The latest Thing
Give enough money to the Catholic Thing, & they’ll stop cluttering our column with their fundraising appeals. … (Er, little joke there.) …
In doing our mite of homework for that piece, we realized that we had not been giving nearly enough attention to these Internet gurus. Jaron Lanier is mentioned therein, & it was only while Google-searching the gentleman yesterday that his grand point about “Googlenomics” sank home. For free, we were gathering information about him. That information had been provided at some cost to people, in time if not money. They gained nothing by posting it, or nothing tangible. But while we searched, Messrs Google were collecting, for the use of our eyeballs by their advertisers. Too, gathering information about us, with “cookies” flying hither & thither. That marketing information being of some additional value — to them.
The interesting point here is not how rich Google is getting. Like every other cyberian enterprise their own services will soon be obviated, & their company will then crash & burn. It is instead how much “traditional” economy is getting erased along the way — how many livelihoods gone into the aether, along with skills no longer required; & then the livelihoods & skills they supported in turn; & then the families & communities, moving outward; & whatever else there was of life around them. Erased — poof — by technological progress. And not over centuries but in the blink of an eye.
So: not all the jobs are going to China & India (from where they will next disappear). Many, probably most, vanish in the air. They don’t need that function any more. The Internet has made it possible to “cut out the middleman,” & it turns out the middleman was … you, gentle reader. But do not despair, there are some service jobs left.
Of course, we had a general idea. When the world was celebrating the great boom of the information economy back in the 1990s, & the expansion of the general economy it portended, we observed that the world is always wrong. But we didn’t know why yet. Now we are glimpsing the actual mechanism by which this information economy achieves the opposite of its intended effect, & pauperizes those it promised to enrich.
The progression is towards a kind of singularity, in which there will be finally no tangible thing left to buy or sell. And the marketing men will have nothing left to peddle but that quasi-infinite supply of “information” — which hardly needs any people at all, only algorithms. And with nothing to make, we’ll have no further need of human labour; & thus no incentive to grow food. For we can’t go on subsidizing ourselves for ever. The last few people can just microwave one another, for there will be no taboos left either. At which point the starvaults of information themselves become absolutely worthless. It’s, like, Hegelian.
We noticed from a report on the recent Japanese election that “Google” is now used as an accounting term. The company being currently valued at some par amount in trillions or quadrillions of yen, the degree of “quantitative easing” (i.e. money to be created ex nihilo) the Bank of Japan is now compelled to provide overnight against its own better judgement in light of the election result was expressed as, “six Googles.”
But why not eight? Or twelve? Why not create one hundred Googles of fresh, new, imaginary money? The people have spoken for more zeroes, & why are more zeroes being denied?
I remember my reaction when I first discovered that I could get money out of a machine, back in the late ’70s. Along with the thrill there was an uneasy sense that this would not likely work out well in the end.
And indeed, 3 decades later, it did not. Often, there is really little question about what will go wrong, only how.
Progress is neither good nor bad, just inevitable. And it always results in change. Again, neither good nor bad, just inevitable. And progress didn’t start during the industrial revolution.
Even David’s “traditional” career as a print journalist was the result of earlier progress. Newspapers are hurting as the result of the Internet, but whether or not they survive will depend on whether they are willing to adapt (as they did when televisions came along) or simply react (as they appear to be doing).
“Traditional” businesses have a history of reacting rather than adapting. Two examples are the book publishing industry and the recording industry. Their initial response was to try to fight the increasing use of electronic formats (ebooks and mp3s) in the courts. This in spite of the fact that availability and accessibility of ebooks and mp3s has actually increased the number of people reading and listening.
An author friend of mine published his last book through TOR, a “traditional” publisher of science fiction books. TOR did a very small printing run and minimal marketing. Sales, not surprisingly, were low. My friend got frustrated and provided it for free in an electronic format on his website. This resulted in renewed interest in the book. TOR printed more books and it has now been published in over a dozen countries.
But the publishers still have not learned. There are publishers that sell through Amazon that insist that the ebook version sell for more than the paperback version, even though the cost to produce the ebook is a fraction of the cost of a dead tree book.
David, this is certainly a cheery little post on a snowy day.
Perhaps my friends and family who spent “googles” they don’t really have on gifts nobody really wants or needs have the right idea – keep it all spinning for another year.
So what do we do? It’s been suggested here, I think, that it’s a mistake to bury oneself in the country and plant crops and raise chickens. Oh how I wish Fr. McNabb were still alive!
And of course we can’t embrace the world.
I feel that my generation is the last that can rearrange those deck chairs. Are the warnings being heard? Our Lady is said to be holding back the Hand of God from striking … fanciful … we can also thank those little Carmelite nuns in Nebraska and other places … lots of Rosaries … but Geeze Louise, David can we have something cheery tomorrow!
Your blog is sounding more like an Ingmar Bergman movie all the time!
Actually, Mrs Barbara, plant crops & raise chickens is a fine idea. We’d be doing that ourself if we knew how, but we’re a city boy, & therefore all but unteachable. … Our point in the Catholic Thing column was, the Church cannot walk off the battlefield. The people, on the other hand, can do all kinds of things; & it takes all kinds to make a world. … Daresay the great majority would be happier than they are in their desk jobs now, planting chickens & raising crops or whatever.
And, isn’t that Ingmar Bergman wonderful? Death, illness, insanity, betrayal. Stabs of conscience, flickerings of faith. Then death, illness, insanity, betrayal. Just love the guy, he’s so Swedish.
I’m all for authors self-publishing via the internet, and thereby bypassing the traditional publishers. I hope the old snob presses all go out of business. What author would want his or her work to have to win the approval of the politically correct liberal/left establishment? Imagine all the money saved when there are no more publishers for the government to have to subsidize!
Otiosus, have you ever read anything by Heinrich Pesch (1854-1926)? I think he was a German Jesuit scholar and economist.
On the other hand, what author would want his work unvetted by the cruel, uncaring eye of a professional editor? Much easier to post self-indulgent dreck on the Internet. So there will be more and more “books” and inevitably (as Lukacs noted regarding “information”) inflation sets in and they are worth less and less. The gems among them (there will be some) lost in a rubble of broken glass.
I have already learned on the wondrous Internet that the medieval Church outlawed Mode IV as “satanic” because of its “forbidden tritone.” Alas, I learned this while listening to a rendition of “Media vita in morte sumus” sung by monks in that very mode, thus throwing a pall of suspicion over the source. What next?
I am old enough to have been exposed to hundreds of get transformed quick schemes. Modern art was going to transform humanity – new way of seeing. Television was going to transform humanity – a new way of seeing the world in “real time”. Personal computing was going to transform humanity – a new way of seeing reality as data. The washing machine, the microwave, the internet, social media, “intelligent” phones, game theory, government meddling… One awaits the brave new world with increasing impatience as one notices the sand in one’s personal hourglass reduced to a few dusty crystals sifting toward the glass venturi with what appears to be unseemly haste. Instead of transformation one sees only distraction, which is anti-transformative – locking individuals into puerility. It is like trying to drive in heavy traffic on icy roads with a learner’s permit while the class clown riding shotgun tries to moon the girls from Mercy in the next lane and the idiots in the back seat shout hysterical encouragement. It is all distraction, essentially without meaning, but dangerous when one is attempting to conduct a life or death negotiation with the straight and narrow.
Buisius, what we know of Heinrich Pesch (1854–1926), up here in the High Doganate, is almost entirely at second hand. He is the sort of major economic thinker that the Anglosphere overlooks, since his “solidarism” is founded in natural law, as opposed to hedonism. His ten-volume magnum opus, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie, was in fact translated by Rupert Ederer for Edwin Mellen Press about a decade ago, & can be found in big university libraries (or at 200$-plus per volume through Amazon).
It is a kind of Summa of the economic field, including all significant questions discussed in our Anglo-Saxon tradition from Smith past Mill, but hardly restricted to that. From what we have read: a truly amazing range & learning, & a dispassionate spirit which e.g. demolishes Malthus without the slightest aspersion on his character or outlook. Pesch reminds of Thomas Aquinas, in his careful advance from proposition to proposition, his tireless precision in defining terms, & his constant reversion to first principles.
On the Continent, Pesch enjoys great respect from all parties. Within the Church, it should be mentioned that his analyses of relations between management & labour are at the heart of social teachings from the Quadragesimo Anno of Pius XI, forward. John Paul II was intimately familiar with the works of Pesch, & quotes or alludes to them often; & that Polish “Solidarność” movement invoked Pesch’s “principle of solidarity” from the natural law tradition, which Adam Smith had kicked over in favour of “self-interest,” & Karl Marx restricted to the proletariat.
Buisius is astute to mention him here, because Pesch devoted a tremendous amount of research & thinking to this very issue of “cutting out the middleman,” & various other methods of reducing prices in order to create demand for goods no one would buy at reasonable prices. He anticipates “outsourcing” & many other modern commercial practices that forgo “commutative justice,” & the ways in which everyone is finally compelled to pay for them.
Ye Olde Statistician, internet self-publishing will (and already has) brought to the forefront reams of worthless writing, but that does not mean that good writing will not get through as well. Right now, and I have had experience of this, even books that have been very well received after coming out with small print publishers, have gone absolutely nowhere. With internet self-publishing the author does not have to deal with editors who push authors towards making their writing more marketable (as per their opinion of marketable). Authors also don’t have to deal with lazy, indifferent, snobby, cliquish, pedantic jackass editors either. Lastly, the author does not have to bother trying to interest chain bookstores that only seem to wish to carry books by so-called established authors.
VD, I agree. I now do most of my fiction reading using an ebook. I have found many great reads from self published authors, as well as many bad reads. And many authors have done much better at marketing their works than the publishers have. A fairly common trend used by writers who write multi part stories is to provide the first one for free. You get hooked and look for the second part. It isn’t free but it is only a couple bucks so, why not. And the third is a little more. But they never charge anywhere near what the publishers are charging. The authors are adapting to the new technology, and probably making more money. But the publishers continue to do everything to resist the change.
Even David, who despises progress, is slowly adapting to it, and I wish him success at it. Maybe he will learn that progress is not bad, it is inherent to the human condition. Every new technology has benefits, but there is also a cost. Petroleum allowed for the transport of goods and people, thereby reducing the cost of goods. But it also comes at a cost: traffic deaths; pollution; climate change; etc.
Three cheers for Bergman! Just a few days ago I watched (for the third time) his beautiful “Fanny and Alexander” (the full length version made for Swedish television, from Criterion).
If I’m not mistaken, Acartia, your first comment conflates progress with change. To be progress, the change must be good, otherwise it is regression, no?
The prevailing dogma that change itself is good seems to owe a lot to Darwinian notions that, at bottom, insist that true evolution cannot possibly occur.
Maineman, I was referring to the causal relationship between progress (e.g., new technology such as the internet) and its impacts, such as its affect on print media and publishing.
Whether progress is positive or negative is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. For example, people who worked as typesetters in the printing business probably perceived the proliferation of computers as a negative thing but people who worked at IBM, Apple and Microsoft would perceive it as a positive thing. Even David would probably think that the invention of the printing press was positive progress, but what about all of those scribes who lost their jobs as a result?
I am not sure that I understand your last comment, so correct me if I have misinterpreted you. Evolution has never been about reaching towards perfection. And it is not about survival of the fittest from an individual perspective. Fitness from an evolutionary perspective is about producing offspring who themselves produce offspring and so on. Fitness is all about reproduction. The individuals who are best adapted to the current environment will be more likely to have offspring who themselves have offspring. But a lineage that is best suited for one environment may be very ill suited if the environment changes. And when I use the word environment I am not just talking about climate. This refers to everything that the population is exposed to.
“Even David would probably think that the invention of the printing press was positive progress.”
Presumptuous, & in the event, false. In our understanding of him, up here in the High Doganate, David would lean more to the view that, “All change is for the worse, including change for the better.” Printing was a very mixed blessing, as we said at the outset of this blog, when we also doubted that writing was such a great idea. The notion that we approve developments if they benefit us personally includes a hidden charge of selfish hedonism. We are Quixotic up here, not Utilitarian.
As to the curious notion that “progress is inevitable,” what can one say? Things that have happened have happened, to be sure. But things that haven’t happened yet haven’t happened. Human beings are not electrons, & even electrons seem to have a little wiggle room sometimes.
No philosopher here, but I believe the notion of progress being subjective is self-refuting. For there to be better, there must be good, and for there to be good, there must be absolute (objective) good.
Same argument goes for so-called evolution. The Darwinian process that you correctly outline implicitly postulates that what is good is arbitrary.
Someone with experience in the matter of publishing told me that only a miniscule per cent of authors of fiction get their books into print via conventional print publishers.
I doubt very much that the “editors” at the major publishing houses even read a fraction of the books (or excerpts) they receive. If one happens to get one’s manuscript into the hands of some alleged editor, it is likely to be someone who is looking for authors who appear fashionable or whose political views might conform to the given publisher’s buyers’ list. Writers with non-mainstream opinions (ie. not standard liberal/left) have to find readers on their own. The way to do this is via self-published ebooks.
The very last thing the government should be doing is subsidizing any publishers or giving any grants to authors. What that fosters is mediocrity and conformism.
Viscount Dochart,
I don’t doubt that some good writing may emerge through self-publishing and vanity presses that might not otherwise have seen the light of day. But I propose that it will be carried on a wave of dreck and stuff that is almost good. I have never had a bad experience with my editors and they have occasionally helped me to identify factual errors and stylistic infelicities. Most treasured advice: “Your paragraphs are often one sentence too long.” Following this advice has proven invaluable in pacing.
The real losers will be those almost-good writers who would have been nurtured by the tutelage of an editor into being actually-good writers.
Ye Olde, the sort of editor you are talking about died off many years ago.
I hope you will forgive me for saying so, but I don’t think you have any idea how worthless our publishing houses really are in this country today. I’d rather submit my next novel for consideration to the autowrecker companies listed in the yellow pages.
Acartia writes, “Progress is neither good nor bad, just inevitable. And it always results in change. Again, neither good nor bad, just inevitable…Whether progress is positive or negative is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one.”
An egg going bad is progress. It’s certainly a neutral development. Objectively speaking, there is nothing neutral about feasting on a bad egg.
Progess means advancement toward a goal. Absent an objective (the term is used deliberately), progress is a metaphysical impossibility.
Acartia continues, “Fitness from an evolutionary perspective is about producing offspring who themselves produce offspring and so on. Fitness is all about reproduction.”
Do you intend that evolution will eventually mean there will no longer be individuals with same-sex attraction? Do you consider that to be progress?
Ye Olde Statistician writes, “The real losers will be those almost-good writers who would have been nurtured by the tutelage of an editor into being actually-good writers.”
I’ll second that sentiment. I worked with a superb editor early in my career, and that — that has made all the difference.
Sean said ” Progess means advancement toward a goal.” I’m afraid that I have to disagree. Many of our technological advances have been the result of accident. Nyon was discovered by accident and it’s uses were discovered later. The same with antibiotics. Even early agricultural techniques and medicine were non-directed, they were observational.
” Do you intend that evolution will eventually mean there will no longer be individuals with same-sex attraction?” Sorry, even though that may be your wish, evolution does not work that way. It simply results in shifts in the genetic makeup of a population. Some traits will be largely removed (e.g., tails and moveable ears in humans) and others will become ubiquitous (e.g., opposable thumbs). But some humans are still born with tails or retain the ability to move their ears.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has discovered a “gay” gene. DNA is not a blueprint for body plan and subsequent behaviour. What we are is a combination of genetics and environment. Some traits are greatly impacted by environment and others are less so. For example, the sex of a turtle is dependant on the teperature during incubation of the egg; there is obviously a genetic influence but it is greatly influenced by environment.
The jury is still out as to why homosexuality exists, but it has been observed in almost all mammal and bird species, so all we can conclude is that it is natural. One theory is that it is a response to population density. Research has shown that the frequency of homosexual activity in rats increases with increased population density.
Copy editing is all well and good (finding factual mistakes, cleaning up spelling errors and typos etc.) but any editing beyond that is a problem. Novels should not be written by a committee, but by an author. Editors should not be co-writers of any kind.
I have actually had a very good experience with my very small publisher, but as I said, I got absolutely nowhere with the larger publishers who have all the resources. Maybe other writers have had a more positive experience.
It’s interesting to extend the logic of a liberal assertion and then observe the liberal who made the assertion decline to follow through. To wit: Acartia describes as “fit” what leads to the perpetuation of a species, then declines to recognize the necessary implication of that notion: that same-sex attraction is, from principles he articulated, an unfit proposition. So it goes.
Editors come in various qualities, and it may be that mainstream publishers are as the Viscount has described. My first editor was a magazine editor and was exceptionally helpful. A favorite: “If I had gotten this story from anyone else, I would be very excited; but you can do better.” Another: “Of course, the child must die.” In the latter case, I trembled on the verge of softening the ending. Braced, I stayed the course and the novella went on to become much anthologized and a finalist for the Hugo award.
But the next editor, at a book publisher widely reputed to be “right wing,” was more laissez faire and did no editorial review at all. Consequently, the book suffered sundry infelicities, bloat, and weaknesses of plot.
The editor at a second book publisher has been most helpful and for the first several books held several sit-down meetings going through the manuscripts. Some suggestions I took to heart, others I did not take. More recently, he has had little reason to do so, as I have learned to write passably well. Almost the only comment on my last-submitted MS was that for reasons of plot, it ought to split into two books and he would have to pay me more money. That advice I took.
Sean, I never said that “fit” referred to the perpetuation of the species. In fact, species is a purely man made concept. It has no meaning in nature. There are many examples of things that we would consider bad that still exist. Sickle cell anemia is a terrible genetic disease that afflicts some black people. But it generally does not show itself until after reproductive age. This alone would explain it’s survival. But given that it also provides protection against malaria pretty well guaranteed its survival.
Acartia said, “Fitness from an evolutionary perspective is about producing offspring who themselves produce offspring and so on. Fitness is all about reproduction.”
Acartia later added, “I never said that ‘fit’ referred to the perpetuation of the species.”
OK