War, Sacrifice and Plural Marriage: Societal Balance through Genetic Planning

Bioeconomic Systems 

Variety and quantity of life greatly differ when ecosystems are directly compared. Certain factors help speed up change while others assist in maintaining stability, for example, introducing a new species can send a shockwave of change through both an area’s flora and fauna. Heat is another; areas around the equator have exponentially more biomass than near the poles.

Generalized lessons from this can be taken and projected onto mankind, where similar patterns of environmental effects and societal reactions are observable through human societies. This becomes more apparent when small groups manipulate an affect to gain or maintain power and advantage. These groups fall into two generalized categories; those that have, looking to maintain and those that have not, working to obtain. Really, it’s another reincarnation of  the Tradition vs. Innovation struggle.

Power and Advantage (P&A)

Before further progression power and advantage first need to be defined. Power refers to civil authority while advantage refers to resource availability. As examples; an army general has a great amount of power, but little advantage, if honest. A dictator has both power and advantage, as their power does not come from a preformed code which affords the rules to be changed to their advantage. A business tycoon or corrupt religious leader have great advantage but ultimately must obey civil authorities.

Resource Scarcity 

War, human sacrifice and plural marriage are found in societies where peaceful means of resource gathering and civil governance have broken down.  They may be considered extreme methods of control when simply thought of as human behavior, but expanded to the plant and animal kingdoms; it’s just another day in the neighborhood. Wisteria chokes the life out of surrounding plants while using their forms for growth and better positioning; new alpha lions kill the pride’s immature cubs, sacrificing their genetic lines to make room for his own; and the same lion now has sole breeding access to the pride’s females, to favor his genetic dissemination. The ubiquitousness of these leverage points in other systems suggests latent permanence and easy adoptability in our own.

Headhunting Harem Holders 

War, human sacrifice and plural marriage are all stabilizing forces used by those with P&A to enhance and maintain their positions. They are extreme measure usually resorted to when resources availability becomes dire. This trinity could be seen as a last resort for Traditionalists looking to hold onto their power, or Innovationists forced to fight for their piece of the pie.

WAR

So things are fine and fuzzy in Smurfville, with Gargamel under control there exists ripe territory for development, more than enough for this generation and into the unforeseeable future. The populace grows, unrestricted by natural predators it soon swells to fill the boundaries of Smurf territory. At some point a generation of Smurfs arrives to whom the option of expansion is not available, all the usable land is simply taken. This point, when the traditional method of obtaining resources no longer functions...

...To be continued

Inventerama at Maker Faire

My faith in entrepreneurship and my age cohort was well improved this weekend at the Bay Area Maker Faire. I saw over 600 inventors, and groups of inventors, trying to change the world and sought to do my part.


Being a Fair Maker I decided to create some marketing, and so made over 30 videos showcasing the event and individual inventors. No one will discover your mousetrap unless you tell them.

Kinetic Bug Jars Colleen Par http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsmVehx7iYk

Yes & Yes Designs Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTlK6EllzcQ

Mission Stands Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIMcysTWA-U

Sam Freeman Stress Beaters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzMlqm9tOWw

Gerard's Paella Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQholmPu4BY

Philosophy Bass Amps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NPa2R-d6ew

Russell the Electric Giraffe Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuq3KEWrSv4

Ng Thrive Portion Control http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTa0hi3jLsg

SCA Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpfteN7Huw0

Erica Newman's Sign Wave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH08XgiJTTw

Wood Ties Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUoy5BGJqw

GE Inbody 230 Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTk_tNrzw3g

Jackie Huang Woolbuddy Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0fkaOYTMRE

Kinect Hacks Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRjP4SzEyM

Fixit.com Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GELqUJQEXA 

Music Synced Arduino LED Array at Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXSGJIXBiGQ

NifNaks Plush Art Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr02WQlqvws

Spindles and Flyers Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eeISJ4UMyI

TurtleBot Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83H-74Lg3BQ

Zombie Bats & Hidden Messages Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YLvfkL2I-o 

Young Sparks Water Totter 2 Maker Faire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3RCsMlJ_I

Kelly Jensen Photorealistic Cloth Pouches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POquIZ1mLKA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnjxJv6r2w

Trash Amps Maker Faire  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbpq1LNfdU0 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUFcYq6bc4E

TechShop Maker Faire 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSBabOLYiFc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtfaoUcwiSw

Unfair Advantage & Economic Decay

Systems of Control & Self Sufficiency
An Economic Inquest of the American South Pre/Post Civil War

The Crutch of Slavery

Slavery was common in the classical world, with both slaves that lived with you as in Athens or slaves that worked more independently, such as the Helots of Sparta. However, slavery should be termed an unfair social system as it is doubtful that masters would accept a role reversal in the same way they expected/demanded acceptance among their slave class. Exploiting unfair systems can lead to great short term success, but in the longer term it leads to an incomplete economic development by the populace. Imagine a privileged heir that never wants for money, and finds themselves cut off at 30, how prepared are they for the honest economic realities of the outside world?

This unfair system of obtaining labor gave the South a great advantage while the system was in place, but upon its removal they found themselves left with an incomplete economy, gaping holes left by slavery’s absence. Contrarily, the North, while not having the same help from slavery to build their economy, had to find economically justifiable agreements to encourage free individuals to fill unpleasant economic roles. Sometimes what resulted was similar to slavery, like the system of indentured servitude, but eventually workers would have to be dealt with as free men and a workable arrangement found. Systems like this, while more difficult to establish, will survive many more difficulties because every member involved in the organization is receiving negotiated compensation for a needed service.

Creating Equitable Systems

In 1914 Ford raised the wages of his linemen  from $2.34 a day to $5, in an effort to fight his 300% yearly turnover. While in the very short run of pay-periods this would have been a painful decision, overall it was a great success. “The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs” (Wikipedia, Ford entry).

The move would have also given rise to much greater group cohesion, as Ford saw the change as “profit sharing” which alludes that the workmen were now part of the group entitled to profit, and important members of the organization. At first, workers personal lives were investigated by private eyes, with a 6 month wait for the professional wages, but as time went on Ford grew to judge the workers on their work alone, "…paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees' private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, oftentimes special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency's sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment" (Wikipedia, Ford entry).

The real advancements seem to have come when Ford internalized the needs of his workers, broadened the ‘important group’ to include simple laborers, and sought to provide them with a salary that would allow them the ability to advance economically. For many organizations providing avenues of advancement is a risky thing, if you give an employee an opportunity to better themselves you have to be willing to compensate the more valuable employee accordingly, which means there needs to be higher positions for them to move into or they will find another employer. Only growing organizations can offer these opportunities, if there aren’t any positions to grow into, employees who improve their skills will lose morale as they see themselves compensated at the same rate as their lackluster comrades.

Back to the South

How does this relate to the South? Well, maybe being brought in from the fields to become a house slave was enough advancement opportunity for some, the number of violent slave uprisings tells another story. By not allowing advancement to the deserving, discontent and revolution is fermented among the high-achievers who, among the lot, would be the most capable of leading a slave uprising. Therefore you had a huge segment of the population who was intentionally denied advancement opportunities in an effort to maintain the going systems of control.

The North, in contrast, had outlawed slavery throughout New England by 1804; abolition was forced on the South in 1863, two generations later. Through those 59 years, economic advancement was legally open to any resident of the North, which would have created a healthier, more stratified economic system. In 1790 there were .51 slaves for every free man in the South, in 1860 the ratio was .47. (EH.net) That same ratio across such a span of time suggests that the South had found a system of control that worked and had formalized it into tradition. This sort of system where a third of the population was denied the opportunity to advance held back the whole of the society. This can be seen through the flood of carpetbaggers post-Civil War. The South didn’t have enough links in the chain of their economic system to survive, so northern entrepreneurs came to fill in those gaps.

“Many carpetbaggers were businessmen who purchased or leased plantations and became wealthy landowners, hiring freedmen to do the labor. Most were former Union soldiers eager to invest their savings in this promising new frontier, and civilians lured south by press reports of "the fabulous sums of money to be made in the South in raising cotton." Foner notes that "joined with the quest for profit, however, was a reforming spirit, a vision of themselves as agents of sectional reconciliation and the South's "economic regeneration." Accustomed to viewing Southerners—black and white—as devoid of economic initiative and self-discipline, they believed that only "Northern capital and energy" could bring "the blessings of a free labor system to the region.” (Wikipedia, carpetbagger entry)

Takeaway

In a Machiavellian system (like the one we all live in) unfair advantages such as this demand participation because it must be assumed that competitors will take advantage and competitive advantage will diminish. However, it should not be lost that the advantage has been obtained from unfair means and excess profits should be put towards the development of profitable, sustainable systems. A good example of this would be the rum running Kennedy family buying up political capital with their prohibition money, and then parlaying that goodwill into politics themselves.

Mother's Day

A card for my mother...

My Mother's Flowers

Alexander the Great : Traditon of Innovation

Innovative Tradition

Back in the day, Alexander the Great was big daddy mack. His father Philip rocked Greece; and Alex high in the saddle at 16, commanding battalions from the front.  Stories of his divine origins drove his sense of authority to encompass all situations, even leading him to draw down and engaging in heated swordplay with his father. That sense of largess and the desire to command all men drove him to conquer Asia Minor. How has this kingdom expansion been possible when unified governed territories of this size had never existed before?

During his life Alexander pushed for great measure of integration, he adopted Persian dress, court rituals, took a foreign wife and instituted a eugenics program among his military. He married 2-300 of his officers and thousands (up to 10,000) of the army to women selected from his conquested people. For the weddings he took care to find match pairs according to their appropriate standing in society, in an effort to not disrupt the current society and integrate as smoothly as possible. He even went so far as to have himself deified in Greek and Egyptian cultures, referring to himself as Zeus-Ammon.

After his death the empire was thrown into 30 years of all out civil war and fiefdomship by his generals, which settled down and dissolved into stable regional collections. The desire for integration evaporated and the power collected in the Greek speaking, Macedonian/Persian elite who rarely built their capitals far from the Mediterranean sea and modeled their civil structures, (hierarchical and architectural) after classical Greek cities.  The most common writing from Ptolemaic Egypt, in the Hellenistic period following Alexanders rule, is the petition, usually a native looking for redress against unfair practices by the Greek speaking ruling class
 
Sparta as Contrast

Remember Sparta? That legendary military power spent years quelling rebelling cities, in less time Alex was conquering territories the size of India. How?

Sparta declared open war, yearly, on their slave population. Their treatment was looser, on the whole, than most of Greece’s treatment of their slave population. In Athens the slaves lived on property of their owner, in American South sort of way, but they were educated and commonly were craftsmen or held positions of management. In Sparta, their slaves-the helots, were Russian style serfs, more slaves of poverty and tied to the land like sharecroppers. So, if you were a helot, you worked in agriculture or rudimentary cottage industries of cloth, carpentry, etc.  You didn’t have someone bossing you around every day, but, you could be killed at any time by almost any Spartan with no recourse. No cultural integration and management in absence through fear. This sort of begrudging tolerances towards native peoples is something Alexander’s empire fell into after his death, but while he lived, he pushed for as great an integration as possible.     

The New Deal

Alexander's offer was simple, he was able to provide systems already being sought. Through changing what a kingdom was, and providing a more accepting framework for foreign societies to fill, Alex broadened his own culture to absorb these new peoples. With this, their governance would come from the preexisting power structures and local networks, now even stronger as backed by the resources from the rest of Alexander’s empire.

It’s similar to Saddam sorting out his region, collecting power so that finally his voice would enact action and represent control over the country. Then a country, say, Taiwan, absorbs it into the Taiwanese Empire and better trains and arms the military before leaving him in power.  Of course they would also leave high born women, for him to lay with, so to breed an ethnic and cultural mix set for rule in both countries. In a classical Hellenic sense anyway, this is how Alexander spread his empire.

Spartan life would have been difficult to export and maintain in absence, consider the unpleasant lifestyle changes people would encounter if the Amish (who ran brutal, yearly pogroms) rose to complete political and military dominance. Going from a more open society to a more restrictive one would require enforcement, which means garrisoning troops and actively policing a population, which would eat up a governing power’s resources.

The opposite, moving into a more accepting regime, would increase the total amount of economic activity in allowing the professional advancement of a greater part of the population alongside the compounding effects of broader and safer trade. This way, the ruling elite facing Alexander stood to become even wealthier by supporting his regime and having a slice from a huge cake instead of their own little cupcake. With the hearts and minds in hand, Alex would pull resources from his new province and move forward in conquest, leaving the day to day life of the citizens intact.

Limits on Everything

Internal dissent finally came from the Macedonian old guard, far past the time when each member had more wealth than they could control. The endless campaigning was put to an end, and complaints arose concerning his privileged treatment of foreign peoples, “why are you allowing the savages to kiss you on the cheek and call you brother?” Now, Alexander was someone who it was best not to question, at a banquet hall an old guard general spoke out over his lauded superiority to classical Greek heroes, like Hellas and Heracles, and Alexander ran him through with the point of his sword, killed him on the spot. The Greeks were eventually given the privilege of being ‘as his brothers’ and even excepted from his newly instituted desire of being met with full prostration, Pharaoh style, but only after negotiations.

This lack of desire for boundless political dominance developed among his vital supporters, and became the limiting factor in his expansion.  At this point, the enormous amount of resources commanded and mobilized would have been comparable to the Second Athenian Empire, with a collection of city states working relatively autonomously towards a common goal. He knew he needed their support to some degree and turned back to rule rather than suffer Thebes fate by the hands of Athens. He demonstrated his frustration by marching his army home through deserts, instead of taking his available fleet of ships. Significant figures died.
 
*tAkeAwAy*?

In ruling a people and drawing from their resources, education and civil status gets you much further than abject fear. Or, Alleys(over)Subjects

Complete History of Sparta &/vs. Athens (or(Tradition vs. Innovation))

Innovation vs. Tradition

Ancient societies consist of collections of individuals grouped for specific purposes; in numbers that were resource supportable by and as could peacefully cohabitate. When divergent goals emerged the larger group would either repress or include the new goals. In this goals should be taken to include ends, means, and processes; for the process designer his goal is now to see his modified process accepted by the larger group to his benefit. The degree to which a society would welcome new goals could also be seen as the importance they placed upon innovation, whereas, groups more governed by previously set down guidelines would place higher value on tradition.

In the innovative society the collectively conceived society ideal would forever be changing though the inclusion and contact by other groups (more on this later) and the compounding of invention through cultivated centers and cultures of innovation (schools, libraries, theatre competitions, etc..). Societies based on tradition would be focused on past events with ancestor worship and strict codes of social mores tied to idealized historical behavior. Socrates and Plato both held this view, that a society was to be designed in perfect harmony and then forever fixed, with the anointed foreign artists barred from the city’s entry.

A perfect example of these different worldviews was played out between the Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. Athens commitment to innovation can be clearly seen through the annual Dionysia, which gave playwrights a venue for 3 tragic (summarizing/interpreting past events) and one satyr play, which dealt with the mythological in a comedic manner.

Here is a culture encouraging its visionaries to reevaluate and lay out lessons to be learned from the past as well as to explain how we fit into the world with the divine. In addition, by having the writers compete for the prize innovation is encouraged, as the stories themselves would be common knowledge, the entertainment would have to come in how they were told. Especially for the comedy, much of comedy’s power comes through novelty, or the viewer’s surprise, so a successful comedic play would be full of novel, surprising, and innovative events.

Sparta, on the other hand, was all about tradition. An example of this would be that if a child was born that did not meet the pre-set qualifications; it would be left out to die from exposure. This molding of a population, to so overrule a citizen’s natural instincts of individual linage advancement in favor of group cohesion, is quite impressive.

Brief History of Sparta &/vs Athens

Sparta ruled their region starting from 546, in 510 they assisted Athens in overthrowing the dictatorship set up by Hippias, leaving the Athenians to institute a democratic system. Sparta was one of the largest powers when invasions came from Persia but did not participate in the first conflict (Dorias), leaving the fight to be won by Athens in 490. The second time around was with Xerxes and Sparta didn’t have the same luxury, the option was there for Athens to side with Persia if coerced and Sparta did not want another competitor in the region (or for Athens to grow stronger). Didn’t happen though, as the second campaign was won it was undecided what to do with the cities that had been under Persian rule during the invasions. Sparta wished to rule them as little Spartas and import Anatolians who would spread and enforce Spartan culture. Athens, on the other hand, offered them self-rule and membership in the Delian League, a counterbalance to the Hellenic alliance, a cooperative city state group headed by Sparta, who had denied Athens membership. Following this came a time of instability as a support city of Sparta revolted in 472, and then in 464 with an earthquake devastating Sparta and their slave population revolting at the opportunity. Athens was persuaded to send troops but dismayed to discover fellow Greeks as the revolting slaves (their own slaves were foreign captured war booty and offspring). Sparta, upon sensing this sentiment, sent the Athenians home, worrying that they would end up supporting the rebel slaves. The resulting resource conflicts and regional leadership decisions blossomed into the Peloponnesian Wars which pitted the Hellenistic alliance vs. the Delian League which Athens lost in 404. However, in 378 Athens started another anti-Spartan confederacy, the Second Athenian Empire and in 403 they regained self-control as Spartan military needs were felt elsewhere. Thebes was a member of the Second Athenian Empire, ill-disposed after Sparta invaded ten years prior, and it was the Thebians who conclusively defeated Sparta in 371. Following this the Thebians grew in power but were ousted by Athens and other Delian League members as the primary power in 362. Note that Athens displaced Thebes only after Sparta was safely out of the picture.

Funnily enough, the Spartans had previously backed Thebes as a regional power against Athens in 457, and the Thebians planned to completely destroy Athens in 403, following Sparta’s victory, but allowed them to rebuild in 404 to act as an ally against Sparta. Thebes also paved the way to the end of Greek self-rule by inviting aid from Philip of Macedon, who then stuck around to have a say in the area in 338, and whose son burned Thebes to the ground when they revolted against Alexander in 335.

The main point to draw here is that the sheer number of alliances and changing political conditions will end up favoring innovation. Resources can be collected and power centralized but as world conditions are forever changing, the populations promoting new solutions will be able to better accommodate a much larger and more diverse group than populations promoting tradition.

The Manana Complex

The Manana Complex

Agrarian vs. Polis Business Culture

Business, what is it? A narrow definition would say it’s the exchange system for transfer of goods and services between discreet entities, but broadly one could simply say, “It’s anything I do, say or think”. Consider the useage of the phrase, “Stay out of my business!”, and the broad array of objects it can be applied to, for example, the song Business Time, by The Flight of the Concords, which details a couple’s uninspiring pre-sex routine. Just as the topic of business can be broadened to include everyday minutia, the cultural minutia also flows the other direction to color an individual’s perception of business.  This paper will explore fundamental differences in business culture between agrarian and city dwelling populations and the resulting behavioral patterns those differences encourage.

Sections:

1.    Resource Tied Relative Group Cohesion

2.    Tradition vs. Innovation (backward or forward thinking)Music, food, art

3.    Education & Skill Set Development

4.    Social Mobility and the Apple Tree Analogy ((big tree, many ladders, many positions to fill and move through)

5.    Travel, Trade and Marketing Media Beartraps

But first, a note on the writing, the paper has been done in the scholastic method through presented discourses. Ideally, this collection of beliefs would be presented before a group with the a priori assumptions available for challenge; however, this is not practical. Attention has been given to make the postulates and following assumptions clear though the author acknowledges his own, inescapable, personal bias and limited view. Evolutionary and behavioral psychologies have provided the basis for much of this writing.

Resource Tied Relative Group Cohesion

In the Middle Ages there were 3 classes to which you could belong, the nobility, the church, or the 3^rd estate (the people who worked). Belonging to the nobility offered the best shot at resources desired in the short term, as the temporal power they could take what was desired and create laws to justify. The church offered long term physical security though communal efforts and an opportunity to specialize labor in exchange for group obedience. The majority of any population was the 3^rd estate, made up by the farmers, merchants, craftsmen and laborers. For these people life was unpredictable, the nobility was free from most legal concerns, and the church held papal courts, so there was little legal recourse if wronged by a member from either group. Those two populations also had the first privileges of goods brought in by trade, or created locally, which resulted in the 3^rd estate first bearing the burden of shortages among all classes of goods.

In response to these conditions, individuals would seek out a patron in the nobility, church or more affluent member of the 3^rd estate in an attempt to obtain a voice in the courts, regular work, or even a reliable source of food and shelter. Professional groups, such as the Masons, also emerged to help transfer skills and hedge an individual’s potential shortfalls among the greater community. In many ways these groups mimicked the role of the church by providing resource networks though individual group members, collective group projects and private court systems.

Within each of these three groups there is a complex but agreed upon (as a condition of group membership) hierarchical order. Higher levels offered greater resource availability alongside greater oversight. At the lowest levels all of one’s own labor would be directed by an external force and through different methods in each group an individual could come to direct their own labor, then choose and direct their own labor, and then oversee the labor of others to a larger and larger degree. 

The nobility offered men advancement through titles and privileges bestowed by the individuals who were in a position to do such things; by curing their favor or by a real advancement of their goals. Women could marry in, up, or hang around as a mistress to advance their lot, the real successes were the male heir producing type or the best option in a lineage conflict. Either sex could branch out and become a noble merchant, or a religious noble, but their noble status would only benefit indirectly. 

In the church, education and obedience would take you to the professional level, 10 years of study, demonstration of group ideals though visible prayer and collective benefiting labor could qualify you as a priest, an individual licensed to perform the mass and to be a communities personal representative of God, but even then other individuals in the church would have the power to stop your advancement. After this level it would be partly a demonstration of the group objectives but really it would be though currying the favor of the individuals making advancement decisions. 

The process from priest to bishop to cardinal to pope is all elected, and people in the position to advance others would be deeply committed to the existing system that provided their power, and would want to advance individuals that shared their own goals and were committed to protecting the existing system.   

The clergy would also branch out into mercantilism or through the nobility, and these relationships could be of great assistance in currying the favor of their superiors. Because the church had great use for consumer goods as well as political favors, not specializing in either department itself, an individual would be able to satisfy the unprovided for desires of the advancers and rise in status more rapidly than an individual only advancing the stated goals of the group.

Therefore, resource network building would be a major goal of advancement minded individuals in communities built upon relativistic advancement measures. If large enough, these networks would act as stabilizing forces in the greater community; as mercantilism and political structure is the most productive in stable political environments, so the clergy would have incentive to stabilize the area if their own standing was strong, just as to spread discord if their position was weak. The greater organization down to the parish priest would be influenced by the groups financially supporting them, and would publicly work to advance the goals of either the nobility or 3^rd estate.

Power in the 3^rd estate came directly from the ability to direct others labor, through either the material resources to buy an individual’s time or as the director of a charismatic collective goal. The true goals benefit’s ownership, control or distribution rarely lay in the hands of the group members, but the belief that it would upon the success of the undertaking, or simply that the group’s lot would be improved, is a constant presence in persuasive literature from any group. 

This segment, the population subset that exists primarily in the 3^rd estate and comes to power through the acquisition and direction of labor, is the group focused on in this study. It exists within a greater system of forces that will exert influence and provide for gain, thereby predisposing a population’s advancement along desired channels. For example, a government who values scientific advancement above all else and creates a multitude of high paying jobs for scientists is creating the environment that will encourage a greater quantity of scientists to emerge. 3^rd estate groups, as all other groups, will act in their self-interest to help encourage conditions that will lead to the success of the group.

Most times groups rise to power through innovation and improvement on current offerings. Next we’ll explore how the use of innovation will further subdivide this group.