expressed through
subjective, complex interaction-enabling structures that have evolved since the
emergence of the species. A current culmination of such structures is found in
the religious organizations through which humans effect the complex policies
that have allowed them to ascend to the top rung of the evolutionary ladder.
For computer systems, the social analogue is grounded in computer networks;
but, not just simple networks. Rather, we find the more profound illustration
in the interconnection of networks; that is, within the all-encompassing
network construct that we know as the Internet.
To be clear, networks
provide the framework for a complex organization of computers, and hence in our
view they suggest significant parallels with social structures that culminate
in religious organizations. However, they do not constitute the religious
analogue in and of themselves. Rather, they support an electronic (cyber)
extension of the fabric of society that encompasses the physical and social
ecosystems in which humans exist. As with religion, they still do not solely
constitute the fabric themselves. To adopt a weaving metaphor, orthogonal
mechanisms form the warp and the
woof of social systems much like the warp and woof foundations of a
fabric on which the weaver creates the finished cloth. So, what forms the
fabric of our social systems? To answer this question, we suggest that one
should start from the result and try to reverse engineer the cause. The
authors, being computer guys in general, and software guys specifically, deem
it appropriate to approach the problem by considering the environment that has
facilitated the computer world as we know it within the United States.
The question we
ask is, “Why has the United States been the preeminent nurturer of the
software business or of the computer business in general for that matter?”
Indeed, we observe that the vast majority of computer and software product
companies are based in the United States. This situation emerged with the
appearance of the first operational computers in the 1940’s and has now been
true for many generations. If we can at least qualitatively understand this, we
should be able to discern a patterned framework through which to interpret the
architecture of successful software systems and their evolutionary progression.
Amazon, Dell, Digital Equipment, eBay, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft,
Oracle; these are only a few of the past or present most familiar names that
have almost no equivalent anywhere else in the world. If computers and computer
networks, as we have suggested, truly reflect the social orders of the species,
then we should see at least something of a cause and effect relationship.
As an added
wrinkle, we ponder that while the companies that we mentioned all started in
the United States, a recent lynchpin of the operational form of complex
computer networks has been the emergence of trusted computers, as basic
elements of families of personal electronic devices. These devices comprise
major components of extensive service networks themselves, and they facilitate
an entry of the individual into larger and more comprehensive computer
networks. In fact, they form an intimate reflection of the very architecture of
such networks. Moreover, these trusted core components of personal electronic
devices were developed in Europe. Ah yes, but the software systems into
which they are embedded, converging to the Internet, derived from the United States. Other recent examples of a similar kind
are Linux, Skype and the World Wide Web. All are inventions made in Europe that migrated to the United States when they turned into businesses. So,
again the question, “What, from an historical perspective, made the United
States a superior incubator of the computer business?”
One way to look
at an answer is to assume the hypothesis that somehow this situation would be
reflective of the social ecosystem within which those businesses flourish. From
that perspective, within the United States the Constitution forms the basis of
social structure on which all else depends. Within the context of the weaving
metaphor that we mentioned earlier, the Constitution
|