All good answers!

I guess the Free Software and Open Culture movements of the 2000s did make a difference; it's just the vast roar of money sploshing into Mobile and Social Media in the 2010s kind of drowns it out.

But Wikipedia is still good. Even Youtube, despite that I hate it's controlled by one company, is better than what we used to have which was nothing

(well we had plenty of alternatives but they were ruled illegal and that was that)

@natecull They made a difference alright! They waked a lot of people up to their own artistic and engineering capabilities, gave them the tools to create outside corporations!

I enjoy the fruits of this labor every every single day! I adore this creativity, we've created some gorgeous stuff! But the shouts of the largest wallets does drown this out to the extent you have to explicitly go looking for it.

@alcinnz

Mmm. Wikipedia has helped my wife and I communicate across a language barrier. I love the Internet Archive because of the books that I can find on it which are no longer available in libraries. Wordpress still keeps blogging alive.

I have a deep dread of the concentrated reality-warping wealth of the Silicon Valley unicorns, but at least the free web is still out there and lets us make and remix things.

Without Creative Commons we would have all been far worse off now.

@natecull I like telling the story of how much higher the production quality is on the homemade ~2005-~2015 Red Panda Adventures than the professionally-assisted ~2000 pilots. Same writer/director/star Greg Taylor, much the same cast.

I like the story of how Daniel Fore wanted to contribute to Linux with his artistic talents, and attracted a snowball of talent creating a beautiful desktop environment.

@natecull not sure but you are with like minded people here so we can probably at least come up with a few ideas.
The phrase "electronic communications web" in 1970.

In 1970, cable television was going to save us all from both advertising and corporate control. Did it? And are Youtube streamers making peace and love happen?

<< Pay television will make possible a new era of artistic creation because the public will support artists of their own choosing without the corporate sponsor or network as middleman. The public will "sponsor" whatever they select for viewing. >>

I guess in one sense, yes, ie, "the golden age of prestige television" is because of cable, but, did Game of Thrones *really* save the world? Did it make us all kinder people? Are Netflix and Disney+ fixing everything that was ever wrong with television just because people pay money each month?

Of all modern streaming services, Youtube has the most claim to really opening up the frontiers of what people can put on a screen...

... and it's not spreading conspiracy theories, right?

But just decentralising Youtube wouldn't make the conspiracy theories go away either.

The conspiracy theories, and the aggressive monetization of video, don't seem to have a huge correlation to "is a corporate entity controlling it or not" but rather are inherent in the video medium.

I don't know what the answer is to the "when does moderation become censorship" question except to say that there are some things I don't want on my screen and don't even like being on other people's screens.

Is it the case that a free society just has to deal with the fact that there will be vast quantities of aggressively monetized toxic trash pumping across its decentralised information systems? Up to and including actual subversive, info-warfare movements bankrolled by hostile transnational actors, deliberately aimed at swaying elections, stoking riots or harming health?

One person's "protecting the vulnerable from exploitation" is another person's "iron boot of repression stamping on my head".

Of all of these 1970 prophecies, "cybernetics technology will make possible a one-day work week" is the saddest, because it's actually true.

This is why I hate Bitcoin with the fire of a thousand suns, because it's internalised the principle into a generation of hackers that "it's okay to waste vast amounts of computing resource as long as I personally outsmart others".

It's not just Bitcoin. Adtech and the stock market and phone tech support scams all do the same thing.

None of this is okay.

@natecull I tend to take the stance that the case for interpreting curation as censorship would be weaker in a more decentralized setting.

If it's the situation that messages don't get spread if they're not on e.g. Facebook then Facebook's decision that your message shouldn't be spread has much the same effect as government censorship.

But if it's an amorphous crowd deciding the same thing... Well, the people didn't want to listen.

@alcinnz

RIght, but what if the people DO listen and the message spreads because no censorship and, whoops, a fascist movement happens and a billion people die.

Maybe we just have to live with that as somewhere between a possibility and a certainty.

@alcinnz

Maybe not "Fascist" as in the classic top-down 1930s model. Maybe something more like Qanon + Pizzagate + apocalyptic cult + Rwanda. Just random hate speading and because it's uncensored it spreads fast.

@natecull It's always a possibility, if for no other reason than to spite the censors. There's no perfect guard.

But I do believe the best guards are moderators invested in their communities. And yes some of those communities will be fascists & conspiracy theorists. But as long as a majority are disgusted by them their harm can be minimized. We are quite familiar with this dynamic on the fediverse!

The real enabler I fear is the stance that everyone needs a soapbox...

@natecull @alcinnz Fascists thrive on fear and hate. Those have always been their primary tools. Someone made sufficiently fearful will stop thinking and seek to outsource their will to a demagogue who claims that they can make the scapegoated Bad Things go away.

An important aspect of the battle with The Hate Machine is to have autonomy within our communications systems. For things to be genuinely decentralized (note: not the fakery of blockchain garbage) In such an environment fascist mobilization tactics tend to fail, and become marginal silos talking only to themselves. Their own noise tactic neutralizes them when it has nowhere to go.
@natecull I remember when we (for a vague value of "we") thought the internet would allow people to learn so that we'd all get smarter and band together against those that oppressed (for a vague value of…) us.
That … kind of didn't happen?The one thing the internet has certainly taught most of us is the nature of human kind.
I don't think digital solutions can overcome the weaknesses inherent in humans (or their strengths, for that matter). They just amplify.

@fishidwardrobe

Yeah. I think the Internet / Web in the last 30 years (can't believe it's been that long!) has done a huge job of accelerating our networking. That part hasn't been a mirage.

But we're still the same humans even though we can talk to each other much faster. That has both a good side and a bad side.

I do still think that we can shape specific social computing technologies to try to amplify the good and diminish the bad.

I don't think money will seek for those shapes though.

@fishidwardrobe

I guess I have this love/hate relationship with capitalism.

One part of it works reasonably well: the part that lets us spin up new businesses fairly fast and so we can try out new ideas.

The other part though that isn't working is that money just seeks a return on money, which is a pretty blind, dumb force.

I think we still trust - and shouldn't - that money will optimise for social good when it's becoming apparent that it just doesn't notice or care. We need to decouple.

@natecull The problem is money itself, really. It's just too damn useful. Everything automatically optimises for the possibility of hoarding it. Probably nothing to be done about that.
Yes, national governments need to enforce rules to ensure social good. That's the solution. But why should they care? The people running them have lots of money…
@natecull I think the tech to amplify the good and diminish the bad (beyond trying to design systems that are harder to game) more or less don't exist yet -- and if they did would bring their own problems.
I do hold out some hope in that we are still moving away, in the UK, from some specifically nasty and pervasive news monopolies. If that trend continues, then people (the sort of people that believe what they read) will change. Not necessarily for the better or worse. But.
@natecull Isn't that what Labour parties typically do though?

@dredmorbius

Certainly snce the 1990s and the ascendency of Clinton/Blair style "New Labour", yes. (Or in New Zealand, the 1984 Lange/Douglas Labour government, which was much more Libertarian than it ever was Labour).

Not quite so blatantly in the decades before that, no.

The New Zealand Labour Government was once able to build state houses, back in the 1950s.

They just can't do that anymore. Don't have either the will or the competence.

@dredmorbius

I guess on the other hand, NZLP of 2021 has at least mitigated the pandemic by imposing some fairly harsh restrictions on business, to much protest from the conservative National party.

But housing? They have no story. It's just an unending generational catastrophe that is impoverishing millions and they can't seem to bring themselves to do anything except *slightly* raise taxes a little.

@natecull Housing (land) is ... a perpetual issue.

See my earlier post re: Rome.

@natecull In the grander scheme of things, I'm finding it interesting that representational politics seems to have a profound tendency (dating to Roman times, literally) of dividing into parties of Capital and Labour.

Employers and HR department, as you note.

"Capital" was initially: land and oligarchical access to government as in the hereditary role of Roman senators, since the Industrial Revolution, capital, finance, and distributional networks.

"Labour" in Roman times were the populares, the non-slave working class and most of the Roman colonies.

The swing voters were the equites, which included what we'd call the professional, skilled trades, merchants, and business classes. Their allegiances varied between the optimates and populares depending on political circumstances.

I think I've pointed out A.H.M. Jones's Augustus and its introductory paragraphs before. Realising that the political battle lines were drawn over 2,000 years ago was something of an insight:
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/6i2h0e/ahm_jones_augustus_the_breakdown_of_the_republic/

#AHMJones #Augustus #optimates #populares #equites #politics #capital #labour

A.H.M. Jones, "Augustus", The Breakdown of the Republic (1970)

The following is the introduction to Arnold Hugh Martin Jones' 1970 biography of the Roman emperor...

reddit
@natecull capital (and more generally, power) will always seek to undermine rule of law and declare itself supreme dictator. But in so doing it signs it’s own death warrant because it will be eaten alive by warlordism/geopolitics (t. Rules for Rulers). So there is no “pure capitalist” state, only many different messy remixes of power and accountability, none of which represent a coherent ideology.

@cjd Good point. I agree that power is a deeper concept than capital. And the concentration of power does seem to create its own problems.

So I guess I do have hope that the unprecedented concentration of money in Silicon Valley is going to cause huge "warlordism" problems for itself that might end up breaking it apart.

I still feel like the arc of history does tend towards decentralisation, even if it's taken a curve backwards in the last decade