Category: Books

Technology Was Democratized When Standardization of Parts Enabled Simplification of Manufacture and Maintenance

There’s a lot to like about Steward Brand. His Whole Earth Catalog was quirky unpretentious fun. His How Buildings Learn, has a wonderful chapter on the ramshackle, unnamed, disrespected building on the MIT campus where quirky innovators were given space to create. His essay on Xerox Parc explained how the technology being developed there could liberate individual creativity. When Steve Jobs at Stanford delivered what is widely believed to be the best commencement address in history, he ended by quoting Stewart Brand’s final message in the 1974 Whole Earth Catalog: “Stay hungry, stay foolish.”

In the review quoted below, highlights that the simplification of production enabled by standardization of parts promoted the democratization of technology maintenance (and we might add, helped to democratize innovation too). Major simplification goes against the Theory of the Adjacent Possible which claims that technology develops toward greater and greater complexity.

(p. C7) Read front to back, “Maintenance” tells a coherent story of civilizational progress. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most machines were one-off creations, built by artisans to their own quirky specifications. But the technological age increasingly demanded standardization. Weapons led the way. If a cannonball jammed in an imprecisely bored barrel, the cannon might explode, killing its crew. On the other hand, if the parts of a flintlock rifle were interchangeable, a soldier could repair his weapon without the need for a gunsmith.

The manufacturing techniques that enabled this kind of precision gradually spread to other technologies. The same tools developed to bore cannon barrels were then used to improve steam engines. But standardization had its enemies, Mr. Brand notes, especially among gunsmiths and other artisans. During the French Revolution, the sansculottes rebelled against the new industrial techniques. “Craft was extolled; uniformity was deplored,” Mr. Brand writes. France’s technical progress was set back 50 years.

A century later, the early automobile industry faced a similar split. The original Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost, Mr. Brand writes, “was manufactured as a bespoke, unique vehicle, meticulously crafted by a dedicated team.” Henry Ford’s Model T, by contrast, was a crude but ingeniously simple machine. Ford made sure each part was manufactured to unvarying specifications, “perfect enough” that it could be installed by a moderately skilled worker on a moving assembly line. No fine-tuning needed.

Ford’s embrace of standardization allowed his Model T to be built quickly and inexpensively. But standardization had another, paradoxical effect: It allowed nonexperts to repair their own vehicles and other equipment. A farmer who owned a Model T didn’t need a forge or metal lathe to fix his engine; he could simply order a replacement part—or cannibalize one from a wrecked car in a junkyard.

The French revolutionaries feared industrialization would depersonalize society by marginalizing skilled artisans. Mr. Brand shows that, instead, standardization democratized access to technology. With a few tools and a little gumption, anyone could learn to maintain and repair the machinery of daily life.

For the full review see:

James B. Meigs. “Fixing the Future.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Dec. 6, 2025): C7.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date December 5, 2025, and has the title “‘Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One’: Making the Future.”)

The book under review is:

Brand, Stewart. Maintenance of Everything: Part One. South San Francisco, CA: Stripe Press, 2026.

An earlier Brand book that I praised in my opening comments is:

Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens after They’re Built. New York: Viking Adult, 1994.

Thomas Jefferson Thanked Edward Jenner for Advocating Vaccine

As a classical liberal, and an advocate for faster innovation, I am sympathetic to much in the health freedom movement. But I think some in the movement are making a mistake in being opposed to all vaccines. Some vaccines have done some harm, but overall the best vaccines are some of the greatest advances in medicine. I like Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the passage from the review quoted below.

(p. C8) In the 1780s Thomas Jefferson was serving as a diplomat in France when the Marquis de Lafayette brought him a message of unwelcome news from Virginia: His young daughter Lucy had died of whooping cough. The letter did not spare the absent father the grim truth: “Her sufferings were great.” Jefferson ultimately buried four of his children (including two girls named Lucy). He knew what he was saying when he wrote appreciatively to Edward Jenner, the English physician who discovered vaccination, that “medicine has never before produced any single improvement of such utility.”

For the full review see:

Kyle Harper. “Sickness And Civilization.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Jan. 24, 2026): C7-C8.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date January 23, 2026, and has the title “‘The Great Shadow’: Sickness and Civilization.”)

The book under review is:

Bauer, Susan Wise. The Great Shadow: A History of How Sickness Shapes What We Do, Think, Believe, and Buy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2026.

Entrepreneurs Make Leaps: A Critique of the Theory of the Adjacent Possible (TAP)

In my Openness book, I argue that the innovative entrepreneur is a key agent of the innovative dynamism that brings us the new goods and the process innovations through which we flourish. The Theory of the Adjacent Possible, devised by Stuart Kauffman, Roger Koppl, and collaborators, and popularized by Steven Johnson, aims to “deflate” the innovative entrepreneur, and argues that technological progress is an inevitable result of a stochastic process. I have written an extended critique of the TAP, and have posted the latest version to the SSRN working paper archive. In some ways the working paper, especially the last half, can be viewed as further elaboration and illustration of some of the points made in Openness.

The citation for, and link to, my working paper is:

Diamond, Arthur M. “Entrepreneurs Make Leaps: A Critique of the Theory of the Adjacent Possible.” (Written Jan. 26, 2026; Posted Feb. 18, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6166326

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.


“Several Biting Critiques of the Red-Tape State”

I have been so intrigued by reviews of books by Philip K. Howard that I have bought four of them. I am chagrined to admit that I have not yet read any of them–I am a slow reader, and have a long to-do list. But when I saw Howard’s suggestions of books that critique government red-tape, I made the to-do list even longer.

(p. R5) American government is overdue for a spring-cleaning, so I was delighted to read several biting critiques of the red-tape state, especially Marc Dunkelman’s “Why Nothing Works” and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s “Abundance.” What’s needed is a philosophical shift toward human agency and accountability. In “The Origins of Efficiency,” Brian Potter reveals the role of human ingenuity in refining modern technologies. In “Humanocracy,” Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini describe how decentralizing individual responsibility helps businesses thrive. Barry Lam’s “Fewer Rules, Better People” shows why fairness requires judgment on the spot. Without human oversight, systems always take on a life of their own.

The source for Philip K. Howard’s book suggestions is:

Philip K. Howard. “Who Read What in 2025: Philip K. Howard.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Dec. 13, 2025): R5.

(Note: the online version of Howard’s suggestions has the date December 12, 2025.)

The books suggested by Howard are:

Dunkelman, Marc J. Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back. New York: PublicAffairs, 2025.

Hamel, Gary, and Michele Zanini. Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People inside Them. Revised & Updated ed: Harvard Business School Press, 2025.

Klein, Ezra, and Derek Thompson. Abundance. New York: Avid Reader Press, 2025.

Lam, Barry. Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2025.

Potter, Brian. The Origins of Efficiency. South San Francisco, CA: Stripe Press, 2025.

We Do Not See the Benefits That Regulations Block

We owe to Henry Hazlitt the insight that we do not see what wonders would be, if the government was less active. We see the bridge that the government builds with our tax money. But we do not see the refrigerators, televisions and vacations that the taxpayers would have had if they had not been taxed to build the bridge. The same insight applies to government regulation.

The CEO of Oura, an increasingly popular ring that collects health data, has penned a brief op-ed, telling us a couple of features that Oura would now have if they were regulated less:

With a reformed regulatory structure, Oura customers could already be benefiting from a range of advanced features, including screening for high blood pressure. Hypertension is one of the most significant risk factors for heart disease and stroke, while high blood pressure in pregnancy can signal pre-eclampsia, a complication that endangers mother and baby. Another primed capability, sleep-apnea detection, would give users an early-warning tool for a condition that often goes undiagnosed and can lead to serious complications.

The CEO of Oura’s op-ed is:

Tom Hale. “With Less Regulation, Your Oura Ring Could Do More.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 20, 2025): A11.

(Note: the online version of the op-ed has the date Dec. 19, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Henry Hazlitt’s great little book, mentioned in my comments, is:

Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1952.

Innovative Entrepreneur Alfred Beach Privately Built and Operated America’s First Subway

Even classical liberals, strong supporters of free markets, often believe that utilities and mass transit need to be built and operated by governments. So I was delighted to learn from the book review quoted below that the first subway in the United States was privately built by a spirited innovative entrepreneur. That spirit still lives today, if we let it. (Ponder Travis Kalanick.)

(p. C9) In November 1869, the New York inventor Alfred Beach pushed the “move fast and break laws” principle to the limit in developing America’s first underground passenger railway. Without city approval—officials thought he was building a small system to improve mail delivery—he carved out a tunnel 8 feet wide, 300 feet long and right under Broadway.

. . .

Beach (1826-96) . . . was a remarkable character, a precocious innovator who channeled the forces—mass media and technological change—that were making the world modern. His father owned the New York Sun, the country’s most popular paper, and co-founded the Associated Press. Beach went to work for the Sun as a teenager; by 22 he was running it with his brother, and by 25 he sold his share to concentrate on his real passion: Scientific American, which he had bought a few years earlier. He and his partner made the publication a success and built a complementary business filing patents for the inventors who read it. When his client Thomas Edison “perfected the phonograph in 1877,” Mr. Algeo notes, he gave Beach the first demonstration, recording himself singing “Mary Had a Little Lamb.”

In 1849, when he was 23, Beach outlined in the magazine’s pages his vision of a railroad beneath Broadway, with two tracks, gas lights and stops on every corner. “The proposal was radical—the world’s first subway wouldn’t open in London for another fourteen years—and the technological hurdles were immense,” Mr. Algeo writes. The projected route involved a tunnel 20 times as long as the longest extant.

. . .

Beach . . . struggled to get approval for his plan, stymied by the interlocking corruption of Tammany bosses and real-estate interests. Elevated railways and other mass-transit rivals threatened in the meantime to crowd him out. When his railway finally did open, it lasted a mere three years, doomed by the financial crisis of 1873.

For the full review see:

Timothy Farrington. “Bookshelf; One Man’s Tunnel Vision.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Sept. 27, 2025): C9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date September 25, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘New York’s Secret Subway’: Tunnel Visions.”)

The book under review is:

Algeo, Matthew. New York’s Secret Subway: The Underground Genius of Alfred Beach and the Origins of Mass Transit. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2025.

Nimble Wine Entrepreneurs Adapt Grapes, and Wine-Making Method, to Warmer Temperatures and Changing Tastes

I have argued briefly in my Openness book, and at greater length in my “Innovative Dynamism Improves the Environment” article, that we tend to overestimate the harm from global warming in part because we tend to underestimate the nimble adaptability of entrepreneurs. The essay quoted below describes how wine entrepreneurs in Spain are returning to old grape varieties and old technologies for aging the wine, varieties and technologies that both are better adapted to warmer temperatures and are better at making the lighter and less alcoholic wines that are currently in higher demand.

(p. C3) In the rolling hills of Valencia in Spain, winemaker Pablo Calatayud has joined forces with scientists and archaeologists to mount a small viticultural revolution—one that reaches back to pre-Roman times to recreate what have become known as ancestral wines.

At his Celler del Roure, Calatayud is using large, egg-shaped clay amphorae to make wine pressed from grapes native to the region. The process is reconstructed from old texts and drawings carved into archaeological finds across the Mediterranean, including an ancient Iberian settlement that overlooks his own vineyard.

This sort of winemaking is not just a stunt, and Calatayud is hardly alone. Rising temperatures in most European wine regions are changing the taste and potency of red wine. Warmer weather means that grapes ripen more quickly and more intensely, with more sugar and thus more alcohol. In Spain, the alcohol level in notable wines aged in oak barrels now routinely exceeds 15%. But many consumers are turning away from such dark, heavy, tannin-rich wines, demanding instead reds that are lighter, more refreshing and lower in alcohol.

The grape varieties used to make ancestral wines are better suited to warmer climes than such stars of modern winemaking as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Tempranillo. The ancient varieties tend to ripen later, some even in late October, with lower sugar levels, and some have thinner skins, which makes them less tannic.

And in contrast to the oak barrels favored for aging modern red wines, which can add heavy, smoky flavors, amphorae don’t affect a wine’s taste. The clay allows for gentle micro-oxygenation—exposure to outside air—helping to preserve acidity and aromatic freshness.

As a result, the new amphora wines are breezy, light-colored and fruity on the nose—but never sweet nor exceeding 13% alcohol.

The results have pleased both critics and consumers. Wines by Celler del Roure now receive ratings as high as 96 points from top reviewers like Robert Parker Wine Advocate and are exported globally, including to the U.S.

For the full essay, see:

Bojan Pancevski. “The Growing Buzz Around Ancestral Wines.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., July 19, 2025): C3.

(Note: the online version of the essay has the date July 17, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

The Review of Austrian Economics Publishes Diamond’s Review of Creative Destruction

The Review of Austrian Economics published my review of Dalton and Logan’s Creative Destruction book on Sept. 17. It can be viewed, but not printed or saved, at: https://rdcu.be/eIMJN

Norma Swenson Defended Health Freedom for Women

A recurring question raised by my libertarian and classical liberal friends is: how can we persuade others of the value of freedom? One answer is to especially seek conversation with those who strongly object to losing their freedom in some part of their life that they value. As I read the obituary of Norma Swenson, co-author of the book Our Bodies, Ourselves, I thought I recognized her as a libertarian fellow-traveler. She passionately sought for herself and other women to have greater freedom in making their own medical decisions.

Today, born out of outrage over the government’s over-reaching Covid controls, a “health freedom” movement has grown and organized, seeking more broadly (though not always consistently) for all adults to be able to make their own medical decisions.

Libertarians and classical liberals should let those seeking health freedom know that we are with them, in principle and in practice. Many of my own blog entries defend health freedom, for instance here and here.

(p. B11) Norma Swenson was working to educate women about childbirth, championing their right to have a say about how they delivered their babies, when she met the members of the collective that had put out the first rough version of what would become the feminist health classic “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

. . .

She . . . [knew] quite a bit about the medical establishment, the paternalistic and condescending behavior of male doctors (only 6 percent of incoming medical students were women in 1960) and the harmful effect such behavior had on women’s health. She had lived it, during the birth of her daughter in 1958.

. . .

She would go on to help make “Our Bodies, Ourselves” a global best seller.

. . .

The author Barbara Ehrenreich called it a manifesto of medical populism.

. . .

It was her daughter’s birth that had made Ms. Swenson an activist. She wanted to deliver the baby naturally, without medication. Her decision was such an anomaly that residents at the Boston Lying-In Hospital gathered to watch her labor. It went swimmingly.

But Ms. Swenson, who was in a 12-bed ward, was surrounded by women who were suffering. They were giving birth according to the practices of the era: with a dose of scopolamine, a drug that induced so-called twilight sleep and hallucinations, followed by a shot of Demerol, an opioid.

She remembered the women screaming, trying to climb out of their beds, calling for their mothers and cursing their husbands before being knocked out by the Demerol, their babies delivered by forceps.

It was barbaric, she thought. “These women weren’t being helped,” she said in 2018, “they were being controlled.”

For the full obituary, see:

Penelope Green. “Norma Swenson, 93, an Author Of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves.” The New York Times (Friday, June 20, 2025): B11.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed word, added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated June 16, 2025, and has the title “Norma Swenson, an Author of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves,’ Dies at 93.”)

The most recent edition of the book co-authored by Norma Swenson is:

Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Atria Books, 2011.

Brigham and Epstein Have the Guts to Nudge the Overton Window

The Overton Window is the range of “officially acceptable” or “politically correct” policy views. The left has been successful at shifting the window in their direction, for instance, in cancelling those who question any aspect of the global warming ideology for being outside polite discourse. In the face of cancel culture it takes courage to challenge the current Overton Window. Brigham and Epstein (see below) have that courage. Their views should be considered.

(p. B12) Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and other oil giants are expected to receive billions of dollars of incentives to collect and bury carbon emissions. Texas oil billionaire Ben “Bud” Brigham and pro-fossil-fuels activist Alex Epstein want to turn off the tap.

Brigham, a serial entrepreneur and libertarian from Austin, is urging President Trump and the Republicans who are considering slashing a host of energy incentives to go further and nix tax credits for carbon capture.

. . .

Brigham says he doubts carbon capture can be profitable without public funding and that it is a distraction from firms’ core mission of finding oil and gas. He says that the subsidies distort markets and encourage cronyism.

A geophysicist by training, Brigham made his fortune building and selling two oil companies for a total of about $7 billion. He is an Ayn Rand fan who has produced two movies based on the philosopher’s work. He was also a major backer of what is now the Civitas Institute, a conservative center that launched in 2022 at the University of Texas at Austin.

Brigham first met Epstein, another Rand fan, about a decade ago. The two men bonded over a common belief in the importance of free markets and fossil fuels. Epstein is the author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” a book saying that the imperative to fuel societies flourishing with oil and gas outweighs climate-change risks. It has given Republicans ammunition to counter the left’s climate push, oil lobbyists say.

For the full story, see:

Benoît Morenne. “Oil Tycoon, Philosopher Fight Carbon-Capture Goals.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., July 1, 2025): B12.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 28, 2025, and has the title “The Oil Tycoon and the Philosopher Threatening Big Oil’s Bet on Carbon Capture.”)

Epstein’s book, mentioned above, is:

Epstein, Alex. The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. New York: Portfolio, 2014.