Jim Baen’s Universe

by Edited by Eric Flint

  Nevertheless, a po­pu­lar me­dia, even tho­ugh they are still part of the "olde bo­ye net­wor­ke of pub­lis­hers," or at le­ast wan­na­be­es, ha­ve had lit­tle ef­fort re­qu­ired in de­ci­ding that the Gu­ten­berg press was the gre­atest in­ven­ti­on of the last mil­len­ni­um, and that Johan­nes Gu­ten­berg was the gre­atest per­son.

  Yet, with all the go­ings on sur­ro­un­ding such proc­la­ma­ti­ons, in pub­li­ca­ti­ons go­ing to mil­li­ons or even bil­li­ons, no men­ti­on of the ca­tac­l­y­s­mic po­wers by which the Gu­ten­berg press was stif­led in Gre­at Bri­ta­in to the po­int that of 30,000 tit­les in print in Euro­pe in 1500, and who knows how many ad­ded from 1500 to 1700, only 600 tit­les re­ma­ined in print by the Sta­ti­oners and tho­se we­re all in Lon­don so it do­esn't ta­ke much ima­gi­na­ti­on to en­vi­si­on what the pro­cess must ha­ve be­en li­ke for so­me­one from the mo­re re­mo­te are­as. If you ha­ve tro­ub­le with such a vi­si­on, just re­ad a lit­tle Jane Aus­ten to en­vi­si­on what the Lon­don sce­ne was as com­pa­red to the rest of the co­untry.

  These bo­oks are ava­ilab­le free of char­ge at http://www.gutenberg.org, along with ne­arly 20,000 ot­hers, and a to­tal of over 50,000 from the va­ri­o­us si­te lo­ca­ti­ons of ot­her Pro­j­ect Gu­ten­berg ef­forts aro­und the world.

  ****.

  Now a si­mi­lar lo­ok at ot­her as­pects of In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­ons.

  Since so many pe­op­le tell me they can’t see the ca­use and ef­fect bet­we­en a Gu­ten­berg press and the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on, a mo­ment to lay out so­me of the mo­re ob­vi­o­us con­nec­ti­ons.

  1. Me­tal­lurgy

  2. Mec­ha­ni­cal Le­ve­ra­ge

  3. So­ci­al Le­ve­ra­ge

  4. Po­li­ti­cal Le­ve­ra­ge

  5. In­ter­c­han­ge­ab­le Parts

  6. Mass Pro­duc­ti­on

  ****

  1. Me­tal­lurgy

  Before Gu­ten­berg me­tal­lurgy wasn't that far re­mo­ved from al­c­hemy, and that me­tal­lurgy was mostly con­cen­t­ra­ted on we­aponry and jewelry, not in­dus­t­ri­al ap­pli­ca­ti­ons, and just ba­rely ag­ri­cul­tu­ral ap­pli­ca­ti­ons.

  Before Gu­ten­berg, high tech we­aponry was knights in ar­mor and the­ir lan­ces and the va­ri­o­us ge­ar for fo­ot sol­di­ers, ar­c­hers, stir­rups, and just ba­rely, gun­pow­der and fi­re­arms.

  The to­ols of sci­en­ce we­re ru­di­men­tary at best and wo­uld be re­fi­ned gre­atly by the ad­van­ces of the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on.

  Johannes Gu­ten­berg was the first ma­j­or user of me­tal­lurgy for uti­li­ta­ri­an, in­dus­t­ri­al pur­po­ses of mass pro­duc­ti­on.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on wo­uld ha­ve hap­pe­ned via a tho­ught pro­cess that did not in­c­lu­de mass pro­duc­ti­on?

  This po­int alo­ne sho­uld be suf­fi­ci­ent to ma­ke even the most ar­dent of such det­rac­tors ret­hink the­ir po­si­ti­on that the Gu­ten­berg press was not a re­al, if not the re­al, pre­cur­sor to the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on.

  2. Mec­ha­ni­cal Le­ve­ra­ge

  For tho­se who re­al­ly want to think abo­ut the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on, ide­als abo­ut le­ve­ra­ge or "mec­ha­ni­cal ad­van­ta­ge" as they cal­led it, are ne­ces­sary.

  The Gu­ten­berg press em­p­lo­yed se­ve­ral kinds of mec­ha­ni­cal le­ve­ra­ge, most of it ta­ken out­right from pres­ses used to ex­t­ract ju­ices and oils from a wi­de va­ri­ety of crops.

  However, this ti­me the le­ve­ra­ge was used for so­met­hing ot­her than rep­la­ced pre­vi­o­us met­hods of do­ing the sa­me thing.

  We can talk abo­ut le­ve­ra­ge go­ing back to the ca­ve­man's club, and up to the po­int, the li­te­ral po­int, of the knight's lan­ce, ar­row tips, and even that du­al le­ve­ra­ge of the sword ed­ge that ma­kes it so ef­fec­ti­ve, but the ma­j­or, re­pe­at ma­j­or, dif­fe­ren­ce is that this le­ve­ra­ge was for in­dus­t­ri­al pur­po­ses that had ne­ver be­en con­si­de­red be­fo­re.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on wo­uld ha­ve hap­pe­ned via a tho­ught pro­cess that did not in­c­lu­de in­dus­t­ri­al le­ve­ra­ge?

  3. So­ci­al Le­ve­ra­ge

  Here we chan­ge va­lue systems from tec­h­no­logy to so­ci­ety.

  Technological in­ven­ti­ons are one thing, so­ci­olo­gi­cal in­ven­ti­ons anot­her.

  Before Gu­ten­berg all in­ven­ti­ons we­re of the "tric­k­le down" va­ri­ety.

  The in­ven­ti­on star­ted with the rich and tric­k­led down to the po­or.

  The Gu­ten­berg press was an in­ven­ti­on that bro­ught bo­oks to ever­yo­ne, right from the first ge­ne­ra­ti­on an­yo­ne no­ti­ced it was the­re.

  It was not so­met­hing first mo­no­po­li­zed by the rich, then "tric­k­led down."

  A ba­sic ef­fect of the Gu­ten­berg press was ge­ne­ral so­ci­olo­gi­cal ad­van­ta­ge.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on wo­uld ha­ve hap­pe­ned via a tho­ught pro­cess that did not in­c­lu­de so­ci­olo­gi­cal ad­van­ta­ge?

  i.e. If you co­uldn't sell yo­ur pro­duct to the ge­ne­ral pub­lic, then it was not to yo­ur per­so­nal ad­van­ta­ge to en­ga­ge in mass pro­duc­ti­on.

  [More la­ter on mass pro­duc­ti­on, it has its own sec­ti­on be­low.]

  4. Po­li­ti­cal Le­ve­ra­ge

  I only wri­te this at this lo­ca­ti­on to re­mind you that po­li­ti­cal le­ve­ra­ges we­re only used aga­inst brin­ging so much to the mas­ses at such low pri­ces.

  Governments, at le­ast tho­se go­ver­ning the Sta­ti­oners Com­pany, os­ten­sibly, in the true sen­se of the word, we­re to cre­ate the ge­ne­ral wel­fa­re of that who­le co­untry, and not just the ro­yalty, as of the Mag­na Car­ta.

  Does an­yo­ne think the Gu­ten­berg press, the ste­am press, or elec­t­ric press or the mo­re mo­dern tec­h­no­lo­gi­es of the Xe­rox mac­hi­ne and the In­ter­net all wo­uld ha­ve had much gre­ater im­pact if not for the va­ri­o­us cop­y­right laws, pas­sed so­lely to stif­le the­ir prog­ress?

  Whether you ag­ree that tho­se laws we­re pas­sed so­lely to stif­le the prog­ress of the­se par­ti­cu­lar in­ven­ti­ons or not, you'll pro­bably still ha­ve to step back and ad­mit that they wo­uld each ha­ve had a much gre­ater ef­fect if the cop­y­right laws hadn't hap­pe­ned just at the right ti­me to stop them.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think the Gu­ten­berg press and tho­se va­ri­o­us suc­ces­sors wo­uld not ha­ve had an even gre­ater im­pact on ci­vi­li­za­ti­on if not for so­me very po­wer­ful re­ac­ti­onary po­li­ti­cal le­ve­ra­ge?

  5. In­ter­c­han­ge­ab­le Parts

  Obviously in­ter­c­han­ge­ab­le parts are one of the stap­les of mo­dern as­pects, per­haps over the past one hun­d­red fifty ye­ars, of in­dus­t­ri­ali­za­ti­on.

  But few ac­k­now­led­ge that the first in­ter­c­han­ge­ab­le parts we­re the let­ters cre­ated by Johan­nes Gu­ten­berg for his prin­ting press.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think we co­uld ha­ve had the last one hun­d­red fifty ye­ars of brin­ging mo­re and mo­re in­dus­t­ri­ali­za­ti­on abo­ut wit­ho­ut in­ter­c­han­ge­ab­le parts?

  6. Mass Pro­duc­ti­on

  The en­ti­re con­cept of In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­ons is ba­sed on mass pro­duc­ti­on.

  The en­ti­re con­cept of mass pro­duc­ti­on is ba­sed on the Gu­ten­berg press.

  After all, the­re was no mass pro­duc­ti­on be­fo­re the Gu­ten­berg press.

  Does an­yo­ne re­al­ly think the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on wo­uld ha­ve hap­pe­ned
via a tho­ught pro­cess that did not in­c­lu­de mass pro­duc­ti­on?

  These are a wi­de ran­ge of con­cepts that are very fun­da­men­tal to the ide­als of the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on, no mat­ter how far back you go, or do not go, in yo­ur de­fi­ni­ti­on of the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on.

  ****

  I chal­len­ge tho­se who wo­uld deny the con­nec­ti­on from the Gu­ten­berg pres­ses of half a mil­len­ni­um ago to the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on to co­me up with so­me ot­her exam­p­le, any ot­her exam­p­le, that pro­vi­des even a re­aso­nab­le frac­ti­on of the­se fun­da­men­tal con­cepts for the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on.

  I ha­ven't even men­ti­oned the re­qu­ire­ment for the mo­re li­te­ra­te or edu­ca­ted mem­bers of so­ci­ety that are ne­eded to cre­ate the sci­en­ce and tec­h­no­lo­gi­es, and that is no small fe­atu­re of the ba­sis for the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on or for the Neo-In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on I am pre­dic­ting will swe­ep the pla­net as a re­sult of the Com­pu­ter Re­vo­lu­ti­on, the In­ter­net, and the World Wi­de Web.

  The truth is that no­ne of you wo­uld ever ha­ve he­ard of me if not for the­se as­pects of the Neo-In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on that al­low me, so­me­one wit­ho­ut an even or­di­nary set of cre­den­ti­als, to try world tip­ping on the sca­le of so­me of the pe­op­le I ha­ve men­ti­oned abo­ve.

  I am the first to ad­mit that my con­t­ri­bu­ti­on was small, just the snow­ball, the one that star­ted the ava­lan­c­he of eBo­oks you see aro­und you to­day, and I ha­ve, as Isa­ac New­ton sa­id, "sto­od on the sho­ul­ders of gi­ants" to cre­ate that lit­tle snow­ball, and ha­ve be­en hel­ped by 40,000 vo­lun­te­ers and ot­hers who ha­ve cre­ated the en­ti­re eBo­ok in­dustry.

  Yet, my pur­po­se he­re is to say that this con­t­ri­bu­ti­on will ap­pe­ar smal­ler, vastly smal­ler, com­pa­red to the Neo-In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on I am pre­dic­ting.

  It is the first day of my six­ti­eth spring, and, as al­ways, my vi­si­on is set on the fu­tu­re, a fu­tu­re I ho­pe will ma­ke all the ef­forts I ha­ve des­c­ri­bed via the words abo­ve pa­le by com­pa­ri­son.

  My ho­pe is that Pro­j­ect Gu­ten­berg and eBo­oks in ge­ne­ral sho­uld pro­vi­de the fo­un­da­ti­on for a Neo-In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on that will ma­ke the pre­vi­o­us few in­dus­t­ri­al re­vo­lu­ti­ons pa­le by com­pa­ri­son.

  Anything that can be di­gi­ti­zed can tra­vel ac­ross the In­ter­net at spe­eds we de­fi­ne as in­s­tan­ta­ne­o­us if we are on go­od con­nec­ti­ons, so­mew­hat slo­wer for tho­se at the end of slow wi­res. For my own pur­po­ses, I am lucky in so far as the eBo­oks I ha­ve ma­de a ca­re­er of pro­mo­ting tra­vel very well over such wi­res and thus are even mo­re in­s­tan­ta­ne­o­us than ot­her ma­te­ri­als.

  However, not only will the In­ter­net con­ti­nue to get fas­ter, but mo­re of an as­sor­t­ment of de­ve­lop­ments such as MIT's FAB­ri­ca­ti­on La­bo­ra­to­ri­es[FAB­LABs] be­co­me mo­re and mo­re wi­dely ava­ilab­le, but the spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons for stuff to ma­ke with them will be­co­me mo­re and mo­re wi­dely ava­ilab­le, un­til you wo­uld be ab­le to ma­ke tho­usands, if not mil­li­ons, of things at FAB­LABs, all over the world, in every co­untry, just as we do with eBo­oks to­day.

  Don't be­li­eve me?

  Well, you sho­uld ha­ve he­ard all the com­ments for the first se­ven­te­en ye­ars of the ti­me I spent tal­king abo­ut eBo­oks!

  Not even my best fri­ends who hel­ped me the most be­li­eved eBo­oks we­re go­ing to ever get off the gro­und, must less fly li­ke the Wright Brot­hers or li­ke mo­dern day air­p­la­nes.

  eBooks are so com­mon­p­la­ce to­day that when I do Go­og­le se­ar­c­hes I find that I am re­ading a bo­ok when I don't even know it… it just so hap­pe­ned that to­day whi­le I was re­se­ar­c­hing the In­dus­t­ri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on, prin­ting pres­ses, and the li­ke, I en­ded up with my se­ar­c­hes ta­king me to eBo­oks, wit­ho­ut any war­ning what­so­ever… un­til I re­ali­zed the­re we­re lit­tle Go­og­le clu­es for the fact they we­re eBo­oks, af­ter the fact.

  Someday, ne­arer in the fu­tu­re than the first step to­ward eLib­ra­ri­es was in the past, so­me­one will se­arch for a part and that part will be ma­de by MIT FAB­LABs or the li­ke, and the per­son won't know it any mo­re than I re­ali­zed af­ter the fact that I my hit from the Go­og­le se­arch was an eBo­ok.

  For tho­se who want to start the clock co­un­ting, that's abo­ut the be­gin­ning of 2040, but my own fe­eling is that it will hap­pen even so­oner, so much so that it might ha­ve al­re­ady hap­pe­ned. I've he­ard of pe­op­le ma­king parts a per­son ne­eded for a was­hing mac­hi­ne in a FAB­LAB in Af­ri­ca(?) so all it may ta­ke to ma­ke my pre­dic­ti­on al­re­ady ha­ve co­me true as that the per­son gi­ven the part didn't know how it got the­re. To so­me­one in re­mo­te Af­ri­ca is UPS all that dif­fe­rent from a FAB­LAB?

  The po­int is that mo­re and mo­re so­lid three di­men­si­onal obj­ects are go­ing, or sho­uld I say co­ming, to be ava­ilab­le via "prin­ters," mac­hi­ne shops, and ot­her de­vi­ces that can ma­ke three di­men­si­onal obj­ects from a fi­le.

  More and mo­re of our low tech in­dus­t­ri­es, not just high tech, are ma­king a mo­ve to auto­ma­ted ma­nu­fac­tu­ring of this na­tu­re.

  Desktop 3-D prin­ters cost less now than an IBM-AT com­pu­ter did in 1984 and you don't even ha­ve to fac­tor in­f­la­ti­on in­to the equ­ati­on. If you did you wo­uld per­haps get two of the 3-D prin­ters.

  The pri­ce of a FAB­LAB is re­por­ted to be only twi­ce that of the IBM-AT with no in­f­la­ti­on, or per­haps the sa­me pri­ce wit­ho­ut in­f­la­ti­on. $20,000 or now per­haps $25,000, as a Go­og­le se­arch just in­for­med me. Che­ap at the pri­ce!

  Today we ta­ke using such Go­og­le se­ar­c­hes for gran­ted, so­met­hing that qu­ite re­cently didn't even exist, now it's just a mi­nu­te of se­ar­c­hing to find an exact qu­ote on the pri­ce of so­met­hing as new and com­p­lex as a FAB­LAB.

  In the sa­me res­pect, I am pro­ud to say that the best sel­ling bo­ok of a few ye­ars now, The Da Vin­ci Co­de, was re­se­ar­c­hed ex­ten­si­vely using eBo­oks from Pro­j­ect Gu­ten­berg, which, as you can see, is in qu­ite go­od com­pany, lis­ted the­re on the ac­k­now­led­ge­ments pa­ges with the Lo­uv­re and Bib­li­ot­he­que Na­ti­onal and a few ot­her pri­me re­so­ur­ces.

  Those who don't think things will chan­ge in the fu­tu­re just are not pa­ying much at­ten­ti­on to how things are chan­ging right now.

  The ave­ra­ge car to­day has hun­d­reds of fun­c­ti­ons car­ri­ed out by com­pu­ter we ra­rely ever con­si­der. Our ana­log ra­di­os and te­le­vi­si­ons are full of stuff that co­mes from di­gi­tal so­ur­ces, tho­ugh it will pro­bably all be di­gi­ti­zed, so­oner rat­her than la­ter, just so they can ma­ke a tril­li­on li­te­ral dol­lars sel­ling new de­vi­ces and anot­her tril­li­on dol­lars sel­ling you the rights to ta­pe the shows you ta­pe for free to­day.

  What?

  They didn't men­ti­on that part!

  Hmmm.

  I won­der why not?

  If you un­der­s­to­od the lit­tle his­tory of pub­lis­hing and cop­y­right abo­ve it sho­uld ha­ve be­en ob­vi­o­us.

  The mo­re the pub­lis­hing me­dia can de­li­ver to the mas­ses, the mo­re it will be that laws are pas­sed to stop that sa­me me­dia from re­ac­hing the mas­ses.

  So it has be­en sin­ce the Gu­ten­berg press, and so it shall be un­til/un­less so­met­hing even mo­re re­vo­lu­ti­onary hap­pens.

  This file was created with BookDesigner program

  bookdesigner@the-ebook.org

  6/6/20
06