A medieval perpetual motion machine

A remarkable item from the sketchbook of Villard de Honnecourt—a medieval architect-engineer who flourished in the thirteenth century. A perpetual motion machine:

It reflects the general passionate interest of medieval men in natural sources of energy. They were power-conscious to the point of fantasy, always looking for sources of power beyond hydraulic, wind, and tidal energy.

Villard hoped that with mallets or bags filled with mercury assembled so as to swing freely “there will always be four on the downward side of the wheel and only three on the upward side; thus the mallet or bag will always fall over to the left as it reaches the top, ad infinitum.”

It is probably through the Islamic world that western Europe got involved in perpetual motion, but with the difference that Europe, given its interest in mechanization, would try to use perpetual motion as a practical source of energy.

Villard’s wide interest in an unlimited source of energy and in various types of machines makes him an archetypal engineer of the medieval industrial revolution (J. Gimpel, The Medieval Machine, 1976, 127–130).

The three things for which no one will spend money: medicine, education, children. Why have money at all?

There are three things the price of which modern enlightened people are continually griping about: medicine, education, and children. Yet it seems that these three are about the only things that cannot be afforded today.

While searching for a private clinic where to get a procedure done speedily (successfully: reduced my wait time from 90 days to 24 hours) I ran across this article from February:

http://www.torontolife.com/style/toronto-health-and-beauty/2014/02/26/best-private-medical-clinics-toronto/

Five of Toronto’s most exclusive private medical clinics

Private health care, once taboo, has become a status symbol for those who can afford it. From anti-aging to Alzheimer’s, here are five of the city’s most sought-after clinics

One thing stood out to me: the prices.

The article calls these clinics ‘exclusive’, only ‘for those who can afford it’, ‘a status symbol’. I think that would be a common reaction—above all among the class most familiar to me, graduate students and academics.

But consider the prices: $2,595 for a health assessment. $3,300 a year for doctors available round-the-clock, including weekends and holidays. $1,500 for a health assessment and a year of ongoing care.

These aren’t pocket change. But regular folks afford things a lot more expensive than this every day. As Bruce Charlton says, “People spend many years and 100Ks of dollars on worthless and unused college degrees… They spend 1000 dollars a year on their hair, 10,000 dollars on holidays, 30,000 dollars on a wedding party, 20,000 on a better car than they need, tens of thousands on divorces...”

Actually, these ‘exclusive, status symbol’ medical clinics are already within the financial reach of most of us—even the long-suffering graduate students. We can afford a few thousand dollars: I know we can because we do—we spend it on cars, clothes, travel, and so on. It’s not that we cannot afford this kind of health care, it’s simply that it is not our priority.

In truth these clinics are not exclusive to the ultra-rich. They are exclusive to the people who are willing to spend money on medicine. Likewise for the good schools. Likewise for having children. Most of the big families I know bring in small incomes—but they afford children because children are their priority. Not holidays in Spain.

It’s a cliché to talk about the consumerism that the free market encourage. But I think the welfare state is more to blame for consumerism. Socialist policies like tax-funded healthcare, education, and childcare have done this. Because they have removed from the individual the responsibility to take thought for these things, to prioritize and earn and set aside money for medicine, for schools, for raising children. If we don’t have to spend money on these things, what are we supposed to spend it on? What is money even for?

If you take away health, education, and children, then money becomes by necessity mainly for gadgets, for toys, for expensive distractions, for status symbols…

And the sad irony is that, at the same time that people feel entitled to get (for free!) the world’s best medical care, they content themselves with the shabby product the State is willing to dole out to them. When the good stuff—good, responsive medical care—is out there, they don’t take it! Because of the welfare state, they aren’t willing to pay for it. 

But what is money for?! Why have money if you won't spend it on your health! People are shocked and indignant about hospital bills for tens of thousands of dollars. But I'd give up a lot of holidays in the Caribbean to get a good surgeon to do my triple bypass! I'd go without a car for a decade, and be happy about it, to buy the best education for my kids. Why else have money? Medical care is not a scandal to spend money on: medical care is a good thing to spend money on! Even going into debt—people go into debt for lots of stupid things; medical care is a better reason than most. 

Ironically the entitlement state creates an attitude of poverty. High-quality medical care? Can’t afford it. The best schools? Can’t afford ‘em. The pitter-patter of little feet? Can’t afford it.

Our welfare entitlements have become shortages. We live like England in the Second World War—we take our scrap of rations, like it or lump it.

In the most affluent society in history, where the normal, average person can afford to spend thousands of dollars on skydiving, trips to Disneyworld, giant weddings, cars, condos… Medicine, education, and children are the only things we can’t afford.

***

This post picks up on Bruce G. Charlton’s excellent comments here:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.ca/2014/07/women-as-victims-of-modernity.html

"We have been living in the most prosperous circumstances in history, but say children cannot be afforded.   People spend many years and 100Ks of dollars on worthless and unused college degrees, but say children cannot be afforded.   They spend 1000 dollars a year on their hair, 10,000 dollars on holidays, 30,000 dollars on a wedding party, 20,000 on a better car than they need, tens of thousands on divorces...  Apparently the *only* thing that is just too inconvenient and too expensive in the modern world, is children.   The fact is that modern women, modern people, could have successfully raised more children than at any time in history - if it had been a priority.   But it wasn't."

The Verhoeven Trilogy: Robocop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers

Paul Verhoeven directed three futuristic action movies in the late 80s / early 90s: RoboCop (1987), Total Recall (1990), and Starship Troopers (1997). These three films make up what I call the Verhoeven Trilogy, and I like them very much. Although they do not share a common world, characters, or plot, they all have the same tone and style. At the most basic, they all take place in a bleak futuristic Earth, they are all violent to excess, and they all have a persistent satirical and humorous vein underneath the action.

But the common elements go well beyond. One can compile a list of ‘Things Paul Verhoeven Likes’—in the sense that he likes to make films with these things in them.

Things Paul Verhoven Likes:

-          babes (two in Total Recall and in Starship Troopers)

-          boobs (three on one woman in Total Recall, a roomful of exposed boobs in Starship Troopers)

-          cool guns (RoboCop has a huge pistol and then the bad guys get the Cobra Assault Rifles, the Starship Troopers have many large and impressive guns)

-          evil corporations / governments / militaries (main plot elements of each movie)

-          police, secret agents, soldiers (the protagonists of each movie)

-          limbs getting severed (Murphy in RoboCop, Richter in Total Recall, beyond count in Starship Troopers)

-          people dying hilariously gruesome deaths (melted by toxic waste then smashed to bits in RoboCop, eyes popped out from violent decompression on the surface of Mars in Total Recall, brains sucked out in Starship Troopers)

-          genital injury (rapist in RoboCop, Arnold in Total Recall, Xander in Starship Troopers)

-          bald men with scratchy voices (Clarence Boddiker in RoboCop, Richter in Total Recall and Radczak in Starship Troopers—both played by Michael Ironside)

-          violently malfunctioning technology (ED 209, the Johnnycab, the door that crushes the captain in Starship Troopers)

-          strong men of righteous violence (RoboCop, Quaid, Johnny Rico)

A final thing which is easily noticed in RoboCop and Starship Troopers is the use of satirical television content: RoboCop has news programs and a really lame sitcom (“I’d buy that for a dollar!”); Starship Troopers has over-the-top military recruiting ads.

These are really fun movies, just made for young men to enjoy. My personal favourite is RoboCop. I like the other two very much, but for RoboCop I have an endless appetite. I think the guys on Half in the Bag are right that RoboCop is a perfect movie. Not that it will change your life, or leave an enduring mark on the ages, or make a great contribution to human civilization—but it perfectly accomplishes what it sets out to do; it is a perfect futuristic action / comedy. It is also perfect in that it is hard to imagine improving it; changing anything would make it worse.

(Using these criteria, other perfect movies that come to mind: Die Hard (1988); Pride and Prejudice (TV mini-series 1995); Holes (2003); The Jungle Book (Disney 1967).

Part of the pleasure in RoboCop is the use of real old-fashioned practical special effects. RoboCop is not a digital creation, he is Peter Weller in a suit of metal. The car chases go at maybe 70 miles per hour and use real cars which were actually smashed during filming. When people are gruesomely blown to bits it is done with models and makeup which had actual physical existence. And when people get shot they use actual squibs—it’s so much fun when the ED 209 shoot up the poor corporate executive and the blood spatters everywhere, and it’s so obvious that it was real fake blood and not digital!

The movies also tend to have great music. The RoboCop theme and some of the military music in Starship Troopers is enough to get the blood stirring.

I recommend RoboCop most of all but anyone who enjoys action movies could do worse than to watch the Verhoeven Trilogy. Three fun films from a glorious decade. Thank you, Paul Verhoeven. Thank you for all the babes and blood and badasses.

Two modern creatures, spotted in the Middle Ages

An international disarmament conference: Lateran Council II (1139) tries to ban the steel-armed crossbow

“The crossbow had such a force of penetration and was so deadly that its use came under discussion in the twelfth century at one of history’s first disarmament conferences. In 1139 the Lateran Council voted to prohibit it, but like many later civilian disarmament recommendations this was ignored by the military.”

Lateran II c. 29: We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

A nationwide antipollution act: England 1388

“It concerned not only the pollution of the air but also of the waters. It forbade throwing garbage into rivers or leaving it uncared for in the city. All garbage had to be carried away out of town.”

12 Rich. II. c. 13: For that so much Dung and Filth of the Garbage and Intrails as well of Beasts killed, as of other Corruptions, be cast and put in Ditches, Rivers and other Waters, and also within many other Places, within, about and nigh unto divers Cities, Boroughs, and Towns of the Realm, and the suburbs of them, that the air there is greatly corrupt and infect, and many Maladies and other intolerable Diseases do daily happen ... that all they which do cast and lay all such Annoyances ... shall cause them utterly to be removed, avoided, and carried away ... upon Pain to lose and forfeit to our Lord the King xx li.

And that the Mayors and Bailiffs of every such City, Borough, or Town ... shall compel the same to be done upon like Pain. ...

And moreover Proclamation shall be made ... that none ... cause to be cast or thrown from henceforth any such Annoyance, Garbage, Dung, Intrails, or any other Ordure into the Ditches, Rivers, Waters, and other Places aforesaid; and if any do, he shall be called by writ before the Chancellor, at his Suit that will complain; and if he be found guilty, he shall be punished after the Discretion of the Chancellor.

***

Quotations from Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (1976), 64, 87.

Lateran II c. 29 from Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (1990), http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM.

12 Rich. II. c. 13 from G.C. Coulton, Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation (1918), 330.

No fixed state of society, only temporary 'fixes'

We think today that if only we can set up the right social / economic policies (whether welfare state, or libertarian, or fascist, or whatever) we can assure ourselves of eternal prosperity—that we will be able to live like the 1950s, or 1990s, forever (ideally with continual technological progress at the same time).

In fact the realistic view is that wealth, ‘development level’, social cohesion, productivity, balance of trade, and so on are all continually changing, both within a country and in the world outside it. No permanent ‘state’ can be established—only temporary ‘fixes’. Chesterton said: “All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always paintng it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.” (Orthodoxy)

The medievals called the goddess Fortune, who constantly turns her Wheel and causes one nation to be preeminent for a time, then to sink into decline and give another nation its turn. And unlike us the medievals thought Fortune was arbitrary—wealth, prosperity, power, did not correspond to merit or desert, but with the chances of the world. I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

One thing we do understand today is that wealth, prosperity, and power are not pure chance, but that human choices have an impact and therefore good choices can improve one’s chances—but nevertheless it is an important corrective to this view to realize that time and chance happeneth to them all. A few historical illustrations:

If one were to look at the world in the year 1300 and were asked to predict which nation would be preeminent in wealth, reach, and influence for the next three hundred years, a good guess would have been northern Italy. Northern Italy was the wealthiest place in Europe, the most cultured and best-educated with the best universities, the most rational legal system, the greatest trade connections, flourishing industry, lively social mobility and free associations, and—above all—the most advanced techniques for business and commercial organization and the most advanced technology and science in the world. Yet Italy’s preeminence did not last even one century, let alone three. A series of wars, the plague, currency crises, and a number of external forces combined to throw Italy into a downward spiral which led in a few centuries to Italy being a notably underdeveloped nation in comparison with others of its time. And by 1600 the culture of northern Italy had changed to one hostile to work and business, quite in contrast to 300 years earlier.

Similarly if one looked in the sixteenth century Spain and Portugal would appear to be the natural world leaders. Come back in a hundred years, and it’s the Low Countries—the Netherlands and Belgium.

In the nineteenth century everything indicated that Great Britain would be the preeminent world power of the twentieth century. Her wealth, technology, and science—greatest in all the world—her navy, her vast empire; how could anything dislodge this? Yet Great Britain was not the greatest power of the twentieth century, it was the United States of America. And although there were trends that could be glimpsed which foreshadowed this, Great Britain’s eclipse by the United States was brought on above all by the First World War: an external event with its own chance causes.

No state of society, no matter how seemingly well-fixed, can persist in a static way. There will be change from within and also change outside which will alter its conditions. Therefore, since we cannot be responsible for achieving the impossible, it cannot be our responsibility to achieve ‘a just society’, ‘a prosperous society’, or whatever ideal you like—not in the sense of building a certain structure that achieves this. Our responsibility as social beings must rather be to do the right thing here and now—what does justice require now? what must we do to be prosperous now?—and the measure of ‘a just society’ would not be permanent structures but rather dispositions and habits.

This does not mean without taking thought for the long term, but without imagining that we can assume what conditions the long term will impose upon us. In this way social responsibility becomes a macrocosm of individual responsibility—no reasonable individual attempts to, or imagines that he can, establish a fixed and permanent ideal situation for his own life; at the very least he knows that he must age at the rate of sixty seconds per minute and one day indeed must die. Therefore individual responsibility does not entail making assurance for the future, but doing the right thing in the present. Likewise for social responsibility.