Looks promising based on the description. Seems strange that they are starting Mac only. There are so many cross platform alternatives and not having a web version sounds very limiting.
I can not get the link to your paper to work? So I will ask you here. OGM’s goal is to address the major problems of the world. What tools address such.?
Tony: link to my paper? I am confused. I gave a link to someone else’s paper.
Meanwhile, your Epic Quest: what tools address major problems - is truly the quest du jour.
If we walk back our time machine to the days when the late Douglas Engelbart was lecturing to us, we are reminded that tools are only a tiny part of the system. He spoke in terms of human systems and tool systems co-evolving, to which I will add that this all happens in the context of the environment, the ecosystem.
His big idea was that he spoke in terms of capabilities infrastructures, and improving those; he spoke of improvement communities and then he spoke of networked improvement communities - NICs.
If I am permitted to paint over that with a light pastel wash, it would be this: in Engelbart’s day, compute power was not that of your cell phone, but that of a room-sized transistorized monster. In his later years, cell phones and laptops emerged, but his BigDemo (The Mother of All Demos) was on heavy iron. From that, I would argue that tool systems have evolved at a rate vastly faster than human systems. From which I deduce that if there is a tool system focus today, it needs to be one in which the target is improved human systems, not just faster computing of correlations and so forth.
From that, I argue, in response to your question, that we need to use our improved tool systems to build social systems which aim at Humans 3dot0, not at selling stuff.
As Pogo said: “We have met the enemy, and he is us”.
And so I will now read, http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1973_tools_for_convivality.html
That page would not open for me; I found this
problem statement clear enough, Introduction, p. 10
“Society can be destroyed when further growth of mass production renders the milieu hostile, when it extinguishes the free use of the natural abilities of society’s members, when it isolates people from each other and locks them into a man-made shell, when it undermines the texture of community by promoting extreme social polarization and splintering specialization, or when cancerous acceleration enforces social change at a rate that rules out legal, cultural, and political precedents as formal guidelines to present behavior. Corporate endeavors which thus threaten society cannot be tolerated. At this point it becomes irrelevant whether an enterprise is nominally owned by individuals, corporations, or the state, because no form of management can make such fundamental destruction serve a social purpose.”
Convivial reconstruction p. 48:
“Progress should mean growing competence in self-care rather than growing dependence.”
This heuristic seems to a core value of Illich’s chart of remedy. I find it too simple for the realities of collective humanity. We are too misled by dogmatic assumptions from misunderstood beliefs we hold as knowledge: “competition for survival” from heretofore unassailable social Darwinism at several different developmental levels of past and contemporary global (species, collective,) consciousness. True ecology understands complex interdependence as necessary for resilient complex adaptive systems. A true economics would as well. A pharmakon of interdependence must realize its toxicity, not so much in quantitative but rather more deeper qualitative terms.