The Japanese katana was perfected over hundreds of years. This is just an example. There are plenty of things that modern society treats as perfected. The Japanese katana is just one of many. As I watched a few videos today on the ancient art of katana making, and I heard this phrase applied to the weapon, I began to wonder, exactly when was this art perfected?
I believe that claiming some art or craft has been perfected is a cop out. Consider, Masamune, who lived from the mid 1200s to the mid 1300s, according to most scholars, is credited with inventing many of the techniques that are still used in katana making today. Modern katanas are not still made exactly the way that Masamune made them though. According to scholars as well as Japanese lore, improvements were still being made to the process and to the end product for many centuries after that. In fact, general consensus seems to hold that the art of katana making reached perfection sometime between the 1600s and the 1800s (though, it is possible that improvements were still being made into the early 1900s). All traditionally crafted modern katanas use approximately the same process used to make the weapons around 150 to 200 years ago and possibly as far back as 400 years ago. The question is, why did the improvements stop?
Scholars, historians, artisans, and other experts will claim that the art of katana making was perfected, and improvements were unnecessary or even futile. The question I have is, what if Masamune had thought that the art of Japanese sword making was perfected before his time? We would not even have the katana, if Masamune had just given up and abandoned his experimentation that lead to a significantly superior blade. Now, keep in mind that the katana is just one example here. How many crafts have been "perfected" prematurely? What are we missing when we walk away because we think there is no longer room for improvement?
I believe I know the reason that people tend to do this. Most historians seem to believe that the katana had reached perfection sometime between the 1600s and the 1800s, but I think that this consensus was actually reached later than this. Before this time, individual katanas were often considered perfect, as an extension of the spirit of the owner, but there were still experimental techniques and techniques that were not agreed upon by the masters, in the art of making the weapons. The samurai class began to fall around the time guns were introduced to Japan, because an untrained peasant with a gun could fell a samurai warrior with a lifetime of training with hardly any effort. World War II was the major turning point in Japan for the art of sword making. This is often regarded as the completion of the fall of the samurai. I believe that the word "perfect" shifted from being applied to individual weapons to the art of sword making in general during this time. By the end of WWII, sword making had become something of an obsolete craft. This is when it finally changed from a legitimate profession to the preservation of an ancient tradition. The art of Japanese sword making most likely shifted from a living and evolving craft to a "perfected" art when the craft became obsolete and started dying out and the focus went from the production of useful tools to the preservation of national culture.
The fact is, katana making is not a perfected art. It is an art where evolution, improvement, and progress no longer have any value. Improving the process will no longer increase the value of the weapon. No one buys katanas to kill people anymore. Collectors care more about authenticity than function, so for them, changing the process actually reduces the value of the product, even if it improves the function. Katanas are not really weapons anymore. They are collectors items, novelties, souvenirs, national treasures, and historically interesting objects, but they are not weapons. As collectors items, novelties, souvenirs,...etc., perhaps they are perfected in their current state, because any change to the process would reduce their value. As weapons though, to claim that katana making is a perfected art is the ultimate hubris. Cheap guns were used to kill off the warrior class that dedicated their lives to this weapon. The katana may be the very best close combat weapon ever created by human hands, but that does not mean that it could not be improved.
This seems to be the trend with all "perfected" crafts. They are almost always crafts that have lost all of their practical value. The are usually processes that have been automated (though, usually at the cost of quality), or products that have been replaced by something cheaper and easier to produce (again, often at lower quality). People who still do those crafts usually stick to traditional methods, but not because they cannot be improved upon. Like katanas, most "perfected" crafts are not improved upon either because there is no value in improving them, or because changing the process would reduce the value of the product, because no one is buying it for function. The real question though, is what are we missing because we are walking away too soon?
The techniques used in katana making have been applied to many modern manufacturing processes, because they result in better products. If Masamune had not introduced the technique of layering different qualities of metals to improve the differential tempering process of Japanese sword making, we might not have high quality saw blades. What if Masamune had decided that the art of Japanese sword making had already been perfected? Perhaps katanas are not valued as weapons anymore, and maybe this offers a justification for giving up on improving them further, but maybe we are missing out on something that could improve or even revolutionize many industries, because we are copping out by claiming that an art that is not as valuable as it once was is no longer worth improving at all. And, beyond just katana making, what things are we missing from all of the other "perfected" arts? Even arts that have merely been abandoned, with no claims of perfection (like blacksmithing), could be hiding valuable secrets just beyond the horizon.
No human craft or art is ever perfect. Perfection is just a made up excuse to cease improvement. Yes, it may be justified to stop improving on something that is no longer valuable, but lets be honest: We are not stopping improvement because the craft has been perfected. We are stopping because there is no longer enough value in it to justify the cost of innovation. If we cannot admit that, then perhaps the craft is still worth improving, and if it is still worth improving, let's do it and see what we discover!
Disclaimer:
(If nothing about the above offends you, feel free to stop here. The main article is finished.)
I love the art of Japanese sword making. I have studied it in some depth. The techniques involved are ingenious. Yes, we have known about them for a long time, but the original inventors of the techniques deserve recognition for their invaluable contributions to our current level of technology. I am very glad to see that the traditional methods have been preserved, and I would like to gain some experience in them. I plan to eventually forge my own katana, as close to the traditional methods as possible. In other words, I have great respect for this ancient art that produces one of the highest quality products mankind has ever made. Still, I am almost certain that there is room for improvement, because there is always room for improvement. It is a shame that we are hiding this with the claim that the art has already been perfected.
23 April 2016
17 April 2016
Do Machines Make Us Less Human?
"Machines are dehumanizing." This is an often quoted phrase referring to the fact that machines are being used to replace human labor. The implication is that when machines do things that humans could be doing, it makes people less human. This is part of a claim that machines make humans less valuable. So, do machines really make us less human?
The first thing to keep in mind is that people make and use machines. When a machine takes over the work of several people, it is because some human somewhere decided it should. From the perspective of the worker, the machine is replacing them. From the other side, however, the machine is an extension of the boss, who is now able to do more work with fewer workers. If a machine makes some workers less human, it makes the boss more human. This is a zero sum game. Looking at it this way, the most anyone could say is maybe that the machine is taking humanity from the workers and giving it to the boss.
The second thing, which is the most important thing, in my opinion, is that this entire idea is based on a flawed definition of humanity. If the most important thing in a person's life is that they are working a job, then yes, a machine that does that person's work could be said to reduce that person's humanity. The definition of "human" has nothing to do with work though. The fact is that when a machine takes over the work of a human, the human does not magically become less human, nor does the machine suddenly become more human (the machine is already partially human in the sense that it was created by a human mind). A human without a job is just as human as a human with a job. A homeless man is no less human than a CEO. This idea that machines are dehumanizing is built on the false idea that everyone should have to work for a living. It is based on the concept that a person's employment defines their value as a person, and this claim that "machines are dehumanizing" perpetuates the idea that fairness dictates that every person should have to work for their living or starve to death. In other words, it is based on a lie.
Here is the truth about machines: Machines are an extension of human creativity and the human will. The machine that replaced 100 workers is an extension of the will of some boss somewhere. That cell phone that allows you to call anyone from nearly anywhere is an extension of your will. A car that allows you to easily and quickly travel long distances is another extension of your will. Machines empower humans. An essential part of human nature is adaptation. Machines help us to adapt and they often make us more adaptable. Machines amplify human ability and will. In other words, machines actually make people more human. Machines are an extension of human creativity. There are very few species on Earth that even use tools. Humanity is the only one that builds automated tools.
Machines are even more than this though. Humans create machines as an alternative route to evolution. Evolution's exclusive goal is survival. Evolution does not ask us what we want. It gives us what makes us more likely to survive, or it kills us off to make way for someone more fit. If evolution had its say, a vast majority of living humans would be dead, because most of us have deficiencies that would make it difficult or impossible to survive without human innovation. Machines, however, give us another route to improvement. The difference is that with machines, we can become what we want to become, instead of what nature thinks will work best. Side-by-side, these two tracks of progression give humans a major advantage over any other form of live found on Earth. If we don't embrace machines, then we are dehumanizing ourselves. Without machines, humans are just another species of animal that happens to be smarter than others. With machines though, humans are a higher form of life.
It is still important to realize that this does not mean we do not have to use machines responsibly. If we don't curb our desires and do things in the right order, we could paint ourselves into a corner. For example, if we strip mine all valuable materials out of the Earth before we have someplace else to go and the means to relocate, we will destroy ourselves. Nuclear war is another example that we hovered on the brink of for almost half a century. If we are wise though, we can create machines that will add so much to our humanity that we can become super humans! (In fact, I would argue that we are already at some stage of super humanity right now, and we are continuing to progress at a rapid rate.)
Machines are not dehumanizing. Machines are the pivotal factor in our humanity, and without machines, we are mere animals. Machines increase our humanity. If they are causing us problems, it is not because the machines or our reliance on machines make us less human. It is because we are choosing to hold on to ideals that are holding us back. If we let go of these dehumanizing ideals and embrace machines, we can be far more human than humanity has ever been.
The first thing to keep in mind is that people make and use machines. When a machine takes over the work of several people, it is because some human somewhere decided it should. From the perspective of the worker, the machine is replacing them. From the other side, however, the machine is an extension of the boss, who is now able to do more work with fewer workers. If a machine makes some workers less human, it makes the boss more human. This is a zero sum game. Looking at it this way, the most anyone could say is maybe that the machine is taking humanity from the workers and giving it to the boss.
The second thing, which is the most important thing, in my opinion, is that this entire idea is based on a flawed definition of humanity. If the most important thing in a person's life is that they are working a job, then yes, a machine that does that person's work could be said to reduce that person's humanity. The definition of "human" has nothing to do with work though. The fact is that when a machine takes over the work of a human, the human does not magically become less human, nor does the machine suddenly become more human (the machine is already partially human in the sense that it was created by a human mind). A human without a job is just as human as a human with a job. A homeless man is no less human than a CEO. This idea that machines are dehumanizing is built on the false idea that everyone should have to work for a living. It is based on the concept that a person's employment defines their value as a person, and this claim that "machines are dehumanizing" perpetuates the idea that fairness dictates that every person should have to work for their living or starve to death. In other words, it is based on a lie.
Here is the truth about machines: Machines are an extension of human creativity and the human will. The machine that replaced 100 workers is an extension of the will of some boss somewhere. That cell phone that allows you to call anyone from nearly anywhere is an extension of your will. A car that allows you to easily and quickly travel long distances is another extension of your will. Machines empower humans. An essential part of human nature is adaptation. Machines help us to adapt and they often make us more adaptable. Machines amplify human ability and will. In other words, machines actually make people more human. Machines are an extension of human creativity. There are very few species on Earth that even use tools. Humanity is the only one that builds automated tools.
Machines are even more than this though. Humans create machines as an alternative route to evolution. Evolution's exclusive goal is survival. Evolution does not ask us what we want. It gives us what makes us more likely to survive, or it kills us off to make way for someone more fit. If evolution had its say, a vast majority of living humans would be dead, because most of us have deficiencies that would make it difficult or impossible to survive without human innovation. Machines, however, give us another route to improvement. The difference is that with machines, we can become what we want to become, instead of what nature thinks will work best. Side-by-side, these two tracks of progression give humans a major advantage over any other form of live found on Earth. If we don't embrace machines, then we are dehumanizing ourselves. Without machines, humans are just another species of animal that happens to be smarter than others. With machines though, humans are a higher form of life.
It is still important to realize that this does not mean we do not have to use machines responsibly. If we don't curb our desires and do things in the right order, we could paint ourselves into a corner. For example, if we strip mine all valuable materials out of the Earth before we have someplace else to go and the means to relocate, we will destroy ourselves. Nuclear war is another example that we hovered on the brink of for almost half a century. If we are wise though, we can create machines that will add so much to our humanity that we can become super humans! (In fact, I would argue that we are already at some stage of super humanity right now, and we are continuing to progress at a rapid rate.)
Machines are not dehumanizing. Machines are the pivotal factor in our humanity, and without machines, we are mere animals. Machines increase our humanity. If they are causing us problems, it is not because the machines or our reliance on machines make us less human. It is because we are choosing to hold on to ideals that are holding us back. If we let go of these dehumanizing ideals and embrace machines, we can be far more human than humanity has ever been.
02 April 2016
America is Already Socialist
America is already socialist, and it has nothing to do with welfare. Socialism as a style of government is based on the fact that civilization is a social construct. It is essentially the idea that everyone in a formal society (like a nation with its own government) has implicitly agreed to a social contract to support and conform to that society. The other side of the social contract is that society makes it possible for all members to survive reasonably comfortably within society. From a socialist perspective, this is where welfare comes from, however, the U.S. welfare system does not come from socialism. It comes from Christianity, where welfare is a charitable, love-based thing. Of course, most of this love-based charity seems to come from non-Christians, at least in the U.S.
I don't want to talk about actual Socialism though. Most Americans, especially conservative Americans, believe that Socialism is defined as a system of government where all the means of production are controlled by the government. This may be one way, and admittedly the most popular way, of enforcing the social contract of Socialism, it is not the only way. It is, however, the way that most conservative Americans fear, and probably with just cause. This brand of Socialism has been tried before, with mixed results. The USSR spent most of its existence on a downhill slope, as its toxic mix of Socialism and Communism discouraged a good work ethic and marginalized the masses. Ultimately, it fell apart. The People's Republic of China has fared much better. Aside from poor representation of the people and mass murder of its own citizens, China has managed to avoid the steady drop in productivity that the USSR saw. In the end though, China is still finding that even the government itself fares better when some businesses are privatized.
In U.S. has largely feared this brand of Socialism since the beginning. The very idea of government owned or controlled monopolies was derided by many of this nation's founders. During certain periods of our history, merely discussing the merits of Socialism could result in imprisonment, despite the laws that supposedly protect American citizens from government discrimination based on religious and political opinion. The fear of this kind of Socialism is still strong among conservatives. The fact, however, is that it has existed since the very beginning. The United States of America has already embraced what is widely considered the most toxic form of Socialism, though, on a very small scale, and this Socialism exists as a power, granted to the Federal government, by The Constitution of the United States of America.
The common definition of Socialism is a system of government where the government controls the means of production. The government does not strictly have to own the means of production. In practice, what this means, is that the government says who can and cannot produce things. The government may or may not control distribution (controlling distribution is closer to Communism, though this depends on the specifics). Merely regulating production does not qualify. The government can impose regulations without explicitly saying who can and cannot produce a product. Requiring a license for producing a product could qualify, but it is a bit of a stretch if anyone can qualify for a license by meeting some general guidelines. U.S. Socialism limits production to specific individuals or sometimes small groups, who may extend that permission to a third party (technically this permission can be granted to any number of third parties, at the discretion of the individual or group, but it is far more common, now and historically, for exclusive production rights to be granted to a single third party).
Why has this not been realized and rectified? Ironically, the most vocally anti-Socialist political party has put a great deal of effort and money into ensuring that this Socialist system is maintained and even significantly strengthened. The Republican Party has worked tirelessly to further extend the duration and scope of government granted rights to production. They call it "fair," despite the fact that those who have been granted these production rights often end up with profit margins far over 100% and have potentially unlimited profit margins. Violation of these production rights once was only a civil offense that could only be punished with a moderate fine based on the profits lost by the controller of the production rights. Over the last several decades, however, the violation of this Socialist system has become a very serious criminal offense. The penalties have been extended to include jail time and exorbitant fines based on the amount of profits that the production rights owner could have or might have lost, without any burden of proof that any profits were actually lost. It turns out that the most vocal opponent of Socialism is actually the driving force behind the most Socialist practice allows by the U.S. government.
What, exactly, is this Socialism? Simple, intellectual property law. The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal government the power to grant temporary monopolies over production of patented and copyrighted material. Our modern law actually goes beyond what is allowed by The Constitution to include copyright for things that have not explicitly been copyrighted. This system is Socialist, because the government controls the means of production by dictating who can and cannot produce patented or copyrighted works. It is worse than this though. The government does not actually directly control production. It delegates the control of production to someone with a vested interest in the profitability of the product. When pure Socialism puts the production in the control of the government, it does so with the intent to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain fairness for everyone. The U.S. brand of Socialism does the exact opposite. Ironically, the U.S. Constitution seems to predict this, as the stated purpose of this Socialist power is to stimulate progress in the arts and sciences. Unfortunately, the government does not care about this anymore, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on personal opinion instead of Constitutional law, and the biggest sponsor of this Socialist system, the Republican party, is more interested in profits than doing what is right or fair. This may be one of the biggest conflicts of interest in the history of the U.S., but the people are blind to fact that their biggest fear has been realized.
The real facts are these: "Intellectual property" laws are more Socialist than any amount of government welfare. The enormous costs associated with patent wars are ultimately paid by the general public, so this Socialism is actually far more toxic than directly government ownership of production. The stifling of innovation is also bad for society, and it directly violates the Constitutional purpose of patents and copyrights. The evidence provided by the media piracy "epidemic" proves that oppressive intellectual property laws are unnecessary to ensure that content creators receive fair compensation for their work (in fact, the evidence seems to indicate that weaker "protection" would actually help a majority of content creators).
When The Constitution was drafted, Thomas Jefferson, among others, expressed concern with the idea of giving the government control over any level of production. He recognized the toxic Socialist influence it could have, and he has turned out to be right. It is a crying shame that it has taken over 200 years for anyone to notice this, and it is especially concerning that a major political party that claims to oppose this kind of oppression is the biggest supporter of it.
I don't want to talk about actual Socialism though. Most Americans, especially conservative Americans, believe that Socialism is defined as a system of government where all the means of production are controlled by the government. This may be one way, and admittedly the most popular way, of enforcing the social contract of Socialism, it is not the only way. It is, however, the way that most conservative Americans fear, and probably with just cause. This brand of Socialism has been tried before, with mixed results. The USSR spent most of its existence on a downhill slope, as its toxic mix of Socialism and Communism discouraged a good work ethic and marginalized the masses. Ultimately, it fell apart. The People's Republic of China has fared much better. Aside from poor representation of the people and mass murder of its own citizens, China has managed to avoid the steady drop in productivity that the USSR saw. In the end though, China is still finding that even the government itself fares better when some businesses are privatized.
In U.S. has largely feared this brand of Socialism since the beginning. The very idea of government owned or controlled monopolies was derided by many of this nation's founders. During certain periods of our history, merely discussing the merits of Socialism could result in imprisonment, despite the laws that supposedly protect American citizens from government discrimination based on religious and political opinion. The fear of this kind of Socialism is still strong among conservatives. The fact, however, is that it has existed since the very beginning. The United States of America has already embraced what is widely considered the most toxic form of Socialism, though, on a very small scale, and this Socialism exists as a power, granted to the Federal government, by The Constitution of the United States of America.
The common definition of Socialism is a system of government where the government controls the means of production. The government does not strictly have to own the means of production. In practice, what this means, is that the government says who can and cannot produce things. The government may or may not control distribution (controlling distribution is closer to Communism, though this depends on the specifics). Merely regulating production does not qualify. The government can impose regulations without explicitly saying who can and cannot produce a product. Requiring a license for producing a product could qualify, but it is a bit of a stretch if anyone can qualify for a license by meeting some general guidelines. U.S. Socialism limits production to specific individuals or sometimes small groups, who may extend that permission to a third party (technically this permission can be granted to any number of third parties, at the discretion of the individual or group, but it is far more common, now and historically, for exclusive production rights to be granted to a single third party).
Why has this not been realized and rectified? Ironically, the most vocally anti-Socialist political party has put a great deal of effort and money into ensuring that this Socialist system is maintained and even significantly strengthened. The Republican Party has worked tirelessly to further extend the duration and scope of government granted rights to production. They call it "fair," despite the fact that those who have been granted these production rights often end up with profit margins far over 100% and have potentially unlimited profit margins. Violation of these production rights once was only a civil offense that could only be punished with a moderate fine based on the profits lost by the controller of the production rights. Over the last several decades, however, the violation of this Socialist system has become a very serious criminal offense. The penalties have been extended to include jail time and exorbitant fines based on the amount of profits that the production rights owner could have or might have lost, without any burden of proof that any profits were actually lost. It turns out that the most vocal opponent of Socialism is actually the driving force behind the most Socialist practice allows by the U.S. government.
What, exactly, is this Socialism? Simple, intellectual property law. The U.S. Constitution grants the Federal government the power to grant temporary monopolies over production of patented and copyrighted material. Our modern law actually goes beyond what is allowed by The Constitution to include copyright for things that have not explicitly been copyrighted. This system is Socialist, because the government controls the means of production by dictating who can and cannot produce patented or copyrighted works. It is worse than this though. The government does not actually directly control production. It delegates the control of production to someone with a vested interest in the profitability of the product. When pure Socialism puts the production in the control of the government, it does so with the intent to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain fairness for everyone. The U.S. brand of Socialism does the exact opposite. Ironically, the U.S. Constitution seems to predict this, as the stated purpose of this Socialist power is to stimulate progress in the arts and sciences. Unfortunately, the government does not care about this anymore, the Supreme Court makes decisions based on personal opinion instead of Constitutional law, and the biggest sponsor of this Socialist system, the Republican party, is more interested in profits than doing what is right or fair. This may be one of the biggest conflicts of interest in the history of the U.S., but the people are blind to fact that their biggest fear has been realized.
The real facts are these: "Intellectual property" laws are more Socialist than any amount of government welfare. The enormous costs associated with patent wars are ultimately paid by the general public, so this Socialism is actually far more toxic than directly government ownership of production. The stifling of innovation is also bad for society, and it directly violates the Constitutional purpose of patents and copyrights. The evidence provided by the media piracy "epidemic" proves that oppressive intellectual property laws are unnecessary to ensure that content creators receive fair compensation for their work (in fact, the evidence seems to indicate that weaker "protection" would actually help a majority of content creators).
When The Constitution was drafted, Thomas Jefferson, among others, expressed concern with the idea of giving the government control over any level of production. He recognized the toxic Socialist influence it could have, and he has turned out to be right. It is a crying shame that it has taken over 200 years for anyone to notice this, and it is especially concerning that a major political party that claims to oppose this kind of oppression is the biggest supporter of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)