Message text written by "BP - His DNA is this long."
>Unfortunately all of these paradigms shifted when the stars of mass
production
and mass marketing aligned. Standards for construction as well as standards
for tradesmen began to lower as the availability of cheaper (litteraly)
materials and systems increased. <

At the risk of attracting loads of semi-fermented fruit being hurled in my
direction (by the way, fermentation is the world's oldest chemical process)
I will play devil's advocate on this issue of "the good old days" of great
workmanship. 

First of all, I see nothing wrong with standardization. In an increasingly
complex technological world, standardization facilitates the timely
achievement of levels of human activity that are unparalleled in previous
times. The writer mistakes variable standards and mass marketing
forconspiracy to promote intrusion on somebody's sense of aesthetics or
architectural values. The reality is that not every structure needs to be a
monument to its builder. Sometimes they are purely utilitarian, and
sometimes they have projected lifetimes beyond which they are disposable.
In such cases, cheap and functional is a positive thing, as it contributes
to an efficient economy in our increasingly more complex and changeable
society.

Now, here comes the rotting fruit. With regard to tradesman, I would
suggest that the goal of all of us who work in the area of technological
development is to eliminate or reduce to the absolute minimum society's
reliance on craftsmanship. And I would argue that most tradesman like it
that way. Is the tradesman repairing that historic masonry building happier
or less happy if he can do it effectively with a patching product that
requires little or no wet curing, as opposed to say, 3 or 7 or 28 days wet
curing? If we can advance technology to make it easier for less skilled
people with less training, less dedication and less artistic ability to
achieve durable and aesthetically acceptable results, how many restoration
contractors out there are going to complain? The reality is, if we don't
make it easier for less skilled people to do the job, we are going to be
put out of business, and the contractors are going to be hard-pressed to
find people who can get the work done.

As an MBA student, a long time ago, I was taught that the secret of
McDonald's marketing success was that they could train anyone to do any
job, producing a consistent product (albeit a not-so-great one) within 15
minutes. If we look at the turn-over rates in today's marketplace, that has
to be seen as visionary, even if we wish they had set a higher standard for
the finished product. As a much younger chemical engineer, 20 years ago, I
had the nerve to suggest to Swiss chocolate makers that some of their
processes were too dependant on skilled laborers, as American chocolate
makers had reduced a one-week, 900 pound batch Swiss process that required
intensive hand labor, to a fully automatic 25 hour, 2500 pounds-per-hour
process. Expert tasters couldn't tell the difference. Technology achieved
its objective, though we can lament the craftsmanship of the "good old
days" and a tradition that endured 400 years before being rendered suddenly
obsolete.

A mass-produced nail is better than a hand made nail. It's cheaper, more
consistent and can be held to a tighter standard. The price and quality of
nails today don't prevent anyone from building anything they choose to
build. Society benefits. Save the craftsmanship for the endeavors that
warrant craftsmanship. Let's face it-- we all want cheaper and better, and
we just have to make sure we are good consumers so that we actually get
what we bargained for.

Mike Edison