Bucky Fuller: The Cracking of a Geodesic Egghead

The other nite I went to see a fully accredited culture hero. A liberally lovely evening. The whole range of beautiful people and even a couple real ones came out to hear a kindly and intentionally invisible old man. I was surrounded, engulfed, by just-rite long hair overflowing Harris-Tweed-Jackets. My hungry hormones kept me distracted as too beautiful women in bluest blue jeans, with that just-rite toudh of peroxide, smiled langurously to a not-too-listened-to lecture. What a strange assortment of people! I suppose it was the beginning of their weekend, — a time to “let loose.” But a bit too beautiful to be natural. Too frightened to be real. And punctuated by a seventy year old couple squeezed next to a glazed eyed wild haired freek. What sort of prophet calls forth an assemblage such as this? Timothy Leary is on an extended vacation, so it must be that Bucky Fuller’s back in town.

If you look in the front of your Whole Earth Catalogue, Whole Systems, Pg. 3, there’s plenty of introduction to the rich thoughts of this wise old man. Apparently all of his lectures and books are somewhat the same. “People who beef about, Fuller mainly complain about his repetition, — the same idea again and again, it’p embarrassing. It is embarrassing, also illuminating, because the same notions take on different uses when re-approached from different angles or with different contexts. Fuller’s lectures have a raga quality of rich, nonlinear, endless improvisations full of convergent surprises.” Of course the ideas are the same, and that really is nothing to beef about, (or they all begin with the same point — the life story of R. Buckminster Fuller.

After 76 years Fuller has plenty to tell us about himself. Born in the Boston area, parents apparently wealthy, well educated, taught at and fired from Harvard, naval officer — all rather normal so far, at least as normal as Tim Leary before he received his accreditation with the same “degree” of termination from the same institute of higher (?) learning. Then the life of the culture hero, Fuller not Leary, takes a turn to the interesting. In 1927 he became a hippie (without moving to San Francisco). He gave up the “general economic dictum of society, . i.e. that every individual who wants to survive must earn a living.” A bit of background on this background — apparently, with subject matter as full as Fuller, one must digress in as full a manner as Fuller at a full Fuller lecture.

To say that man is differentiated from animals because he uses tools is a common misconception. Tools are not manifestations of just humans, rather they are extensions of that with which one is born. For example, a nest is a tool in that it is an extension of the womb of the bird. It is a tool that is necessitated by the demands of the birds environment, i.e,. if the bird carried its ■ young around in its own womb it would be too heavy to fly. Thus, it uses a nest as an extension of itself (tool) for survival.

Fuller breaks down tools into two classes. Craft tools are all the tools that could be invented by an animal in the wilderness due to the natural experiences it has with its environment — nests, a club, perhaps a lever. Industrial tools are all the tools that cannot be produced by one individual. Which means that there will be a cumulative carryover in time, plus a sharing of these tools. The spoken word would be the first of this type of tool. — End of digression. Let’s get back to the life and times.

Fuller’s major realization, back in ’27, was that man is largely a product of his conditioned responses. Of most of these he is not even aware, i.e. it appears to be the “natural way” of doing something. Our audience is asked, who does not use the words “up” and “down”? The response is very interesting considering everyone uses these words which do not describe what we really mean. The use of the words up and down implies that the world is a plane. No\y we all know that the earth is a sphere, yet we continue to use words that are reflective of a 16th century concept of our planet. Words are industrial tools, therefore they have a cumulative carryover in time. We continue to use words that may have been reflective of our state of knowledge in previous centuries that no longer describe, or even worse, mask our current awareness. What effect does this have on our perception of the world? What kind of ideas does this kind of thinking lead to? Perhaps many of our cultural assumptions are antiquated?

With this in mind, Fuller began two years of silence and apparent reflection upon the true meaning of the. words and ideas that we use. Which of them are accurate? Which of them are conditioned responses that are no longer fruitful. Is “peace” peace? Or is it simply the condition imposed by the last victor? Do we really need to earn a living, or does this mean we need to earn the right to live? The working assumption in this case is that man reproduces geometrically while wealth reproduces arithmatically — thus there cannot be enough to go around (Malthus). This leads to social darwinism, the right and necessity of the strong to survive; to wars of conquest, to robber barons, to the dominance of man over man. Thus each man has to fight for the right to earn a living. But wealth has increased at a greater rate than man. Malthus was mistaken because he measured wealth as physical; i.e., gold, factoris, mineral resources. And he saw that the physical wealth would definitely be limited to the amount on the planet. In 1810 the total wealth of the U.S. was about three billion dollars (this is the total value of all homesteads, lands, buildings, lumber, mineral resources, and of course, slaves), by 1970 the total wealth had increased to ten trillion dollars. Now if you figure that wealth is physical, ten trillion dollars in more wealth than existed on the entire planet in 1810. Where could this wealth have come from?

The trick is that wealth is not only physical but also metaphysical. Wealth can be, has been, increased by a more systematic, rational use of the metaphysical —. the mind. While it is true that some of our increased wealth is due to the plundering of other nations, most of our wealth is the result of scientific discoveries, industrialization and the development of technology. Metaphysical, wealth can only increase and can’t be used up, Every time we use our metaphysical abilities we can only increase our wealth. And Fuller’s “World Game” teaches that with proper distribution and rational planning there is a superabundance to go around, — without pollution. Do we really need to earn a living? Or is this a conditioned response?

People are beginning to trickle out as the history of Buckminster Fuller continues. The room is warm and close and stuffy. Poor planning? Feet are shuffling in a modestly restless rhythm a quarter beat off his rambling liturgy. The lecture has gone on for two hours. Fuller has almost reached the point at which he said he would begin. A near-rapt audience is considering why they’re listening on the edge of their chairs. Points do not explode, they blossom with time and care. The life and thoughts of Buckminster Fuller develop slowly, and are rich.

“To begin our position fixing aboard our Spaceship Earth we must first acknowledge that the abundance of immediately consumable, obviously desirable or utterly essential resources have been sufficient until now to allow us to carry on despite our ignorance. But eventually exhaustable and spoilable, they have been adequate only up to this crucial moment. This cushion-for-error of humanity’s survival and growth up to now was apparently provided just as a bird inside an egg is provided with liquid nutriment to develop it to a certain point. But then by design the nutriment is exhausted at just the time when the chick is large enough to be able to locomote on its own legs. And so as the chick pecks at the shell seeking more nutriment it inadvertently breaks open the shell. Stepping forth from its initial sanctuary, the young bird must now forage on its own legs and wings to discover the next phase of its regenerative sustenance.” (Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth)

We have been using our oil and coal at a fantastic rate, as our “cushion for error.” And now, following the conditioned response that tells us that power is gained from using something up, we have embarked on using up the basic particles of all matter, the atom. A “new” source of power. But one minute of one hurricane produces more energy than all the bombs stockpiled in the world. Why hasn’t the energy of the tides (inexhaustable, regular and clean) and the wasted radiant energy of the sun been tapped? Why must we use something up to get power? Can we afford to depend on our cushion-for-error?

‘‘The designed omission of the instruction book on how to operate and maintain Spaceship Earth [moving through the universe as a closed system at 60,000 m.p.h.] and its complex life supporting and regenerating systems has forced man to discover retrospectively just what his most important ^forward capabilities are . . . His intellect had to discover itself. Intellect in turn had to compound the facts of his experience.” Once intellect was discovered to be man’s major source of tools, he began a specialization in various intellectual fields to further develop a.nd refine his discoveries. Lacking the Fuller overview, and following conditioned responses, he did not see that what was needed was a new tool that would act as an extension of his brain. Brain, I again digress, is that which stores experience. Mind is that which, by reviewing the stored experiences, begins to discover a principle between them. We have gone to great lengths in our disciplines, in schooling and in science to further categorize and specialize. Yet the biologist discovers that he must become a bio-chemist, the psychologist sees the need for social psychology — for we are dealing with whole systems, whole men and whole societies. Therefore Fuller predicted the rise of the whole man once again, with the work of the brain largely relegated to that super efficient tool, computers. Fuller fans are quick to point out that this is just what has been happening.

Without dealing fairly with the full range of Fullers thoughts, neglecting such wide areas as SYNERGY, the invention of the Geodesic Dome, and his concept of history, I have tried to give some taste of an evening with this fine old man. I’ve spent many valuable evenings with people who could go on for 5-6 hours with an interesting rap about Kikuyu initiation rites, social change in America or colonialism in pre-independence Africa, so long monologues per se aren’t particularly mind boggling for me. But leaving this lecture I was left with some uneasy questions. At first I thought I had been stimulated by “Fuller thought.” But I began to find that the questions were not so much aimed at Fuller but at his audience.

Why is this man a culture hero? What is his appeal and what does this say about our culture? Some of his appeal is obvious. Ours is a culture that is interested in new forms of thought, consciousness, life styles and liberation — we’re anti-pollution, anti-war and anti-the American Way. In our most general sense we seem to be developing a new man in a new culture. We seem to be interested in CHANGE. Change on a vast and unprecedented scale, and we see no logical reason that we shouldn’t have it now. And one of our cultural heroes, for at least a part of our culture, is this man: R. Buckminster Fuller. Why?

Mr. Fuller sees himself somewhat as a “new man.” A man who wears three watches (one for his home base, one for where he is and one for where he’s going to — a citizen of the world) and one who believes that “possession is becoming progressively burdensome and wasteful and therefore obsolete.” He is a man who at 32 attempted to divorce himself from his culture and its assumptions. But did he really? Can a man divorce himself from his culture? Does he really want to? Or does he want to intensify his feeling of self and feelings for others, by a reaffirming of his cultural self and delving into his roots with a new sense of health and a mission of liberating and developing his own culture?

In Spaceship Earth Mr. Fuller points out the absurdity of cattle walking about, untouched, amongst starving masses in India. What happens if you merely introduce a more “rational” system in India? What happens to the people of the culture you must destroy? Is he proposing a vast, rapidly industrialized (nee rational) world? Well we’ve got a vast, rapidly industrialized country here. And what we’ve got is a lot of frightened, anti-humane people who lack the sense of history, tradition and culture that seems so necessary to produce a whole man. That sure does leave me with a lot of questions!

Ours is the first generation that has questioned, and questioned deeply, those conditioned responses that Mr. Fuller attacks. Most of us come from white middle-class backgrounds, but we can hardly say that we are typically white or typically middle classed. We have done much of what this fine old man did many years ago. This in itself is enough to endear him to us. But not enough to make him a hero. When we make a man a hero we are listening to his message. Not just his past, or his interesting thoughts on the present, but also the future and the salvation that he speaks of. And this is where I’m most confused. For the principle of salvation for Mr. Fuller is technology. More industrialization, cybernetics, further use of the computer as an extension of brain. Does the part of our new culture that makes Mr. Fuller a cultural hero believe this? Is this a generation, a new culture, that believes that CHANGE will come about by technology? Rather than an examination of conditioned responses this seems to be a further extension of the American Way. How are we breaking away from conditioned responses by one more input of the thing that brought us to here? Mr. Fuller thinks that he’s a man of the world, not a man of any one nation. But in fact, no matter how long he didn’t talk for, he does live in a pre-established system. And even if he wears six watches there’s no way that he’s going to change that. Technology can be, has been, and will be co-opted, USED, by the system that exists. More technology in the U.S. will lead to greater and greater corporate consolidation, corporate rule and corporate “protection” — greater and greater machines of war. Certainly technology will produce more rational systems, but rational for whom?

Perhaps it’s time to take a more naked look at our pal, Bucky Fuller. Let’s blow away the marijuana smoke from our eyes and see what the hero looks like without any clothes on. R. Buckminster Fuller is a brilliant and wide-ranging but full blown American Capitalist. He is a man who lectures instead of engaging in dialogue. A man who has detailed patents on every one of his super modern domes. What he means when he says that “possession is becoming obsolete ...” is that he rents his cars now at each airport as he flies around the world. That is — Buckminster Fuller is Rich. And when he says he decided that he didn’t have to work, he means that he let his wife and wealthy parents support him. Buckminster Fuller fits into the existing system very well. In fact he helps perpetuate it. He reminds me of Dostoevsky’s doctor who said “I love humanity, but I wonder at myself. The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.” Fuller never moves beyond universal man to particular man, universal systems to the ‘systems that already exist (and must be dealt with). This is the meaning of Maulana Ron Karenga’s comment:

Man is only man in a philosophy class' or a biology lab. In the world he is an African, Asian or South American. He is a Chinese making a cultural revolution, or an Afro-American with soul. He lives by bread and butter, enjoys red beans and rice, or watermelons and ice cream.

Because he .assumes that he has divorced himself from his culture ( vhich he hasn’t) he makes the assumption that man can separate himself from his culture. But when you’re talking about, man you’ve got to be talking about Karenga’s man of watermelon and ice cream or else you’re going ta run into the same shotgun blast that Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper found. There is no easy ride — the world we’re dealing with is very real. The change we seem to want is not going to come about by a further plugging into the American Ethic. One more big shot of technology just ain’t gonna do it. All it can do is integrate with and make the existing system stronger.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not against technology and I’m not against how rich Mr. Fuller’s thought has been. Technology can’t and shouldn’t be stopped. It should be used. But technology is neutral; it can be used well and it can be used badly. To present it in a vacuum as the future of man, instead of the future of people is only to cloud the issue. Mr. Fuller should have been a hero in the 30’s. To make him a hero today is only to pat ourselves on the back. For he is a “respected” man who long ago asked the kind of questions that we are asking. We don’t need to pat ourselves on the back. We know that the direction we are developing in is more humane, more political (dealing with human relations) — a step in some better direction. We can’t afford to glorify ourselves in the personage of R. Buckminster Fuller. We’ve got work to do and that work is change. Change that will permit technology to become a liberating instead of an oppressive force* For people instead of “man.”

The systematic approach of R. Buckminster Fuller is very logical, rational and beautiful to reflect on: But it doesn’t .mean shit at all in the real world. Sure it’s seductive and smooth, but glorifying the process, like glorifying man, can only lock you into your own navel and into a system you know needs change. “Reforms and revolution are created by the illogical actions of people. Very few logical people ever make reforms and none make revolutions. Rights are what you make and what you take.” (James Boggs)