jim.shamlin.com

1.6 Operations Common To All Branches of Industry

JBS considers human industry in all its forms to consist of three distinct operations:

  1. Obtaining knowledge about the fabrication of a product. The mining, smelting, and shaping of metal is needed to produce a lock. (Theory)
  2. Discovering a useful purpose. The desire to secure a room by locking a door provides incentive to have a lock. (Application)
  3. Applying the labor to fashion the object. This applies the knowledge of the first step to the need of the second. (Execution)

(EN: To my way of thinking, the first two steps are out of order: we are driven by needs and desires to gain knowledge necessary to do something, rather than having knowledge and seeking a use for it. The author's order is also possible, but leads to dysfunctional behavior - the skill is pointless until it finds a need, and the desperation to put a skill to use leads to misapplication.)

The three operations "are seldom" performed by the same person: knowledge is sought by the philosopher, it is applied to a person by the manufacturer, and the hands-on work of fashioning the object is done by the laborer.

(EN: This further compounds the problem: the first may be done by a philosopher, but the second is done by the customer, and the third is done by a manufacturer - the laborer is merely working under the manufacturer's direction - and when the task is broken into these three parts, two additional roles are necessary: the entrepreneur must match the needs and capabilities and the merchant must convey the materials between the three parties.)

JBS goes further to suggest that products as simple as wheat, wine, and dye were originally discovered in this manner: that someone observed and discovered the natural properties of certain plants, then found that they had a given purpose, then applied labor to their cultivation and manufacture.

(EN: Which is a likely sequence, but likely less formal - a primitive happened to notice that a given plant stained his clothing, and that set the wheels in motion for him to gather the plant and purposefully manufacture dye. It is likely only in the age of industrialization, and the case of products that are not accidentally discovered, that the tasks were separated to different parties.)

There's also the note that societies may differ in their capabilities at each of the three tasks. He gives Africa as an example of an entire continent of people who "excel in all athletic exercises and handicraft occupations" but do not seem to have a penchant for knowledge, and are therefore incapable of discovering how to apply their labor to a given task. If shown what to do, they can manufacture more advanced goods, but left to their own devices, they will never discover the way.

(EN: This reeks of racism, as JBS wrote in the time of slavery where Africans were considered to be fit for nothing but menial labor under harsh direction. At yet, it can't be denied that some cultures fail to achieve material prosperity - but my sense is this is not due to a lack of intelligence, but a culture that does not value knowledge, or places greater value on maintaining tradition to the point that innovation is squelched and the perceptual and rational skills that leads to innovation are not encouraged and, over generations, are even lost.)

Neither is knowledge alone capable of generating wealth. While it is not witnessed broadly in entire nations, there exist individuals who amass knowledge without putting it into practice. Few philosophers became wealthy men after devoting themselves entirely to the pursuit of knowledge, and wealthy men who give themselves entirely to that pursuit erode their fortunes rather than augmenting them. Nor did the knowledge they collected render any benefit to their societies if it was not passed to those who could make good use of them.

(EN: JBS doesn't mention it specifically, but the ideas medieval philosophers such as da Vinci remained secret for centuries. They were of great benefit when they were disseminated many years later, but did little for the people of their time.)

Likewise, knowing how science can be applied has little value if it is not actually applied: the factory must be built, the machinery assembled, and all manner of menial tasks tended to in the creation of a product that will deliver benefit to mankind.

It's also noted that the men of knowledge, both science and its application, are entirely portable. While the forges of a foundry cannot easily be shipped or the hundreds of laborers transported, the man who knows the nature of metal can move himself to a virtual wilderness, built another foundry, and find materials an labor to run it.

Knowledge is also the chief ingredient of prosperity. Small and sparsely populated locations with few natural resources (Florence, Genoa, and Venice) can be quite wealthy if they have intelligent manufacturers and merchant; whereas larger and more heavily populated areas with a wealth of natural resources (India, Africa, and China) may remain long in poverty for want of knowledge.

He speaks with some admiration for the success of Britain, and attributes it to knowledge of both manufacturers and laborers. In particular, the laborers of Britain pride themselves in masterful workmanship in creating products with "precision and perfection" and the manufacturers are attentive to the needs of the market in designing products that suit the specific needs of customers in various locations. As such, Britain rose from a poor and primitive society to the wealthiest and most productive economy in the world in about 150 years.

A brief mention is given to "technical skill." In the arts, we notice that one painter or sculptor produces excellent work while many others, who have the same knowledge and apply the same level of effort, produce only mediocrity. The same can be observed in more practical arts: weavers, farmers, smiths, and practitioners of all trades vary greatly in their capacity to produce quality and quantity of goods.

Experimentation is also credited with discovering efficient and effective methods of production, but is too often shunned due to its risk: in agriculture, manufacture, and commerce, men seem to cling to established practices, with confidence that they will continue to achieve the same success as they have in years past. He who experiments risks that his attempt will fail, and he may take a small loss or even be financially ruined. But without experimentation, neither will he discover an experiment that succeeds and grants him additional profit or even a vast fortune.

With this in mind, JBS suggests that experimental enterprises should not be discouraged, but due to their risk, the wisest course is not to divert capital from established methods of production, but to set aside some of the profits for use in experimental ventures - such that their failure will not collapse the enterprise. Said another way, a merchant with two ships should stick to charted waters, but a merchant with twenty can afford to send one or two on voyages of discovery.

There is some mention of government paying for the advancement of science in a situation where individuals are too strapped or too timid to do so. His sense is that the cost, in taxation, is spread out among many individuals who have already borne the loss and the benefit will be shared by all. So long as the potential benefit of success is balanced to the amount of sacrifice, this is not dysfunctional and is, in fact, an ethically acceptable means to invest the public funds.