Rion D'Luz wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> Your insight went totally over (around) my head.
> Plz elaborate to below:

> So, fact is:
> an .org has a primary mission and its secondary one is to ensure its own 
> survival?

No the 'fact' is that an existing organization's primary mission is its
survival. It is an observation about social overhead.

>> But it isn't a fact. Our technology and culture have progressed. We are
>> not fully conscious of the new reality,
> which is what, exactly? That the need for an org is diminished, or the
> need for a group to have the same ability to be organized has?

Other possibilities have arrived.

> can you cite a couple or provide URL? Would this apply equally to business
> as to NGO's or (say laabor) movements?

Here you go. See the book "Here Comes Everybody" (2008). Also this video
(2005):

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html

The examples range widely, but they are popping up everywhere today:

Subway bombing reporting done on location, by nonprofessionals.

Photographs with keywords + upload + index + public domain waiver = a
resource impossible to create with professional photographers.

Distributed banking using the same algorithm which banks use, but with
friend-to-friend-to-friend credit rather than
client-to-bank-to-bank-to-client credit.

What the heck, I'd even cite the Linux kernel vs. the Microsoft kernel.

> Honestly, your observations tie in to a deep-seated interest i have in 
> both admiring (for it's efficiency and management skills) and 
> loathing (pave the earth) modern business organizational practices;

I agree, it is important.

I like free market capitalism--the company has drastically improved our
productivity--but it is probably only a local maxima for society's
productive capacity. The company is a tool which may not be as necessary
as it has been for a few generations.

[Beware! Editorial content: worse, our politicians seem to be rapidly
slipping toward socialism. Are we doomed to repeat last century's
mistakes instead of getting on with this century's possibilities?
Disclaimer: I was trained as an engineer, not educated in the liberal
arts. YMMV. I try to keep an open mind].

> if one concludes that their policies logically follow.
> (which is generally a group of A-types playing zero-sum games or
> bureaucrats cooking books to look better than they are)

I have opinions, but I'll just say that fraud, politics, and debt have
completely obscured that issue, especially recently.

-- 
Anthony Carrico

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to