Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth has ratings and reviews. Hadrian said: What, forty-four years on, is the future of Spaceship Earth? Ol’ Bu. OPERATING MANUAL FOR SPACESHIP EARTH by Buckminster Fuller. 1. COMPREHENSIVE PROPENSITIES. I am enthusiastic over humanity’s extraordinary. Buckminster Fuller (–) was an architect, engineer, geometrician, and one of Fuller’s most popular works, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth is a.
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||7 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||7.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.82 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want ,anual Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again.
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth
Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by R. In this essay on man Mr. Fuller expresses what may well be his penultimate view of the human condition. Here, in a mood at once philosophical and involved, Mr. Fuller traces man s intellectual evolution and weighs his capability for survival on this magnificent craft, this Spaceship Earth, this superbly designed sphere of almost negligible dimension in the great vastness o In this essay on man Mr.
Fuller traces man s intellectual evolution and weighs his capability for survival on this magnificent craft, this Spaceship Earth, this superbly designed sphere of almost negligible dimension in the great vastness of space.
Fuller is optimistic that man will survive and, through research and development and increased industrialization, generate wealth so rapidly that he can do very great things. But, he notes, there must be an enormous educational task successfully accomplished right now to convert man’s tendency toward oblivion into a realization of his potential, to a universe-exploring advantage from this Spaceship Earth.
It has been noted that Mr. Fuller spins ideas in clusters, and clusters of his ideas generate still other clusters. The concept spaceship earth is Mr. Fuller’s, and though used by Barbara Ward as the title of a work of her own the idea was acknowledged by her there as deriving from Mr.
The brilliant syntheses of some fundamental Fuller principles given here makes of this book a microcosm of the Fuller system. Hardcoverpages. Published September 1st by Amereon Limited first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth – R. Buckminster Fuller – Google Books
To ask other readers questions about Operating Manual for Spaceship Ewrthplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. Lists with This Book.
Mar 23, Hadrian rated it it was ok Shelves: What, forty-four years on, is operatung future of Spaceship Earth? Ol’ Bucky does, to his credit, grasp some essential truths about our environmental position. We have limited resources, we consume too much too fast, and we have no organized means of managing them for our future survival.
Hence something must be earfh. This idea rightfully endures. I must, however, disagree with his future characterization of the earth as a spaceship – that would imply some military hierarchy, international cooperative What, forty-four years on, is the future of Spaceship Earth?
I must, however, disagree with his future characterization of the earth as a spaceship – that would imply some military hierarchy, international cooperative order, strict roles and assigned positions. With the present international situation, I suspect that those wealthy ones among us live in cruise ships, and some hundred millions of others are living on the giant plastic garbage island in the Pacific, lashed to our pleasure flotilla and shoveling coal into the boilers.
What else does he offer us, besides this spacdship, if flawed, image? Some woolly historicism about Great Pirates who control information. Some Alex Jones stuff about banks. Some eqrth attempts at metaphysics. The idea of a system being greater than the sum of its parts, coining that hideous cliche of inarticulate business majors everywhere, “synergy”. Something about specialization, baby chickens, general systems theory, and so on and spzceship on. Idyllic plans for attempting to rewrite human nature.
Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth by R. Buckminster Fuller | Blurb Books
You start to wonder operatinv he’s lost it. I end with Fuller’s closing words: Any success in such iperating will be increasingly short-lived. These are the synergetic rules that evolution is employing and trying to make clear to us. They are not man-made laws. They are the infinitely accommodative laws of the intellectual integrity governing universe.
Fuller may have been a good scientist, creative engineer and a designer, but a manifesto-writer and coherent futurist he is not. Feb 11, Afrah Mohammad rated it really liked it. It’s not a perfect book, but it is a necessary one. Essentially it’s a compact antithesis to the specious philosophy of pseudo-individualism that overwhelmingly prevails today.
Fuller definitely overextended and exaggerated a few duller about world history and specialization to make his theory about synergy more unified, but I think part of the exaggeration also has to do operatijg him having to present a very urgent and complex thesis in a short space of paper.
For example, I don’t think Fu It’s not a perfect book, but it is a necessary one. For example, I don’t think Fuller wants to throw specialization out the window completely; I think he just wants to avoid us veering toward this absolutism where we’re so nearsighted that we can’t see the integrated effects of what we’re doing. What Fuller proposes rings faintly of Marxism but is actually the ultimate liberation ideology.
Selfish economy results in constrained, lose-lose modes of achievement like “empowerment,” but consciousness of the interconnectedness of the universe results in win-win liberation for everyone and extension of our productivity.
I don’t agree with Fuller that resources are unlimited, but I do think operatinh kind of structure would definitely increase what we’re able to produce and how effectively it’s distributed. I came to this cult ‘classic’ in the fervent hope that it might allow me, finally, to ‘get’ modern environmentalism for which this is a seminal text. Part of my kperating lack of enthusiasm is down to style. There is no doubt that Buckminster Fuller was a genius of sorts – at bjckminster as an engineer, planner and technologist – but he writes like a ‘speak your weight’ machine with a propensity dpaceship creating neologistic compound words that would put Sapceship philosophy to shame.
Far from inspiring, I came to this cult ‘classic’ in the fervent hope that it might allow me, finally, to ‘get’ modern environmentalism for which this is psaceship seminal text. Far from inspiring, the man just cannot write imaginative prose and yet his subject cries out for imagination. I am sure that he says precisely what he means but it is next to impossible to sustain an interest while being hectored by a person, no doubt kindly in intention in his way, who is egotistical to the nth degree – a ‘speech-talker’, as my daughter would term such types.
Still, great thoughts are only made easier, no more, by great language skills. There are many prose poets whose ideas can be distilled down to mere mystical garbage when the beauty of the formulation has passed from one ear and out of the other. Sadly, his are not such great thoughts either If persons were just units of existence with blank slates for minds, he might conceivably have a point.
But we are not and so he does not.
Buckminster Fuller is a sort of monster despite all his fine aspirations for humanity. He is so, in part, because he sees us all not truly as intrinsically flawed individuals which we are and which makes us who we are at our best but as units of existence who can be made nobler by planners. He is a planner and we are the crooked timber that must be used to fulfil the plan for our own good. Where have we heard such sentiments before? Why, from pretty well every ‘great’ Western ideologue and thinker whose ego has extended itself to encompass the known human universe.
Far from being ready to consider deep globalist environmentalism as opposed to human-centred localist environmentalism as a reasonable possibility for humanity, Buckminster Fuller has converted me into its sworn enemy. I now know, if there are others like him within the contemporary environmentalist movement for we can see his influence in the ‘Zeitgeist Movement’ and in the eco-hysteria surrounding the circle of Al Gorethat, when we ordinary humans fail to meet the needs of the Plan, whatever his personal benignity, his heirs will make old Joe Stalin look like a pussy cat as they enforce their will on a global scale – always in the interests of us and of humanity, of course.
If you are the sort of personality who would have loved dear old Karl Marx before ’36, then you’ll just love Buckminster Fuller today! This philosophical primitivism is a shame because there is a great deal of merit in his analysis of capitalism even if he seems loathe to be direct about his primary enemy lest he get accused of being a fellow-traveller with the equally flawed communist alternative that had divided up the world with Washington while he wrote.
He gets close to a truth in his myth of the Great Pirates the one entertaining and worthwhile section of what is otherwise a monument to the turgid but it is still not the truth. The tale of the Great Pirates is a sound enough mythic critique of what we have inherited as of but it is about as historically plausible as pretty well every other evangelical motivating myth that has come out of the Anglo-Saxon imperium, from those of the Mormons and Madame Blavatsky to those of Margaret Murray and L.
The history in this book is mostly just simplistic nonsense that seems to depend on the reading of a few geostrategists and very little experience of practical politics, the sort of simplistic populism, mixed with technocracy, that is standard fare when a certain type of engineer tries to make sense of human complexity and builds societies as he might build bridges. Old political activists will know that the heart sinks when an engineer or scientist tries to apply engineering or scientific principles to knotty political problems He does make us think, to his credit, about excessive cultural specialisation and about what ‘wealth’ actually means to humanity.
On the latter, he adopts an American populist approach that is analytically correct even if it may not be pragmatically meaningful, given where we are today. He has also done us a service in suggesting that we are going to be more socially productive and creative if we are given more freedom to think at leisure.
The science of daydreaming suggests that our mind does benefit from idling. And he did the West a great service by joining those who pointed out the effects of pollution within the capitalist world long before it was forced to the notice of Soviet planners by their bullied dissidents.
Failure to consider polluting effects was undoubtedly a major contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union and the discrediting of its Communist model – Buckminster Fuller’s dissident voice helped the West adjust more effectively to the threat of environmental degradation. Finally, the analysis of the way that wealth is easily created in war but not in peace is a criticism that stands today of how sovereign ‘piratical’ states have served the interests of their historically continuous institutions far more often than they have of their peoples.
Buckminster Fuller’s somewhat stylistically suppressed righteous anger at global inequity, imperialism, elite corruption, planetary dispoliation and inefficiency leads him to some wise analytical conclusions but not to equally wise solutions.
The Spaceship Earth concept is, of course, seductive, like those of Gaia or the Clash of Civilisations or the End of History, but such book-selling catch-phrases are either so general as to have no meaning for humanity unless you remove humanity from the equation altogether or are grossly simplistic when it comes to trying to decide what humanity which really means individual persons in societies and not some essentialist reified thing with one hive mind is to do next.
The truism in Spaceship Earth which we must accept is that, as a species, we sink or swim with the planet. If it dies, we die – end of story. But there is one heck of a leap from that fller and true proposition to the determination for a planned world government of happy free people living in leisure guided by philosopher kings like our dear Buckminster Fuller. Self-appointed Platonic Guardians have not had a great record in the humanity stakes.
The Buckmister Fullerenes are unlikely to be much better if they actually get their hands on any directive power. I bickminster, for example, not an ‘Earthian’ but a person who happens to live on Earth.
As for his faith in computers and automation, this is a belief and nothing more. A sort of instinctive scientific spaceeship that over-estimates what computers can do to model our universe and underestimates the logic of an AI displacing us as soon as it can model it better than us.