{"id":279,"date":"2005-12-31T04:06:29","date_gmt":"2005-12-31T08:06:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/2005\/12\/31\/the-open-society-myth-or-catastrop"},"modified":"2005-12-31T04:06:29","modified_gmt":"2005-12-31T08:06:29","slug":"the-open-society-myth-or-catastrophic-novelty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/longestnow\/2005\/12\/31\/the-open-society-myth-or-catastrophic-novelty\/","title":{"rendered":"The Open Society : Myth or Catastrophic Novelty?"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Earlier today, Jay-Zed pointed out the humor<\/span> in juxtaposing fears of a Closed Web and resulting closed society<\/span>, <\/span>with the dramatic changes in openness<\/span>, penetration<\/span>, and reusability<\/span> of information and tools over the past decade.  He posited that the existence of certain types of platforms<\/span>
\n— for instance, inverted-hourglass networks and PC architectures —
\nwas a specially enabling design decision, which was somewhat arbitrary
\nand potentially outmoded.  The implication was that without these
\nplatforms, said dramatic changes would have been far less dramatic.<\/p>\n

I also enjoy the juxtaposition of the recent explosive openness<\/span>
\nwith current fears about open channels of communication being closed
\noff; and do at times find myself laughing at over-pessimistic
\nstatements about the world today.  On the other hand, I don’t
\nthink that focusing on architectures, or on historical platform
\nchoices, is very relevant to the changes we have seen.  A firmer
\nassociation can be found between penetration and reuse, and the
\navailability of ever-better toolchains and factories for mass
\nproduction.   <\/p>\n

A methodical Gutenberg was not the unilateral harbinger <\/span>of
\nthe modern newspaper; that took many revolutions in pulp-processing and
\nprinting-press design.  Today’s cheap, colorful paper production
\nis the result of tens of thousands of excellent, focused
\ninnovations.  Likewise, ENIAC was not the harbinger of Ruby on
\nRails (or any other modern library that allows someone with basic
\nprogramming skills to leverage 10 hours of familiarization <\/span>into
\na fully-customized and appealing application) — that took many
\nrevolutions in software abstraction and philosophy…  nor were
\nDARPANet and IBM and Microsoft the natural father<\/span>, mother<\/span>, and holy concubine<\/span>
\nof the modern “all-purpose computer”; this too was many scores of
\nyears, and thousands of mathematical, engineering, and social
\ninnovations in the making.<\/p>\n

It is certainly charming that I can now find out what the Ohio
\nnewspapers and tv stations are printing and showing, by looking online
\nor flipping through my satellite service.  But all the same, we hardly<\/span>
\nlive in the ‘most open’ environment our modern world has ever
\nknown.  In many ways, we remain less open and networked than, say,
\na cozy, classed Greek city-state, with a shared<\/span> educational, social, and financial gossip network; shared religious, historical, and cultural anecdotes<\/span>; and shared metrics<\/span>
\nfor success, civilization-wide goals, and honour; all far more intimate
\nthan parallels in my country today.  Even the most all-telling of
\ntell-all [auto]biographies is diluted by this lack of openness.<\/p>\n

Let us end on a positive note.  What further expansions in
\nopenness may be expected or hoped for in the coming decades?  <\/p>\n