Newmedia on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:54:36 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Nobel laureate in economics aged 102 endorses the human economy... |
Ed/Brian/Keith: > Thank you for this wonderful essay . . . Hurray for the nettime lovefest! Ed loves Keith. Keith loves Brian. Brian loves (depends if you mean in public or in private) . . . ?? <g> Here's the discussion about Keith's *manifesto* on Facebook -- _Mark Stahlman_ (http://www.facebook.com/markstahlman) As I've been discussing with Prof. Wang, Prof. "Post-Autistic" Fullbrock and others, you can't talk about the *humans* without also talking about the technologies which we invent, turn into environments and then allow ourselves to be shaped by our own innovations. So far, this understanding seems to be missing from the "real-world" economics movement. _Keith Hart_ (http://www.facebook.com/johnkeithhart) You can't have read the paper yet, Mark, so why comment on it? _Mark Stahlman_ (http://www.facebook.com/markstahlman) Of course I read your "Object" essay, why would you say that I "can't have"? There is nothing in it on the topic of how technological environments shape the *humans* -- is there? Prof. Fullbrock, who edits "real-world economic review" invited me to write a paper on this precisely because, in his estimation, no one is taking about it. Please help me by pointing to those who *are* . . . !! _Keith Hart_ (http://www.facebook.com/johnkeithhart) I don't write about how technology shapes humans because it is an outline of an economic approach. But I do say "The social and technical conditions of our era ??? urbanization, fast transport and universal media ??? should underpin any inquiry into how the principles of human economy might be realised." And I underline the role of the digital revolution in undermining the dominant economic form of the 20th century. I have also written a book on money in the digital revolution. I haven't reached your particular line, but I don't consider it engaging with a text when you say what it isn't 5 minutes after it was posted. _Mark Stahlman_ (http://www.facebook.com/markstahlman) Sorry if I can read fast (and if I've been talking with you for many months about these subjects)! <g> Economics is in *trouble* (like the rest of social science) because it leaves out basic realities and these "simplifications" -- whether in the service of "modeling assumptions" or whatever -- have now become too important to ignore. By emphasizing the HUMANS, you have correctly noted *one* of the parts left out. However, the humans are highly "plastic" and largely shaped by their environment -- which, in turn, is mostly defined by technology. Do you discuss this *environmental* effect on humans in your book? Is anyone else talking about it? In 1953 the Ford Foundation awarded Marshall McLuhan a $43,000 grant to study these effects. His partner was Edmund "Ted" Carpenter, an anthropologist. Together, they published the important journal "Explorations" in the 1950s. How does Carpenter et al's anthropology of "media" relate (or not) to what you are trying to do? _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Snow_Carpenter_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Snow_Carpenter) (So far, no reply . . . ) Keith is an anthropologist, who is interested in economics. Excellent! But he leaves out the effects of technology from his paper on "methodology," even though other anthropologists have already done ground-breaking work on the topic. Not so excellent. Industrialization is all about technology and its effects on the humans. So was agriculture. So is our present "post-industrial" condition. To try to do "anthropology" today without Ted Carpenter is like trying to do economics without Joseph Schumpeter. Ignoring the effects of technology on the humans will not produce a valid analysis of the "human economy." Africa will be the last place on earth to leave behind agriculture and industrialize. But it will happen.under conditions quite different from the European or North American or Japanese industrialization. Like the Chinese and Indian drive to industrialize, African industrialization will happen under the influence of digital technology. Furthermore, African industrialization will occur under the influence of the bio/nano-technology that will underpin the next techno-economic "surge." So far, the African National Congress has not shown themselves up to the task of thinking this through. Unlike the Chinese, who discarded "central planning" and, crucially, "single-use" military technology (which they inherited from the Soviets) in the 1980s, the ANC does not seem to have grasped these lessons. Instead, South Africa today appears to be a patch-work of personality-based "rivalries" between fiefdoms staking out their ground. Perhaps it will take a generation after the death of Mandela (like after the death of Mao), to begin to sort this out. Best of luck to Keith and his "robber-baron" pot-o'-gold! Understanding how these massive economic shifts occur under the influence of changing technological environments is the task for today's "social science." If you leave out these factors, which have been well known since the 1960s, because it's too complicated or "not the way we do things," then you will not produce a very useful analysis -- or contribute much to resolving the problems in social science. Mark Stahlman Brooklyn NY # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org