Showing posts with label Manual skills. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manual skills. Show all posts

Too Little Too Late

SUBHEAD: We are about to come out of the self induced social media coma of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

By Juan Wilson on 5 April 2018 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2018/04/too-little-too-late.html)


Image above: We are witnessing the unavoidable fate of sandcastles at the edge of the ocean. From (https://odis.homeaway.com/odis/listing/fbebe127-4378-477a-9339-49e95ef6cd07.c10.jpg).

Just check out the trajectory of our Fearless Leader, Donald Chump. In a desperate effort to keep the wheels on the bus he is going to trash every safeguard put in place to keep civilization from becoming a fatal cancer on Gaia. He's pulling out the stops and stepping on the gas - Thelma and Louise style.

But I know you know the "American Dream" is over. "Make America Great Again" is worse than an empty slogan... it's going in the wrong direction... back to an even greater consumption of what little of the Natural World is left. It's like eating babies to keep from starving... not a good long term plan.

We are about to come out of the self induced social media coma of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Did we really think is had any substance beyond the dull glow of the screen on our faces as Siri or Alexa whispers in our ear?

It did allow us to not look at the landscape transforming around us as we pilfered the last of Mother Nature. Too bad the party is over and we have a hangover.

We are going to have to clean up the mess and get on with the work at hand... that is work with hands on shovels, hoes and rakes. It's down to this for most of the survivors - gardening.

 That and learning how to do something useful without utility services and container shipping.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Activism in the Anthropocene 12/15/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Sculptures from the Anthropocene 6/18/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Grow Food for Collapse 6/8/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Back to the Future 5/31/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Real Wealth & Trusting No System 5/23/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Find and Limit Ourselves 2/17/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Capitalism is a form of Cancer 10/7/16
Ea O Ka Aina: How about a "Grown" economy? 10/11/16
Ea O KA Aina: Planet Kaauai 2/26/16
Ea O Ka Aina: From Here on Down 8/4/15
Ea O Ka Aina : Oases on a future Eaarth 6/28/15
Ea O Ka Aina: The Last Straw 12/17/14 
Ea O Ka Aina: Ownership of the Anthropocene 5/4/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Worse than you think 5/21/14
Ea O Ka Aina:Things won't get back to normal 2/10/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The New Game 11/10/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Food, Water, Energy & Shelter 1/31/13
Ea O Ka AIna: Embrace the Change 7/24/12
Ea O Ka Aina: Trick or Treat! 10/31/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Last Trip to the Moon 5/10/11
Ea O Ka Aina: The Five Year Plan 3/4/10
Ea O Ka Aina: All Aboard! 12/9/09


.

Lay a hand on something

SUBHEAD: Because the Boss Man is right around the corner and coming on fast, and he sounds pissed.

By Brian Miller on 6 August 2017 for Winged Elm Farm -
(http://www.wingedelmfarm.com/blog/2017/08/06/lay-a-hand-on-something/)


Image above: A father and son review their work together. From (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3829996/Why-s-fun-dad-mum-Mothers-enjoy-parenting-hard-work-fathers.html).

The old black man told me, “Lay a hand on something when the Boss Man comes around.” I was spending my summer between seventh and eighth grade stripping and waxing floors at the church my family attended, and it was my first real job.

The boss who was supervising me, had come around a corner and found me idly staring into space.

What may have seemed like cynical advice to offer a 12-year-old boy was actually meant as a well-intended reminder that we should stay focused on our work.

Throughout my high school years, summers were spent working construction jobs in the Louisiana swelter. I can’t say I was a towering example of the ideal worker, but both early jobs helped me build the muscle memory of an ethic that prepared me to enter into and navigate through adulthood.

It is an ethic that seems sadly out of fashion these days. As a culture, we seem to have slid into a pattern of expecting less and less from our children, both physically and intellectually, and allowing them to remain children for longer and longer.

Likewise, if my observations from years in the bookstore business are any indicator, the dominant genre of books read by adults now is the category of Young Adult.

In my career and on the farm, I have worked with many young people embarking on their first job, and it is increasingly hard to find new workers (and I’ll extend that range up into their late 20s) who have ever done any type of work.

Most have zero muscle memory for what is required to be responsible and productive either in the workplace or as citizens.

That undeveloped set of skills carries over into what are supposed to be the “responsible years”: how does a person learn, without having experienced work, to make independent decisions, take orders, discern truth from fiction, stay focused and busy, develop the stamina to play a constructive part in a culture over many decades?

Disciplined work habits established early on affect all aspects of our culture, from school and the workplace to the arts and civic sphere.

That there is a drift backwards into adolescence that pervades our culture — whether it’s reading cartoonish literature designed for an underdeveloped mind or a political sphere that is dominated by…well, let’s not go there — is extremely alarming.

Now, all this fretting may be the special preserve of a man who just this week will reach his mid-fifties, but I do worry what this downward spiral means for our culture, for our species.

I continue to be haunted by a work I read recently, “Ends of the World,” a science history of deep time and the cycles of extinctions on our planet.

For me, the book serves to highlight both our insignificance and the childish hubris of our species that imperils our brief reign here.

While it may not allow us to avert a crisis, it just may be time to return to the practice of “laying a hand on something.” Because the Boss Man is right around the corner and coming on fast, and he sounds pissed.

.

Just wait a little while

SUBHEAD: You’ll have to earn everything worth having, including self-respect and your next meal.

By James Kunstler on 7 August 2017 for Kunstler.com -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/just-wait-little/)


Image above: Aarly 20th century Russian painting of "A Peasant Leaving His Landlord on Yuri's Day" by Sergei V. Ivanov. From (https://www.kp.ru/radio/26511/3430500/).

The trouble, of course, is that even after the Deep State (a.k.a. “The Swamp”) succeeds in quicksanding President Trump, America will be left with itself — adrift among the cypress stumps, drained of purpose, spirit, hope, credibility, and, worst of all, a collective grasp on reality, lost in the fog of collapse.

Here’s what you need to know about what’s going on and where we’re headed.

The United States is comprehensively bankrupt. The government is broke and the citizenry is trapped under inescapable debt burdens. We are never again going to generate the kinds and volumes of “growth” associated with techno-industrial expansion.

That growth came out of energy flows, mainly fossil fuels, that paid for themselves and furnished a surplus for doing other useful things. It’s over.

Shale oil, for instance, doesn’t pay for itself and the companies engaged in it will eventually run out of accounting hocus-pocus for pretending that it does, and they will go out of business.

The self-evident absence of growth means the end of borrowing money at all levels. When you can’t pay back old loans, it’s unlikely that you will be able to arrange new loans.

The nation could pretend to be able to borrow more, since it can supposedly “create” money (loan it into existence, print it, add keystrokes to computer records), but eventually those tricks fail, too.

Either the “non-performing” loans (loans not being paid off) cause money to disappear, or the authorities “create” so much new money from thin air (money not associated with real things of value like land, food, manufactured goods) that the “money” loses its mojo as a medium of exchange (for real things), as a store of value (over time), and as a reliable index of pricing — which is to say all the functions of money.

In other words, there are two ways of going broke in this situation: money can become scarce as it disappears so that few people have any; or everybody can have plenty of money that has no value and no credibility.

I mention these monetary matters because the system of finance is the unifying link between all the systems we depend on for modern life, and none of them can run without it.

So that’s where the real trouble is apt to start. That’s why I write about markets and banks on this blog.

The authorities in this nation, including government, business, and academia, routinely lie about our national financial operations for a couple of reasons.

One is that they know the situation is hopeless but the consequences are so awful to contemplate that resorting to accounting fraud and pretense is preferable to facing reality.

Secondarily, they do it to protect their jobs and reputations — which they will lose anyway as collapse proceeds and their record of feckless dishonesty reveals itself naturally.

The underlying issue is the scale of human activity in our time. It has exceeded its limits and we have to tune back a lot of what we do. Anything organized at the giant scale is headed for failure, so it comes down to a choice between outright collapse or severe re-scaling, which you might think of as managed contraction.

That goes for government programs, military adventures, corporate enterprise, education, transportation, health care, agriculture, urban design, basically everything. There is an unfortunate human inclination to not reform, revise, or re-scale familiar activities.

We’ll use every kind of duct tape and baling wire we can find to keep the current systems operating, and we have, but we’re close to the point where that sort of cob-job maintenance won’t work anymore, especially where money is concerned.

Why this is so has been attributed to intrinsic human brain programming that supposedly evolved optimally for short-term planning. But obviously many people and institutions dedicate themselves to long-term thinking.

So there must be a big emotional over-ride represented by the fear of letting go of what used to work that tends to disable long-term thinking. It’s hard to accept that our set-up is about to stop working — especially something as marvelous as techno-industrial society.

But that’s exactly what’s happening. If you want a chance at keeping on keeping on, you’ll have to get with reality’s program. Start by choosing a place to live that has some prospect of remaining civilized. This probably doesn’t include our big cities.

But there are plenty of small cities and small towns out in America that are scaled for the resource realities of the future, waiting to be reinhabited and reactivated.

A lot of these lie along the country’s inland waterways — the Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri river system, the Great Lakes, the Hudson and St. Lawrence corridors — and they also exist in regions of the country were food can be grown.

You’ll have to shift your energies into a trade or vocation that makes you useful to other people. This probably precludes jobs like developing phone apps, day-trading, and teaching gender studies.

Think: carpentry, blacksmithing, basic medicine, mule-breeding, simplified small retail, and especially farming, along with the value-added activities entailed in farm production.

The entire digital economy is going to fade away like a drug-induced hallucination, so beware the current narcissistic blandishments of computer technology.

Keep in mind that being in this world actually entitles you to nothing. One way or another, you’ll have to earn everything worth having, including self-respect and your next meal.

Now, just wait a little while.

.

Post-modern America dilemna

SUBHEAD: There are a number of key areas where we aren’t ready to live in a 19th century world.

By Rch M on 6 July 2017 for Off Grid News -
(http://www.offthegridnews.com/how-to-2/why-post-disaster-america-wont-be-like-the-1800s-it-will-be-worse/)


Image above: Apocalyptic illustration of post collapse urban America. Source Pixabay.com. In original article.

There has always been a lot of speculation about what a post-disaster world would look like. I remember reading books 40 years ago, where the author tried to grapple with the idea of a world after a nuclear war.

Through the ensuing years, each potential disaster has brought its own flock of such books, as author after author tried to peer into the future and see what it might reveal to them.

 This goes on today, too. One of the biggest potential risks that we face now is similar to the one we faced in the Cold War: that of thermonuclear weapons. But there’s a huge difference now.

Rather than taking the hearts out of American cities with their nuclear-tipped missiles, our enemies would be better served to use them to create an EMP, destroying the electrical grid and all our electronic devices.

Looking at this potential disaster, many a writer has equated the post-EMP world to the 1800s, the time before Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse electrified our world. The analogy is simple. Remove electricity and the world should be like it was before electricity changed the world. But the analogy is wrong.

There are a number of key areas where we aren’t ready to live in an 1800s world, and that’s what causes the analogy to break down. Without the proper preparation, you and I aren’t really ready to do things the way our great-great-grandparents did them. The world has changed in many fundamental ways, and removing electricity from the world won’t just turn the clock back.

Knowledge
There are countless areas in which we have lost the knowledge that our ancestors possessed. How many blacksmiths do you know? But the blacksmith was a central figure in any 1800s community. How about icemen who cut ice in the winter and delivered in the summertime? Seen any of them lately?

We can even find our knowledge lacking in areas where we think that our knowledge has surpassed that of the 1800s. Take medicine, for example.

Today’s doctor depends heavily on a multitude of tests and the complex equipment that makes them possible. They spend little time with their patients, examining and talking to them.

But when that fancy equipment and the tests they can accomplish are removed, will doctors still be able to diagnose their patients’ problems? Perhaps not.

Physical Conditioning
People in the 1800s were hardier than we are today, with the average person being in much better physical shape than we are. That’s not because they spent a lot of time in the gym, either. Working out in the gym produces artificial strength that’s focused on specific movements. Rather, their strength and vitality came from back-breaking physical work.

Some of the strongest weightlifters likely would get injured doing the physical work they did back then, simply because they haven’t trained for it. Their great strength is stylized — for lifting, not for working. Swinging an axe or building a hay pile is different than lifting.

Another way that their physical activity helped them is in fighting obesity and the diseases it causes. While there were people who were overweight, they were an aberration, not the norm. So high blood pressure, diabetes and other diet- and weight-related diseases were rare.

Animal Power
The main motive power in the 1800s was animal power. Everyone owned horses. Farms were cultivated with horses or oxen; people rode horses and used wagons for transportation. Horses even were used to provide power for industry — harnessed to a horizontal wheel, which drove overhead axles to power machine shops and other industrial facilities.

There just aren’t enough horses available today for us to go back to the 1800s; most people would end up using manpower to do their work. Travel would be limited and would mostly be on foot. It would take decades for enough horses to be bred to provide for the need.

Water Power
The other motive power used extensively in the 1800s was water power. Much of the localized industry was powered by waterwheels, especially grain mills and sawmills. While these could be built once again, it would take time to figure out how to build them and then a considerable amount of hard work to accomplish the task.

Local Commerce
Today’s commerce is purely interstate and international. Little of what any of us use is locally produced. Once transportation comes grinding to a standstill, that commerce would stop. We would be limited to being able to buy or trade for only things which are locally produced.

Yet the average community has little local production of any products. Cottage industry has been replaced by mega-industry — major manufacturing corporations producing huge quantities of those items.

Once again, reestablishing those cottage industries is possible, but it will take time and effort to learn how to build the necessary equipment. The difficulty of that will be compounded by the fact that it has to be done with manual tools.

Manual Tools
Power tools essentially didn’t exist back in the 1800s. Drill presses existed, but they were either powered manually or by animal power. The electric drill, which has become so common in our world of tools today, was actually invented for use in Henry Ford’s factory, which wasn’t until the early 1900s.

While manual tools still exist today, few people have them. We are highly dependent on our power tools, both at home and at work. But worse than that, we don’t have the skill to use them properly. Whereas a cabinetmaker in the 1800s could miter a board with a back saw and miter box and get a tight fit, few of us can do so today. We’ve not only lost the manual tools, but the finesse to use them to their maximum.

Agricultural Society
Society in general was much more decentralized in the 1800s because it was an agricultural society. Although the industrial revolution started in the 1700s, it took time for it to catch on. Massive commercialized farms were an invention of the later 1900s; before then, a much larger portion of the population was employed on family farms.

What this means is that there was much more local food production than there is today. Family farms also grew a greater variety of food, combining fields of grain with garden plots to raise vegetables for their own consumption and to sell in town. Vegetables didn’t come from Southern California or Florida; they were locally grown.

Today, those who live in the city may go their whole life without seeing a farm, and if they do see one, it will probably be one of those commercialized mega-farms, with miles and miles of the same crops. Those will not be very useful in a post-disaster world, where the factories that turned that grain into usable food products will lay silent.

Communications
We are an information-based society, with everyone connected all the time. That would be one of the first things we would notice missing. Even if our cell phones survived the EMP (which is quite possible), the network they depend on wouldn’t. Communications would revert to verbal only, with those who live nearby.

Even shipping and postage, things that they had in the 1800s, would be curtailed. Without airplanes and over-the-road trucks, there is no real way for the Post Office, FedEx, UPS or any other shipping company to get letters and packages from point A to point B.

.

Off the Web

SUBHEAD: When the internet goes down are you ready with a replacement for getting out the word?

By Juan Wilson on 5 March 2017 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2017/03/off-web.html)


Image above: An AB Dick 437 mimeograph machine with a mounted stencil ready to print. Photo by Juan Wilson.

[IB Author's note: Today is the first day in three when we have had reliable phone service from Hawaian Telecom. Before this article the last post to this site was dated March 3rd. The reason is the heavy rain we have had on west Kauai on Wednesday and Thursday. The rain interferes with our telephone service. This has happened a few times before when there has been torrential rain.]

[IB note: Problems exist on the mainland too. Others have recently had serious outages this week as as well. See Ea O Ka Aina: AT&T and Amazon Cloud Outages].

Our service provider, Hawaiian Telcom, has its local telephone exchange center is across the Hanapepe River and seems to have trouble when there is persistent rain.

The symptom is not a complete blackout of signal. It's a interference with static that can be so loud that it blocks out the spoken word. But long before you cannot hear or speak to another person our internet DLS signal becomes slower and then intermittent and finally nonexistent.

We are still on a landline phone because there is terrible cellphone service at our home in the valley. That is something the phone companies just don't get. When the service gets muffled by static we will call Hawaiian Telcom about an immanent service outage and they'll say they'll call to make an appointment to service the line. We'll tell them our land line is not working.  And we have no cellphone for them to call us on, and they seem to doubt that's possible. 

You get the impression that the phone companies wish the landline business would simply disappear. It must be very costly and annoying to have to put together, print and deliver a phone book to every customer. Hell, it's only old folks that still have landlines and they are dying off.

Another problem with landlines are those pesky public phones outdoors. They get so much damage from drug addicts, abusive husbands and frustrated teenagers. Can't all of this just go away?

Unfortunately, that just is not what is going to happen. More likely what we will see in the decades to come is a return to landlines. This is because landline telephones are a much simpler technology that cellphones. The Bell telephone system was built on what was a 19th century technology. It operated in the horse and buggy days. You can build a telephone in a well appointed garage shop.

Cellphones, as built today, require 21st century technology and fabrication plants. Cellphones are sealed units that cannot be opened for repair. If they don't work, simply get a replacement or buy another.

This was drilled home to me when my iPod 6 had a problem. The small glass cover over the camera lens had fallen out. Soon after the lens could not focus properly. Dust or moisture probably. I took the iPod to our local Apple approved dealer (there is no Apple Store on Kauai).

They told me there was no part or repair procedure for such an event. Apple had no solution. There was nothing on the internet to solve this problem either. The only answer was to buy another iPod. Kaching! Another $300.

The reason I bring this up is that I a few years ago I purchased a couple of Royal Quiet Deluxe typewriters and an 1950's era AB Dick Model 437 mimeograph machine.  You might have read about this in one of the articles below.

It has been only this week that I loaded the AB Dick drum with ink and used the Royal typewriter to actually try and prepare an "Island Breath Journal" front page. It was not easy typing without too nasty a bunch of errors onto a stencil and then trying to get an even application of ink onto a 7.5"x14" piece of paper.

Having no experience or manual it took about five stencils before I began to understand even the basics of what I needed to do. A light touch on the keyboard was not nearly enough to cut the letters through the stencil. This was a two-index-finger bang out.

One piece I entered onto the stencil was the "Typewriter Manifesto". See a version I found online. It was not strictly honest in that the title and last line were not typed at the same size as the rest of the piece. Also, mimeograph cannot produce multiple colors like a standard typewriter.


Image above: The Typewriter Manifesto. From (https://escriturasmecanicas.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/the-typewriter-manifest/).

More over, getting the stencil onto the drum ink pad so it is is tight and smooth can be messy. After several attempts I got an almost acceptable printed page.

The upside: The mimeograph can operated by turning the drum manually or by using the motor. With the motor the Model 437 prints much faster than a laser printer... as fast as you can count. It spits out a ream of paper in a couple of minutes.

The prints are dry as they come out of the unit and do not smudge. It is a printed page.

I'm hoping that in the next week or two I can get this technology down and produce a decent double-sided printed page. I'm looking for a supplier of stencils, ink and a stamp for a title banner.
  
See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Office Equipment Revolution 2/16/17
Ea O Ka Aina: Priorities and what's really important 10/29/16
Ea O Ka Aina: Lost in the Blogosphere? 8/21/16
Ea O Ka Aina: No Substiute for Newspapers 5/5/16
Ea O Ka Aina: The One Way Forward 1/28/15
Ea O Ka Aina: Time of the Seedbearers 5/1/14
Ea O Ka Aina: The New Game 11/10/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Down is a Dangerous Direction 4/13/13
Ea O Ka Aina: Blogger Conspiracy 5/14/11
Ea O Ka Aina: We pass 750,000 hits 10/5/10
.

Office Equipment Revolution

SUBHEAD: Why the modern office needs a low energy, low tech "retro"lution that includes typewriters.

By Kris De Decker on 22 November 2016 for Low Tech Magazine -
(http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2016/11/why-the-office-needs-a-typewriter-revolution.html)


Image above: A Remington Standard #7 typewriter from the 19th century. Remington was a gun manufacturer that turned to office equipment after the civil war when business slowed. From (http://machinesoflovinggrace.com/rems.htm).

Digital equipment is one of the main drivers behind the quickly growing energy use of modern office work. Could we rethink and redesign office equipment, combining the best of mechanical and digital devices?

The Artisanal Office (Antiquity - 1870s)
Office work has accompanied humankind since the formation of social, economic and political organisation and state administration structures, and the functioning of economic trade. The first office institutions were founded in Antiquity, for example in Egypt, Rome, Byzantium, and China.

The period from these early civilizations up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was marked by the stability of institutional forms and means of office work. [1] [2]

The bulk of office work involved writing -- copying out letters and documents, adding up columns of figures, computing and sending out bills, keeping accurate records of financial transactions. [3] The only tools were pen and paper -- or rather the quill (the steel pen was invented only in the 1850s) and, before the 1100s in the Western world, stone or clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment.

Consequently, all writing -- and copying -- was done by hand. To copy a document, one simply wrote it again. Sometimes, letters were copied twice: one for the record, and the other to guard against the possibility that the first might get lost. The invention of the printing press in the late middle ages freed scribes from copying books, but the printing press was not suited for copying a few office documents. [4]

Communication was largely human-powered, too, using the feet rather than the hands: people ran around to bring oral or written information from one person to another, either inside buildings or across countries and continents. Finally, all calculating was done in the head, only aided by mathematical charts and tables (which were composed by mental reckoning), or by simple tools like the abacus (not a calculation machine but a memory aid, similar to writing down a calculation).

The Mechanized Office of the Past (1870s - 1950s)

Before the Industrial Revolution, business operated mostly in local or regional markets, and their internal operations were controlled and coordinated through informal communication, principally by word of mouth except when letters were needed to span distances. From the 1840s onwards, the expansion of the railway and telegraph networks in North America encouraged business to grow and serve larger markets, at a time when improvements in manufacturing technology created potential economies of scale. [5]


Image above: The 19th century office of the accounting department of E. & J. BurkeLtd. in the Times Building, Times Square NYC. From (http://www.officemuseum.com/photo_gallery_1900s_ii.htm).

The informal and primarily oral mode of communication broke down and gave way to a complex and extensive formal communication system depending heavily on written documents of various sorts, not just in business but also in government. [5] Between the 1870s and the 1920s, writing, copying, and other office activities were mechanixed to handle this flow of information.

The birth of office equipment and systematic management was accompanied by three other trends.

The first was the spectacular growth in the number of office workers, mainly women, who would come to operate these machines.

The second was the rise of proper office buildings, which would house the quickly growing number of workers and machines. The third was a division of labor, mirroring the evolution in factories. Instead of performing a diverse set of activities, clerks became responsible for clearly defined sub-activities, such as typing, filing, or mail handling.

This article focuses exclusively on the machinery of office work, and more specifically its evolution in relation to energy use. While it's impossible to write a complete history of the office without taking into account the social and economic context, this narrow focus on machines reveals important issues that have not been dealt with in historical accounts of office work.

Typewriters

Of central importance in the nineteenth-century information revolution was the typewriter, which appeared in 1874 and became widespread by 1900. (All dates are for the US, where modern office work originated). The "writing machine" made full-time handwriting obsolete. Typing is roughly five times quicker than handwriting and produces uniform text. However, the typewriter's influence went far beyond the writing process itself.


Image above:A 1953 Royal Quiet DeLuxe, the mechanical typewriter at the peak of the that technology. From (Machines of Loving Grace.

For copying, an even larger gain in speed was obtained in the combination of the typewriter with carbon paper, an earlier invention from the 19th century. This thin paper, coated with a layer of pigment, was placed in between normal paper sheets.

Unlike a quill or pen, the typewriter provided enough pressure to produce up to 10 copies of a document without the need to type the text more than once. The typewriter was also made compatible with the stencil duplicator, which appeared around the same time and could make a larger number of copies. Considering the importance of writing and copying, the "writing machine" was a true revolution. [4-7]

The typewriter didn't reduce the amount of time that clerks spent writing and copying. Rather, the time spent writing and copying remained the same, while the production of paper documents increased. By the early years of the twentieth century, it became clear that old methods of storing documents -- stacked up in drawers or impaled on spikes -- could not cope with the increasing mounds of papers. This led to the invention of the vertical filing cabinet, which would radically expand the information that could be stored in a given space. [4-8]

Mechanical Calculators
The typewriter quickly evolved into a diverse set of general and special purpose machines, just like the computer would one hundred years later.

There appeared shorthand or stenographic typewriters (which further increased writing speed), book typewriters (which typed on bound books that lay flat when opened), automatic typewriters (which were designed to type form letters controlled by a perforated strip of paper), ultraportable and pocket typewriters (for writing short letters and notes while on the road), bookkeeping typewriters (which could count and write), and teletypewriters (which could activate another typewriter at a distance through the telegraph network). [4-7] The latter two will be dealt with in more detail below.

Mechanical calculating machines were another important tool in the new, mechanised office. "To clerks, mathematical machines are what the rock drill is to the subway labourer", stated an office management manual from 1919. [9] Mechanical calculating machines could add, subtract, multiply and divide through the motion of their parts. Many of these machines had a typewriter-style keyboard with a column for each digit entered (a "full keyboard"). This allowed numbers to be entered more quickly than on a more compact ten-key device, which became common only from the 1950s. [10]


Image above: A 1921 Monroe Model K-20 calculator in the Smithsonian. From Calculating Machine. IslandBreath.org actually purchased one of these K-20 models from Ebay a few years ago.

Devices designed especially for addition (and sometimes subtraction) were known as adding machines. Adding up long lists of numbers was typical for many business applications, and in mathematical terms many offices didn't need to function at any more sophisticated level.

The first practical adding machine for routine office work -- the Comptometer -- was introduced in 1886. [4][10] At the beginning of the 1900s, the typewriter and the adding machine were combined into the adding typewriter or bookkeeping machine, which became central to the processing of all financial data. [6]

Teletypewriters
Obviously, the telegraph (1840s) and the telephone (1870s) also had an enormous impact on office work. The typewriter, beyond its use in business and government offices, also became an essential machine in telegraph offices. Initially, the telegrapher listened to the Morse sounder and wrote the received messages directly in plain language with a typewriter. [11]


Image above: A relatively late model PDP 8-L teletype machine that has been refurbished. From (https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph-henry-project/pdp-8l/).

In the early 1900s, a special typewriter -- the "teletypewriter" or "teletype" -- was designed to transmit and receive telegraphic messages without the need for an operator trained in the Morse code. [12]

When a telegraphist typed a message, the teletypewriter sent electrical impulses to another teletypewriter at the other end of the line, which typed the same message automatically. From the 1920s onwards, teletypewriters became common in the offices of companies, governmental organisations, banks, and press associations. They were used for exchanging data over private networks between different departments of an organisation, a job previously done by messenger boys. [11]

Starting in the 1930s, central switching exchanges were established through which a subscriber could communicate by teletypewriter with any other subscriber to the service, similar to the telephone network but for the purpose of sending text-based messages.

This became the worldwide telex-network, now largely demolished. Telex allowed the instantaneous and synchronous transmission of written messages, like today's chat or email over the internet, or like the exchange of text messages over the mobile phone network (teletypewriters could use the wireless telegraph infrastructure).

Telex was also used for broadcasting news and other information, which was received on print-only teletypewriters. [11]

The office equipment that appeared in the late nineteenth century was in use until the 1970s, when it was replaced by computers.

It is now considered obsolete, but upon a closer look, the superiority of today's computerized machines isn't as obvious as you would think. This is especially true when you take into account the energy that is required to make both alternatives work.

Although it offered spectacular improvements over earlier methods, and although it could perform similar functions as today's digital information technology, much of the office equipment described above remained manually powered for decades. [13]

The first succesful electro-mechanical typewriter -- the IBM Electromatic -- was introduced in 1935, and the breakthrough came only in 1961, with the highly succesful IBM Selectric typewriters.

Unlike a traditional typewriter, this machine used an interchangeable typing element, nicknamed the "golf ball", which spins to the right character and moves across the page as you type. [13][14]

Although electric motors were used on some of the mechanical calculators already in 1901, electrically driven calculators became common only between the 1930s and the 1950s, depending on the type. Pinwheel calculators remained manually operated until their demise in the 1970s. [13]

Unlike typewriters and calculating machines, the telephone and the telegraph could not function without electricity, which forms the basis of their operation.

However, compared to today's communications networks, power use was small: until the late 1950s, almost all routing and switching in the telephone and telegraph infrastructure was done by human operators plugging wires into boards. [11][15]

The Digital Office (1950s - today)
With the arrival of the computer, eventually all office activities became electrically powered. The business computer appeared in the 1950s, although it was not until the mid-1980s that this 'machine' became a common office tool. Reading, writing, copying, data processing, communication, and information storage became totally dependent on electricity.

Screens, printers & scanners
The computer took over the tasks of other machines in the office such as calculating machines, bookkeeping machines, teletypewriters, and vertical filing cabinets. In fact, on the surface, one could say that the computer is the office. After all, its dominant metaphor is taken from office work: it's got a "desktop", "files", "folders", "documents", and a "paper bin". [16]

Furthermore, it can send and receive "mail", make phone calls and accomodate (virtual) face-to-face meetings.

On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the arrival of the computer also led to the appearance of new office equipment, which is just as essential to office work as the computer itself. The most important of these devices are printers, scanners, monitors, and new types of computers (data servers, smartphones, tablets). All these machines require electricity.

Monitors and data servers appeared because the computer introduced an alternative information medium to paper, the electronic format.

Welcome to the "Paperless" Office
Printers and scanners appeared because this new medium, contrary to expectations, did not replace the paper format. Although documents can be read, written, transmitted, stored and retrieved in a digital format, in practice both formats are used alongside each other, depending on the task at hand.


Image above: "Paperless" office in the digital age really means more paper. Computer scientist Bob Braden at his office in 1996. Photo by Carl Malamud.From original article.

In spite of the computer, and later the internet, paper has stubbornly remained a key feature of office life. A 2012 study concluded that "most of the offices we visited were more or less full of paper". [17]

This means that the use of resources further increases: to the electricity use of the digital devices, we also have to add the resources involved in making paper.


In their 2002 book The Myth of the Paperless Office, Abigail Sellen and Richard Harper investigate why and how office workers -- especially the growing group of knowledge workers -- are still using paper while new, digital technologies have become so widely available. [8]
They argue that office workers' reluctance to change is not simply a matter of irrational resistance:

"These individuals use paper at certain stages in their work because the technology they are provided with as an alternative does not offer all they need."

Obviously, digital documents have important advantages over paper documents. However, paper documents also have unique advantages, which are all too often ignored.

For example, it was found that office workers actively build up different kinds of paper arrangements on or near their office desks, reminding them of different matters and preparing them for specific tasks.

Computers do not reproduce this kind of physical accumulation. Information exchange, for example in meetings, is another common office practice in which paper is used.

Actions performed in relation to paper are, to a large extent, made visible to one's colleagues, facilitating social interaction. When using a laptop, it's impossible to know what other people in a meeting are looking at. [8] [17]

Most important, however, is the point that paper tends to be the preferred medium for reading documents.

Paper helps reading because it allows quick and flexible navigation through and around documents, reading across more than one document, marking up a document while reading, and interweaving reading and writing -- all important activities of modern knowledge work. [8]

Although some electronic document systems support annotation, this is never as flexible as pen and paper.

Likewise, moving through online documents can be slow and frustrating -- it requires breaking away from ongoing activity, because it relies heavily on visual, spatially constrained cues and one-handed input.

Opening multiple windows on a computer screen doesn't work for back-and-forth cross-referencing of other material during authoring work, both because of slow visual navigation and because of the limited space on the computer screen. [8]


Image above: The multi-screen high-tech office work station. From original article.

The use of multiple computer screens (and the use of multiple computers at the same time) is an attempt to overcome the inherent limits of the digital medium and make it more "paper-like".

With multiple screens, it becomes possible to interweave reading and writing, or to read across more than one document. Research has shown that work productivity increases when office workers have access to multiple screens -- a result that mirrors Sellen and Harpers findings about the importance of paper. [18-21]

The use of multiple monitors is rapidly increasing in the workplace, and the increase in "screen real estate" is not limited to two screens per office worker. [19][21]
Fully integrated display sets of twelve individual screens are now selling for around $3,000. [22]

A recent innovation are USB-powered, portable monitors, aimed at travelling knowledge workers but just as handy at the office. Because these monitors have their own set of dedicated hardware, rather than putting all the work of another screen on the computer itself, it's possible to connect up to five portable screens to a laptop. [23]

A multi-touchscreen keyboard, already on the market, could solve the annotation issue.

The Energy Footprint of the Digital Office
The problem with extra screens is that they increase energy use considerably. Adding a second monitor to a laptop roughly doubles its electricity use, adding five portable screens triples it.

A 12-screen display with a suited computer to run it consumes more than 1,000 watt of power. If paper use can be reduced by introducing more and more computer screens, then the lower resource consumption associated with paper will be compensated for with a higher resource consumption for digital devices.

A similar switcheroo happened with information storage and communication. Digital storage saves paper, storage space and transportation, but in order to make digital information readily accessible, dataservers (the filing cabinets of the digital age) have to be fed with energy for 24 hours per day.

And just as the typewriter and carbon paper increased the production of documents, so did the computer.

Especially since the arrival of the internet, people can access more information more easily than ever before, resulting in an increase of both digital and paper documents.

Ever cheaper, faster and better quality printers and copiers -- all digital devices -- keep encouraging the reproduction of paper documents. [8]

The computer increases energy use in many different ways. First of all, digital technology entails extra energy use for cooling -- the main energy use in office buildings.

A 2011 study, which calculated the energy use of two future scenarios, concluded that if the use of digital technology in the office keeps increasing, it would become impossible to design an office building that can be cooled without air-conditioning. [24]

In the "techno-explosion" scenario, all office workers would have two 24'' computer screens, a 27'' touchscreen keyboard, and a tablet. The perhaps extreme scenario also includes one media wall per 20 employees in the office break zone.

On top of operational energy use and cooling comes a higher energy use during the manufacturing phase. The energy used for making a typewriter was spread out over many decades of use. The energy required for the production of a computer, on the other hand, is a regularly reoccuring cost because computers are replaced every three years or so.

The internet, which has largely engulfed the telephone and telegraph infrastructure, has become another major source of power demand. The network infrastructure, which takes care of the routing and switching of digital information, uses roughly as much energy as all end-use computers connected to the internet combined.

Learning from the Low Energy Office
The typewriter was just as revolutionary in the 1900s as is the computer today. Both machines transformed the office environment.

However, when we consider energy use, the obvious difference is that the second information revolution was accomplished at much higher costs in terms of energy. So, maybe we should have a good look at pre-digital office equipment and find out what we can learn from it.

During the last ten years or so, the typewriter has seen a remarkable revival with artists and writers, a trend that was recently documented in The Typewriter Revolution: A typist Companion for the 21st Century (2015). [14]

Like paper, the typewriter has many unique benefits. Obviously, a manual typewriter requires no electricity to operate. If it's built before the 1960s, it's built to outlast a human life.

A typewriter doesn't become obsolete because its operating system is no longer supported, and it can be repaired relatively easily using common tools. If we compare energy input with a simple measure of performance, the typewriter gets a better score than the computer.

There are also practical advantages.

A typewriter is always immediately ready for use. It needs no virus protection or software updates. It can't be hacked or spied upon. Finally, and this is what explains its success with writers and poets: it's a distraction-free, single-purpose machine that forces its user to focus on writing. There are no emails, no news alerts, no chat messages, no search engines and no internet shops.


Image above: The Typewriter Manifesto. From (https://escriturasmecanicas.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/the-typewriter-manifest/).

For office workers, and for knowledge workers in particular, a typewriter could be just as useful as for a poet. Computers may have increased work productivity, but nowadays they are "connected to the biggest engine of distraction ever invented", the internet. [14]

Studies indicate that web web activities are among the main distractions that keep office workers away from productive work. [25][26] Many online applications are especially designed to be addictive. [27]

A typewriter also forces people to write differently, combating distraction within the writing process itself. There is no delete key, no copy-and-paste function. With the computer, editing "became a part of writing from the very start, making the writer ever anxious about anything that just took place". [28]

The typewriter, on the other hand, forces the writer to think out sentences carefully before committing them to paper, and to keep going forward instead of rewriting what was already written. [14]

The "Back-in-Time" Sustainable Office

How can we insert the common sense of the typewriter -- and other pre-digital equipment -- into the modern office?

Basically, there are three strategies. The most radical is to replace all our digital devices by mechanical ones, and replace all dataservers with paper stacked in vertical filing cabinets, in other words we could go back in time.

This would surely lower energy use, and it's the most resilient option: for all their wonders, computers serve absolutely no purpose when there's no electricity.

Nevertheless, this is not an optimal strategy, because we would lose all the good things that the computer has to offer. "The enemy isn't computers themselves: it's an all-embracing, exclusive computing mentality", writes Richard Polt in The Typewriter Revolution. [14]

Another strategy is to use mechanical office equipment alongside digital office equipment. There's some potential for energy reduction in the combined use of both technologies. For interweaving reading and writing, the typewriter could be used for writing and the computer screen for reading, which saves an extra screen and a printer.

A typewriter could also be combined with a low energy tablet instead of a laptop or desktop computer, because in this configuration the computer's keyboard is less important.

Once finished, or once ready for final editing in a digital format, a typewritten text can be transferred to a computer by scanning the typewritten pages.

The actual typewritten text can be displayed as an image ("typecasting"), or it can be scanned with optical recognition software (ORC), which converts typewritten text into a digital format. This process implies the use a scanner or a digital camera, however these devices use much less energy than a printer, a second screen, or a laptop.

By reintroducing the typewriter into the digital office, the use of the computer could thus be reduced in time, while the 'need' for a second screen disappears.

The Sustainable Office of the Future
The third strategy is to rethink and redesign office equipment, combining the best of mechanical and digital devices. This would be the most intelligent strategy, because it offers a high degree of sustainability and resilience while keeping as much of the digital accomplishments as possible.

Such a low-tech office requires a redesign of office equipment, and could be combined with a low-tech internet and electricity infrastructure.

E-Typewriters
For low-tech writing, a couple of devices are available. A first example is the Freewrite, a machine that came on the market earlier this year after a succesful crowdfunding campaign. [29]



Image above: The low-tech electric writing machine Freewrite. From original article.

Like a typewriter, it's a distraction-free machine that can only be used to write on, and that's always instantly ready to be used.

Unlike a typewriter, however, it has a 5.5'' e-paper screen, it can store a million pages, and it offers a WiFi-connection for cloud-backups. Files are saved in plain text format for maximum reliability, minimal file size, and longest anticipated support.

Apart from a backspace key, there is no way to navigate through the text, and the small screen only displays ten lines of text. Drafting and editing have been separated with the intent to force the writer to keep going. For editing or printing, the text is then transferred to a computer using the WiFi connection.

The device is stated to have a "4+ week battery life with typical usage", which is defined as half an hour of writing each day with WiFi turned off. That's a strange way to communicate that the machine runs 14 hours on one battery charge, and when I asked the makers how much power it needs they answered that they "don't communicate this information".

Nevertheless, enabling 14 hours of writing already beats the potential of the average laptop by a factor of three.

Hardware Word Processors
Another type of digital typewriter is the hardware word processor. Before word processing became software on a personal computer in the 1980s, the word processor was a stand-alone device. Like a typewriter, a hardware word processor is only useful to write on, but it has the added capability of editing the text before printing.

Although hardware word processors work and look like computers, they are non-programmable, single-purpose devices. [30] [31]

The great advantage of a hardware word processor is that both writing and editing can happen on the same machine -- a typewriter or a machine like the Freewrite requires another machine to do the editing (unless you write multiple versions of the same text).

The hardware word processor virtually disappeared when the general-purpose computer appeared. One notable exception is the Alphasmart, which was produced from 1992 until 2013.

This rugged portable machine is still widely traded on the internet and developed a cult following, especially among writers. The Alphasmart was conceived as an affordable computer for schools, but the low price was not its only appeal.

The machine responded to the need for a tool that would make kids concentrate on writing, and not on editing or formatting text. Although it has full editing capabilities, the small screen (showing 6 lines in the latest model) invites writing rather than excessive editing. [32][33]


Image above: AlphaSmart From ().

The Alphasmart is especially notable for its energy efficiency, using as little electricity as an electronic calculator. The latest model could run for more than 700 hours on just three AA-batteries, which corresponds to a power use of 0.01 watt.
The machine has a full-sized keyboard but a small, electronic calculator-like display screen, which requires little electricity. It has limited memory and goes into sleep-mode between keystrokes.

The Alphasmart can be connected directly to a printer via a USB-cable, bypassing a computer entirely if the aim is to produce a paper document. Transferring texts to the computer for digital transmission, storage or further editing also happens via cable. [32][33]

Interestingly, Alphasmart released a more high-tech version of the device in 2002, the Alphasmart Dana. It was equipped with WiFi for transmitting documents, it had 40 times more memory than its predecessor, and it featured a touchscreen.

The result was that battery life dropped twentyfold to 25 hours, clearly showing how quickly the energy use of digital technology can spiral out of control -- although even this machine still used only 0.14 watts of power, roughly 100 times less than the average laptop. [32][33]

Of course, a low-tech office doesn't exclude a real computer, a device that does it all. A small tablet with a wireless keyboard can be operated for as little as 3W of electricity and many of the capabilities of a laptop (including the distractions).

An alternative to the use of a tablet is a Raspberry Pi computer, combined with a portable USB-screen. Depending on the model, a Raspberry Pi draws 0.5 to 2.5 watts of power, with an extra 6 or 7 watts for the screen.

A Pi can serve as a fully functional computer with internet access, but it's also very well suited for a single-purpose, distraction-less word processing machine without internet access. Such machines could be powered with a solar system small enough to fit on the corner of a desk.

Dot-Matrix Printers
Unless we revert to the typewriter, the office also needs a more sustainable way of printing. Since the 1980s, most printing in offices is done with a laser printer. These machines require a lot of energy: even when we take into account their higher printing speed, a laser printer uses 10 to 20 times as much electricity than a inkjet printer. [34]

Unfortunately, inkjet printers are much more expensive to use because the industry makes a profit by selling overpriced ink cartridges.

Until the arrival of the laser printer, all printing in offices was done by dot-matrixprinters. Their power use and printing speed is comparable to that of inkjetprinters, but they are much cheaper to use -- in fact, it's the cheapest printing technology available.

Like a typewriter, a dot-matrix printer is an impact printer that makes use of an ink ribbon. These ribbons are sold as commodities and cost very little. Unlike a typewriter, the individual characters of a matrix printer are composed of small dots.


Image above: A modern and efficient Oki dot-matrix electronic printer. From (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3NkITEI3Jg).

Dot-matrix printers are still for sale, for applications where printing costs are critical. Although they're not suited for printing images or colors, they are perfect for the printing of text.

They are relatively noisy, which is why they were sometimes placed under a sound-absorbing hood. There is no practical low-tech alternative for the copier machine, which only appeared in the 1950s.

However, since a photocopier is a combination of a scanner and a laserprinter, the copying of paper documents could happen by using a combination of a computer with a scanner and a dot-matrix or inkjet printer.

The information society promises to dematerialize society and make it more sustainable, but modern office and knowledge work has itself become a large and rapidly growing consumer of energy and other resources.

Choosing low-tech office equipment would be a great start to address this problem. Such a strategy is especially significant in that the energy use goes far beyond the operational electricity use on-site.

Sources:
[1] Evolution of the office building in the course of the 20th century: Towards an intelligent building, Elzbieta Niezabitowska & Dorota Winnicka-Jaskowska, in Intelligent Buildings International, 3:4, 238-249, 2011.
[2] Economy and Society, Max Weber, 1922.
[3] Woman's place is at the typewriter, Margery W. Davies, 1982. Quoted by the Early Office Museum.
[4] Machines in the Office, Rodney Dale and Rebecca Weaver, 1993.
[5] Control through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management (Studies in Industry and Society), JoAnne Yates, 1989
[6] Innovation Junctions: Office Technologies in the Netherlands, 1880-1980 (PDF), Onno de Wit, Jan van den Ende, Johan Schot and Ellen van Oost, in Technology and Culture, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 50-72
[7] Early Office Museum, website.
[8] The Myth of the Paperless Office (MIT Press), Abigail Sellen and Richard Harper, 2003.
[9] Office Management, Geoffrey S. Childs, Edwin J. Clapp, Bernard Lichtenberg, 1919.
[10] Calculating Machines, Adding Machines. Smithsonian National Museum of American History.
[11] The Myth of the Paperless Office (MIT Press), Anton A. Huurdeman, 2003.
[12] Teleprinter, Encyclopedia Britannica.
[13] Nobody seems to have researched the energy use of pre-digital office equipment, so this information is partly derived from an online search through the databases of eBay, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Early Office Museum, and partly on fragmentary information from secondary sources. For example, a 1949 survey of the equipment in high school office machine courses in the state of Massachussetts shows that the majority of typewriters, calculators, adding machines, duplicators and addressing machines were manually operated, although most of these machines were less than 10 years old.
[14] The Typewriter Revolution: A Typist's Companion for the 21st Century, Richard Polt, 2015
[15] Gift of Fire, A: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues in Computing, Sara Baase, 1997
[16] How the computer changed the office forever, BBC News, August 2013.
[17] Mundane Materials at Work: Paper in Practice, Sari Yli-Kauhaluoma, Mika Pantzar and Sammy Toyoki, Third International Symposium on Process Organization Studies, Corfu, Greece, 16-18 June, 2011.
[18] Productivity and multi-screen computer displays (PDF), Janet Colvin, Nancy Tobler, James A. Anderson, Rocky Mountain Communication Review, Volume 2:1, Summer 2004, Pages 31-53.
[19] Evaluating user expectations for widescreen content layout (PDF), Joseph H. Goldberg & Jonathan Helfman, Oracle, 2007
[20] Are two monitors better than one?, J.W: Owens, J. Teves, B. Nguyen, A. Smith, M.C. Phelps, Software Usability Research Laboratory, August 2012
[21] Are two better than one? A comparison between single and dual monitor work stations in productivity and user's windows management style. Chen Ling, Alex Stegman, Chintan Barhbaya, Randa Shehab, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, September 2016
[22] http://www.multi-monitors.com/Twelve_Monitor_Display_Arrays_s/53748.htm
[23] The best USB-powered portable monitors, Nerd Techy, 2016
[24] Trends in office internal gains and the impact on space heating and cooling (PDF), James Johnston et. al, CIBSE Technical Symposium, September 2011
[25] Employees waste 759 hours each year due to workplace distractions, The Telegraph, June 2015
[26] Internet Addiction: A New Clinical Phenomenon and Its Consequences (PDF), Kimberly S. Young, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 48 No.4, December 2004.
[27] The Binge Breaker, The Atlantic, November 2016.
[28] The future of writing looks like the past, Ian Bogost, The Atlantic, May 2016.
[29] Freewrite, website.
[30] Word Processing (History of) (PDF), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Vol. 49, pp. 268-78, 1992.
[31] A brief history of word processing (through 1986), Brian Kunde.
[32] AlphaSmart: a history of one of Ed-Tech's Favorite (Drop-Kickable) Writing tools, Audrey Watters, Hackeducation, July 2015.
[33] AlphaSmart: Providing a Smart Solution for one Classroom-Computing "Job" (PDF), James Sloan, Inno Sight Institute, April 2012.
[34] Zeven instap zwart-wit laserprinters vergelijktest, Hardware.info, December 2014. The data were corrected for the higher printing speed of the laser printer.

.

On Surplus - Part One?

SUBHEAD: My wife and are still adjusting our lives so that we might live within the means we can expect.

By Erik Linberg on 5 June 2016 for Transition Milwaukee -
(http://transitionmilwaukee.org/profiles/blogs/on-surplus-part-i)


Image above: Detail of cover art for the Rhythm Pimps "End of Suburbia" album. From (https://therhythmpimps.bandcamp.com/album/end-of-suburbia).

This is Part 1 of a 2 or 3 part series on the concept of surplus. Surplus is one of the most central features of modern industrial and democratic societies. In fact it is so central and its permanence so taken for granted that it is scarcely noticed and even less understood. The following installations are my attempt to discuss several of its facets, for the slow disappearance of surpluses is, I think, the cause of great bewilderment.

Overshoot
A few weeks ago I came home from work one day feeling utterly defeated, oppressed by a life-weight that was buckling my knees.  Money was short, jobs seemed ready to go off the rails, and there was no way I could stay on top of all the moving parts.

The driver’s side door of my truck would no longer open due to some sort of malfunction and a day of scooting over a passenger seat full of job folders, miscellaneous tools, and the other refuse of a contractor/carpenter life was making a previously broken wrist ache.

I looked around at our house and yard and saw the wreckage of a half-completed life.  I’m a third done with a home restoration project that starts when some money comes in and stops when it doesn’t, but going on year three I leave things set up and un-tidied as if to tell myself (and my restive neighbors) that the work is in permanent progress.  The sink was full of dishes, the garbage overflowing, and the living room an explosion of Legos, Lincoln Logs, sticker-books and crumpled artwork.

Dust-bunnies, dirty socks and cheerios huddled along the walls.  Only a fire or a flood. . . (I thought to myself) could solve this problem.  All of this was the results of two overworked parents who, already running large deficits on our own time, also can’t afford the hired help that would be necessary to keep everything put together in the wake of our twin four year olds and their boundless entropy.  This is not what I expected.  This is now how I grew up.

This scene is of course also our own doing and is indicative of quirks and weaknesses that my wife and I share.  But there are aspects in it that also represents a unique moment in American (and probably European) culture today.

For it is not just about a messy house and overwhelmed parents, but a greater sense of a botched life, of having not lived up to our potential, of grinding ourselves into nubs of our former selves without the prospect of relief; we fight our way through the tangled underbrush without hope of finding a clearing or a vista.

This moment is marked by a place where shrinking paychecks cross paths with our expanding hopes and aspirations, leaving so many of us frustrated, angry, looking for answers.  Though  usually misnamed, this moment and its trajectory seems to be all that we talk about, at least during a political season, though without any real understanding.

Because I have been a student of this moment for almost a decade (let’s keep things general for now and call it the changing wealth of nations) I know not to compare my life with the life of my parents, for the wealth of their nation was far different than is ours.   This difference will be my eventual topic, but I think the lived experience of it is a crucial groundwork.

I know not to make this comparison, then but there are moments of defeat or frustration, when everything seems such a hopeless and uncleanable mess, and I look around and feel like a failure as old images from my childhood--of clean and sparkling success--sneak out from their hiding place.

These images represent not only what I lived as a child, they were additionally pounded into the crevices of my being by years simply of living in America, the land of high expectations, where we walk to the uniform drumbeat of forced want and desire.

You can turn away from all this unfortunate cultural training.  You can know that success is not the same thing as having, and that simplicity can be beautiful, and imagine a beautiful and simple life for yourself.

You can read and write and march and protest in order to dislodge these images, bury them in community gardens dug until your fingers bleed;  but some are so deeply embossed on our emotional backdrops, ready always to remake their mark—ready, in my case, for the moment when the façade of my life appears to crumbling.

For when I came home that afternoon I suddenly recalled in the most vivid crystalline light an image of my childhood home, always tidy and well-kept, my parents relaxing in the shade, tending  the flower garden and reading quietly after supper.  It was an ordered life, lived well and well within its means.

But virtue of this order, it seemed a modest life; and compared to many portrayed on TV and movies as the most idealized kind of American wealth, it was a modest life--comfortable, yes, but without a hint of ostentation.  Their life, in any case, was the opposite of our frantic overshoot.

“Everything I wanted”
My parents did live extraordinary lives of the kind that could only happen in America and during a short and extraordinary time.  From relatively humble, evangelical origins they marched together away from that past to the top of academic ultra-success--my father writing the books, giving the papers, and directing the institutes, my mother hosting the parties and providing a welcoming place for graduate students and new faculty.  They did this without Ivy League credentials or any insider-edge.

In fact they struggled in the early years of academic life to discard their old inherited evangelical bumpkinisms, like confusing sherry for white wine, a crime against humanity in 1960s Ann Arbor.  They were sensitive, honest, and forthright--and faultlessly dependable.  They worked hard and with spectacular diligence.

And, as my father always emphasized, they were lucky.  Especially when two years into his Michigan appointment, a position opened up in the History of Science department at the University of Wisconsin, where he was to spend the rest of his days.

By the time he was my age, he had published a shelf full of books, many translated into dozens of languages; he lectured widely around the world, and was positioning himself for his end-of-career glory, in which he was bestowed with all the honors available in his field.  He was soon to publish the standard textbook on “the origins of Western science.”

He was awarded a Vilas Professorship from the University of Wisconsin and had countless life-time achievement awards from various scholarly societies in the decade before his death.  He was smart, of course, and very hard working.  He was disciplined, organized, a revered teacher and trusted colleague.

He never missed a deadline and his constant productivity was rewarded with a lifetime of summer grants and other funding that allowed us to spend a year in Princeton when I was four, and a year in Oxford when I was a pre-teen, along with countless other stays in various global academic hot spots.[i]

Because of the accompanying material comfort and stability, theirs was not just the picture-perfect academic life.  It was an upper-middle class life as well, even though we, like most people in America, felt ourselves to be closer to the middle than we actually were.  It was, to be honest about it, a comfortable life of bourgeois consumption, despite the high-culture and socially critical hue to it—entirely ecologically unsustainable despite its ordinary and modest lack of anything considered excessive.

True, we were more frugal than most of our family friends and neighbors, adopting new middle class conveniences like central air-conditioning, color TV, snow blowers, and automatic garage door openers after everyone else we knew had.  And true, as I noted, our consumption often had an edifying angle to it—Europe rather than Disney World, camping rather than amusement parks.

But the sort of “headwinds” that many experienced during the 1970s energy crisis and economic slow-down had no apparent effect on our lives.  The two week summer vacations never ceased, we bought new (if very modest) cars whenever they were needed.  We upgraded from a modest ranch to a larger cape cod style house in 1973, and we took a 5 week European vacation in 1974.

Despite the years of “stagflation,” the research grants (in the humanities no less!) and summer funding never missed a beat during the seventies, nor, for that matter over the course of at least five presidential administrations.  We were nothing if not economically secure.

If life in America might be called super-abundant, it was also ultra-secure.  That we might have a routine crisis (a car breakdown, the need for a new furnace or washing machine, even a kitchen no longer suited to our position in life) and not have the savings to address it immediately was unthinkable.

Life could be well-ordered and tidy in so many inner and external ways because, like a balanced ecosystem (though that it was not) the flows and supplies, the inputs and outputs all seemed to work according to a well-proportioned logic.

I would write a history of the structural tectonics of the 1980s in a much different way than I would describe lived-experience during the Reagan years.  Although my parents believed Reagan was a scourge on the Republic, they also enjoyed rising possibilities at the same time, though without ever understanding the connection.  The vacations became more frequent and more luxurious, the artwork real, the personal indulgences less reserved.

But still they saved staggering amounts of money—at least from my perspective--had long-term care insurance, a place reserved at a very nice retirement village, and were still able to put two children through private college and then graduate school, help with our home purchases, and still maintain large reserves.  My children, sadly (or not), will have none of these privileges.

Like every life, theirs had its turmoil and tragedies and our family had the normal mix of pathologies and dysfunction, resentments and disappointments.   But, at least in my mind, these never characterized the sum of their life.  As my father once commented to my mother, he had managed to get everything he had wanted in life.  This is an extraordinary feat.

The wants were not extravagant, but they were in many ways highly ambitious.  It was a beautiful life that combined hard work and discipline with leisure and enjoyment, intensive days of research and writing, and relaxing strolls by the Madison lakes.

Their access to money is alien to my experience, but even more befuddling is how much spare time they had—time to pursue hobbies, art, culture, and an active social life.  How did my dad write the books, paint the house himself, never miss one of my soccer games, read every night, exercise, entertain, work for hours in his woodshop?  Where did all that time come from?  And where has it gone?

What I Have
I learned a lot from my parents and consider my childhood to have been good training for my current life.  They modeled good parenting, and I always felt loved.  I was granted remarkable intellectual privileges, for we talked and debated and thought for hours on end as a family.  But beyond this, none of what I have been describing is available to me and my family.

To be clear, compared to most of the world, I still enjoy unwarranted privileges, but not with as much ease and regularity as many of my parent’s generations.

Although I have worked hard, especially over the past decade, to curtail my wants and redefine success, there are days in which I feel like a complete failure.  I have not, to put it bluntly, gotten very much of what I wanted, or at least I sometimes feel like that, and I probably should have more trepidation than I do about my family’s material insecurity.

When I set out in 1990 in pursuit of my own Ph.D. in English and Comparative Literature, I believed that I had every reason to expect that my future might bear some resemblance to my past.  We could of course quibble with the details but it is safe to say that my father and I have roughly the same general range of natural talent and I benefited from a life-long academic acculturation that he did not have.

He was more disciplined than I am, but I am probably a bit more creative.  He was more focused on the end-product, while I am probably more attracted to the ideas themselves. He was moderate where I tend to be radical.  But the same sort of life in the academy was not ruled out by some major break in in aptitude, intensity, or motivation.

As some of my readers are aware, I am a carpenter rather than a professor.  I had some successes in the academic world, including a number or articles in refereed journals and a page full of conference presentations.

But no job.

The life of a carpenter and small business owner, into which I fell backwards, has some marvelous features and it initially provided an interesting sort of relief from the very different competition and status-based world of an academic aspirant.  It allowed me to pursue urban farming, and perhaps a more radical and free-ranging sort of social activism and intellectual work.

I like working with my hands and my body, and have an interesting niche in the local restoration market.  The life of a carpenter has allowed me to feel strong, resilient, and capable.

If I can’t fix it, I know someone who can.  This is a gift in a world where most of us grow increasingly dependent on high-priced experts.  There is much to be grateful here, especially as the University of Wisconsin inches towards systemic collapse.

But this career path was only partially chosen.  There was a time in which I very much wanted an academic job and worked furiously to secure one.  I am at heart more interested in ideas, language, and concepts than anything else, and for the first time in fifteen years yearn for a life that would allow complete dedication to ideas.

In graduate school I wrote a very long and intense dissertation on the history of the idea of the unconscious.  Into it was packed all sorts of social and political philosophy, literature, and a focused study on cultural narratives.  I lived and breathed this stuff, and after a few years of practical respite in carpentry, still do.   I had some job interviews after finishing the dissertation—good jobs that I would have been thrilled to accept.

But, for a number of reasons, none of the jobs panned out and I was soon swept away, for a time, by the excitement of building things that pushed the limits of my knowledge and experience almost every day.

The usual path for a graduate student in the humanities looking for a tenure-track job is to become a “lecturer,” which, at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, is a step below the coveted “adjunct professor” position.  The mis-named “lecturer” is a transitional position that, for many, becomes permanent.  It even has a version of tenure, aptly named “indefinite status.”

That means they will probably keep you around as long as enrollments remain high, while those who are not given indefinite status by default have “definite status,” which means they are definitely not going to be kept around for very long.

Marx referred to the industrial equivalent of this as “mobile army of surplus labor,” and the lecturer (or whatever else it is called in other universities) is indeed the university proletariat, the caste my wife belongs to.

A lecturer in the English department teaches up to four classes (often, because of the low pay, supplemented by another class or two at a community college).

Lecturers do some of the most labor-intensive teaching in the university and often that which requires a level of teaching talent not required to deliver the weekly lecture that many high-ranking professors are permitted; in the English department they work with entry-level students in basic writing classes that involve thousands of pages of writing to be graded and commented-upon each semester.

Although it can be fulfilling (as it is for my wife who loves her students and is revered by them), this is work in the trenches in an institution that is supposed to only have high and broad vistas, and where only merit trumps equality but never at the expense of fairness and respect.

For reasons I will be discussing, the university in America today cannot afford its high principles, nor its lavish grants and light teaching loads.  The low cost of temporary and disposable labor is becoming the financial backbone of the university, just as outsourced labor is used to keep corporate profits aloft.

The wave of retirements (that made job prospects appear promising for my generation of graduate students) resulted less in new tenure-track hires, and more lower-paid and easily eliminated lecturers and adjuncts.  Professors bemoan this situation, but, I should add, are equally unprepared to share their privilege.  They too feel under fire from above.

I opted out of the lecturer track, falling back on my experience as a roofer (where speed, endurance, and focus are proportionally rewarded and at a much higher pay rate than the itinerant intellectual worker) while also finding promise in the growing remodeling industry of the late 90s.

About 8 years later, by which time I had built a small but solid company called Community Building and Restoration, we in the construction industry were beginning to realize that we had been banking on a system of borrowed home-equity money. and had been floating untethered within an exploding bubble economy.

Like most people in my position, I was almost wiped out when the housing bubble popped, found myself laden with unpayable debt, and came out the other side barely limping.  Things have never been the same since.

This isn’t to say that some business models aren’t performing well, as least for now.  But I have given up all former dreams of an upwardly mobile life of a small business man, where I might settle into leisure and comfort as I get older and hand off the harder physical labor work to underlings.  I don’t aspire to this anymore, because I don’t think it is an ethically responsible life, but I couldn’t have it if I wanted it.

There is neither a path from where I am to a parallel version of the life my parents made for themselves, nor for a university-based one secured by my wife, despite her rare talent as a teacher. In fact, there is scarcely much chance for basic economic security in our future.  I hope the university survives and that my body doesn’t break down too soon.  I worry about the next popping bubble, but probably not as much as I should.
 
My main purpose in sharing these personal reflections is, perhaps contrary to appearances, to explain the structural tectonics that have fractured the roads to success upon which many in my generation once set out.  My experience, I think, is not entirely unique.  The comparison between me and my parents is largely a generational one. 

On a whole, my generation does not live as securely as our parents did and our opportunities are shrinking.  This is born out in the statistics and in the life experiences of many of my peers.  There are of course exceptions.  Those who went into “financial services” live with excessive comfort, as do many physicians and lawyers and people in the “tech industry.”

But for most of the rest of us, whether we work in retail, the trades, manufacturing, as teachers, in most government jobs (the list could go on), the fact that wages have “stagnated” tell only part of the story of slow decline.

The life of a young university professor, one who did manage to find a foothold into the world in which my father thrived, also provides a good insight into a world I know well, while reinforcing my sense of generational differences.  The university is not funded the way it used to be, and, in addition to the truly beleaguered lecturers and adjuncts, tenured professors are also feeling a pinch.

They can live very comfortable lives, it is true, but the expansive opportunities enjoyed by my father’s cohort have largely dried up.  In the humanities, summer funding is rare, teaching loads are increasing, departments are shrinking, and even tenure is being questioned as the university is being “run more like a business.”

If I am honest with myself, these personal reflections are flavored with own bitter aftertaste.  I admit it—I do have a chip on my shoulder about the university and about the amount of unpaid research and writing I perform in my scarce free-time and for no compensation.  Living in a different generation, my father had more free time to do what he wished after he was done writing, lecturing, and leading seminars than I have to do any reading and writing in the first place.

There is some self-pity (since I’m already opening myself up for dissection, I might as well admit it all) in my moments of defeat, when I just don’t have the time I need to pursue what I value and what might get give me pleasure.  I do, as I have said, sometimes feel like a failure when life has run me down, and when I feel like a failure, I also feel a bit sorry for myself.  So there you have it.  This might all be read as an attempt to come to grips with my own pathetic little feelings.

But this may make it all the more significant, if for no reason other than the way  I have spent the last eight years on what I now think of as a spiritual journey—one bent on understanding not in  terms of personal entitlement and disappointment, but in structural and historical ones, the changing course of the wealth of nations and especially the American nation.  I don’t believe the world owes me a growing economy and increased consumption.

Just the opposite, in fact—for an economy the size of our current one has already overshot the planet’s biological capacity for production and regeneration.  I know this--and still the lived experience of decline and contraction is more than I can gracefully accept or emotionally process when my back is up against the wall.

My wife and are still only beginning to adjust the reality of our material lives so that we might live within the means we can expect.  We, too, are still in a position of overshoot.

So I’m getting personal, here, because I think the struggles I am able to articulate are ones that others will, though each in their own way, also be required to confront as well—if not now, then in the future.  Feelings, hopes, expectations, disappointments—this is where politics and the economy are lived.  And the changing wealth of our nation will give us a difficult journey.

Or maybe it is not so difficult, per se; perhaps we as a people are unprepared for minor challenges of a certain sort.  In either case,  my own unfinished journey to a new acceptance has taken lots of painful and persistent work and I still have a long way to go.

 And when I see the supporters of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump acting as if their candidate could possibly remake the America that my parents and their generation enjoyed, I see denial and postponement of the inevitable real revolution—one of expectations.

When I see faculty at the University of Wisconsin view their current struggles almost exclusively in personal terms of a bad governor and an indifferent state legislature, I see people who have neither begun to understand nor integrate at the level of lived-experience the great structural and systemic changes in the wealth of nations that are afoot.

I know I risk coming off as smug, here, but that is not my intention, even though (to be honest again) I do feel smug at times.  But I am also afraid.  For if the most educated and most adept at structural and historical thinking among us are not able to translate their own lived-crises into a broader systemic one, then what hope is there for the angry, frustrated and increasingly violent supporters of someone like Trump and all that they represent and portend in a world of decreasing surplus?

For those readers who have made it this far, I would only ask this: listen to my coming systemic explanation for the sorts of frustrations, worries, and disappointments that so many Americans are experiencing today.

See if it makes more sense than the usual explanation, in which America is suffering a temporary setback at the hands of bad governance or a false ideology or those on the other side of the political divide.


[i] There is of course a valid feminist critique of the support role that my mother played without question.  But on the other hand she was also revered among their circle for her warmth, humor, and friendship, along with epic garden parties and superb gourmet cooking whipped out with no apparent effort.  This division of labor in what from the outside, as least, was a beautiful life was of course made possible by the simple fact that a simple university salary was more than enough to exceed any material ambitions they had dreamed of as they set out on their life-journey. 

.