4 ms·

"Buckminster Fuller’s technological insights, while impressive, are not what we need today. We do not need grand designs and we do not need controlling designer

"Buckminster Fuller’s technological insights, while impressive, are not what we need today. We do not need grand designs and we do not need controlling designers at the helm to direct our choices for the future. We need arrangements that will allow us to remain free to do as we please and pursue our dreams while abiding by rules, reached by common agreement, that ensure our freedoms do not result in harm to others or to our planet. We can think big about our common future, and we must welcome appropriate technologies, but only if they do not rely on greater and greater social controls by those who decide they know best how to make us safer and happier." An interesting comment, and one which I don't entirely disagree with. But there is some inherent benefit to the "big idea person" who is able to bring large groups of people along with them to work on those big ideas together. Have their been any examples of that same effect occurring in the realms that the author describes?

photochemsyn 4y ago
Every time I read statements like this, I wonder if the authors would really approve of eliminating building codes in earthquake and hurricane zones, in the name of regulatory freedom and improved market effeciencies... It's almost as if they feel the need to state their ideology upfront as a means of presenting their bona fides to the outlet's owner, regardless of the practical nature of the issue. In the case of Fuller's geodesic domes, well, one might argue that developing robust building codes for such domes would be a problem that might even prevent their standardized development across the country (i.e. how strong do the interties need to be, do they need to model their resistance to hurricane-force winds, etc.) - but the alternative would be a lot of collapsed homes after typical natural disasters strike, which would sour the market on the the model for years to come.
- feet 4y ago
  >I wonder if the authors would really approve of eliminating building codes in earthquake and hurricane zones, in the name of regulatory freedom and improved market effeciencies... I think you missed the part of the quote where they said "abiding by rules" >abiding by rules, reached by common agreement, that ensure our freedoms do not result in harm to others or to our planet
- donavanm 4y ago
  As feet says, you seem to be missing the second part on a evolved rules based order. Building codes (the IRC, IBC, IFC, etc) are the exact opposite of a “big idea.” They’ve been learned by the work (and loss of) thousands of people over decades. Then they provide a baseline that individual countries and municipalities adapt to fit local society and needs.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  As you sort of suggest, there are two kinds of building codes. "(component) in (buildings of this type) will be able to support a static load of x kilograms per square meter". "(component) in (buildings of this type) will be made according to one of these specific designs". The first kind provides for adequate safety. The second stifles innovation. Geodesic domes should absolutely be held to the same safety standards as other designs. But you shouldn't have to go through some nightmarish variance process in every single jurisdiction to build one, especially since most areas use some variation of one of the national or international codes. Engineers should be able to have a new design analyzed and tested by independent testing labs, and then it should be automatically approved across all jurisdictions -- now, not three years from now when the new edition of the code comes out.
suoduandao2 4y ago
I genuinely think Tesla's done good work in the field despite all transactions it does being voluntary.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Every time I read statements like this, I wonder if the authors would really approve of eliminating building codes in earthquake and hurricane zones, in the name of regulatory freedom and improved market effeciencies... It's almost as if they feel the need to state their ideology upfront as a means of presenting their bona fides to the outlet's owner, regardless of the practical nature of the issue. In the case of Fuller's geodesic domes, well, one might argue that developing robust building codes for such domes would be a problem that might even prevent their standardized development across the country (i.e. how strong do the interties need to be, do they need to model their resistance to hurricane-force winds, etc.) - but the alternative would be a lot of collapsed homes after typical natural disasters strike, which would sour the market on the the model for years to come.

feet 4y ago
>I wonder if the authors would really approve of eliminating building codes in earthquake and hurricane zones, in the name of regulatory freedom and improved market effeciencies... I think you missed the part of the quote where they said "abiding by rules" >abiding by rules, reached by common agreement, that ensure our freedoms do not result in harm to others or to our planet
donavanm 4y ago
As feet says, you seem to be missing the second part on a evolved rules based order. Building codes (the IRC, IBC, IFC, etc) are the exact opposite of a “big idea.” They’ve been learned by the work (and loss of) thousands of people over decades. Then they provide a baseline that individual countries and municipalities adapt to fit local society and needs.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
As you sort of suggest, there are two kinds of building codes. "(component) in (buildings of this type) will be able to support a static load of x kilograms per square meter". "(component) in (buildings of this type) will be made according to one of these specific designs". The first kind provides for adequate safety. The second stifles innovation. Geodesic domes should absolutely be held to the same safety standards as other designs. But you shouldn't have to go through some nightmarish variance process in every single jurisdiction to build one, especially since most areas use some variation of one of the national or international codes. Engineers should be able to have a new design analyzed and tested by independent testing labs, and then it should be automatically approved across all jurisdictions -- now, not three years from now when the new edition of the code comes out.

suoduandao2 4y ago

I genuinely think Tesla's done good work in the field despite all transactions it does being voluntary.