Tools are intrinsic to social relationships. An individual relates himself in action to his society through the use of tools that he actively masters, or by which he is passively acted upon. To the degree that he masters his tools, he can invest the world with his meaning; to the degree that he is mastered by his tools, the shape of the tool determines his own self-image. Convivial tools are those which give each person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision.

A just society would be one in which liberty for one person is constrained only by the demands created by equal liberty for
another. Such a society requires as a precondition an agreement excluding tools that by their very nature prevent such liberty.
This is true for tools that are fundamentally purely social arrangements, such as the school system, as well as for tools that are
physical machines. In a convivial society compulsory and open-ended schooling would have to be excluded for the sake of
justice. Age-specific, compulsory competition on an unending ladder for lifelong privileges cannot increase equality but must
favor those who start earlier, or who are healthier, or who are better equipped outside the classroom. Inevitably, it organizes
society into many layers of failure, with each layer inhabited by dropouts schooled to believe that those who have consumed
more education deserve more privilege because they are more valuable assets to society as a whole. A society constructed so
that education by means of schools is a necessity for its functioning cannot be a just society. Power tools having certain
Tools for Conviviality
Page 18 Document developed using Purplestructural characteristics are inevitably manipulative and must also be eliminated for the sake of justice. In a modern society,
energy inputs represent one of the major new liberties. Each man's ability to produce change depends on his ability to control
low-entropy energy. On this control of energy depends his right to give his meaning to the physical environment. His ability
to act toward the future lie chooses depends on his control of the energy that gives shape to that future. Equal freedom in a
society that uses large amounts of environmental energy means equal control over the transformation of that energy and not
just an equal claim to what has been done with it. 5

Convivial tools are those which give each person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision.

But this does not mean that the transition from our present to a convivial mode of production can be accomplished without
serious threats to the survival of many people. At present the relationship between people and their tools is suicidally
distorted. The survival of Pakistanis depends on Canadian grain, and the survival of New Yorkers on world-wide exploitation
of natural resources. The birth pangs of a convivial world society will inevitably be violently painful for hungry Indians and
for helpless New Yorkers. I will later argue that the transition from the present mode of production, which is
Overwhelmingly industrial, toward conviviality may start suddenly. But for the sake of the survival of many people it will be
Tools for Conviviality
Page 7 Document developed using Purpledesirable that the transition does not happen all at once. I argue that survival in justice is possible only at the cost of those
sacrifices implicit in the adoption of a convivial mode of production and the universal renunciation of unlimited progeny,
affluence, and power on the part of both individuals and groups. This price cannot be extorted by some despotic Leviathan,
nor elicited by social engineering. People will rediscover the value of joyful sobriety and liberating austerity only if they
relearn to depend on each other rather than on energy slaves. The price for a convivial society will be paid only as the result
of a political process which reflects and promotes the society-wide inversion of present industrial consciousness. This
political process will find its concrete expression not in some taboo, but in a series of temporary agreements on one or the
other concrete limitation of means, constantly adjusted under the pressure of conflicting insights and interests.

"Certain tools are destructive no matter who owns them, whether it be the Mafia, stockholders, a foreign company, the state,
or even a workers' commune. Networks of multilane highways, long. range, wide-band-width transmitters, strip mines, or
compulsory school systems are such tools. Destructive tools must inevitably increase regimentation, dependence,
exploitation, or impotence, and rob not only the rich but also the poor of conviviality, which is the primary treasure in many
so-called "underdeveloped" areas."

Most of the successful innovators and entrepreneurs in this book had one thing in common: they were product people. They cared about, and deeply understood, the engineering and design. They were not primarily marketers or salesmen or financial types; when such folks took over companies, it was often to the detriment of sustained innovation. “When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off,” Jobs said. Larry Page felt the same: “The best leaders are those with the deepest understanding of the engineering and product design.”34 Another lesson of the digital age is as old as Aristotle: “Man is a social animal.” What else could explain CB and ham radios or their successors, such as WhatsApp and Twitter? Almost every digital tool, whether designed for it or not, was commandeered by humans for a social purpose: to create communities, facilitate communication, collaborate on projects, and enable social networking. Even the personal computer, which was originally embraced as a tool for individual creativity, inevitably led to the rise of modems, online services, and eventually Facebook, Flickr, and Foursquare. Machines, by contrast, are not social animals. They don’t join Facebook of their own volition nor seek companionship for its own sake. When Alan Turing asserted that machines would someday behave like humans, his critics countered that they would never be able to show affection or crave intimacy. To indulge Turing, perhaps we could program a machine to feign affection and pretend to seek intimacy, just as humans sometimes do. But Turing, more than almost anyone, would probably know the difference. According to the second part of Aristotle’s quote, the nonsocial nature of computers suggests that they are “either a beast or a god.” Actually, they are neither. Despite all of the proclamations of artificial intelligence engineers and Internet sociologists, digital tools have no personalities, intentions, or desir

[ Technology is] the instrumentality for accessing and using free energies in human societies for human and social purposes.

Cultures may be classed into three types: tool-using cultures, technocracies, and technopolies. ...until the seventeenth century, all cultures were tool-users. ...the main characteristic of all tool-using cultures is that their tools were largely invented to do two things: to solve specific and urgent problems of physical life, such as in the use of waterpower, windmills, and the heavy-wheeled plow; or to serve the symbolic world of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion, as in the construction of castles and cathedrals and the development of the mechanical clock. In either case, tools (...were not intended to attack) the dignity and integrity of the culture into which they were introduced. With some exceptions, tools did not prevent people from believing in their traditions, in their God, in their politics, in their methods of education, or in the legitimacy of their social organization...

When we use a tool in everyday life, it usually remains a detached instrument under my control and activated only when, where, and how I decide. … In contrast, conceptual innovations often “stick,” escape our control and become part of reality itself. Once Hobbes invents the idea of the “state” this idea can come into contact with real social forces with unforeseeable results. The “tool” develops a life of its own, and can become an inextricable part of the fabric of life itself.

Conformity-enforcing packs of viscious children and adults gradually shape the social complexes we know as religion, science, corporations, ethnic groups, and even nations. The tools of our cohesion include ridicule, rejection, snobbery, self-righteousness, assault, torture, and death by stoning, lethal injection, or the noose. A collective brain may sound warm and fuzzily New Age, but one force lashing it together is abuse.

Automated machine processes not only know our behavior but also shape our behavior at scale. With this reorientation from knowledge to power, it is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal is to automate us. ... Just as industrial society was imagined as a well-functioning machine, Instrumentarian society is imagined as a human simulation of machine learning systems: a confluent hive mind in which each element learns and operates in concert with every other element. In the model of machine confluence, the “freedom” of each individual machine is subordinated to the knowledge of the system as a whole. Instrumentarian power is to organize, herd, and tune society to achieve a similar social confluence, in which group pressure and computational certainty replace politics and democracy.