Review: Buckminster Fuller Helped Inspire Our Future
The new book Inventor of the Future prefers to show him as a credit hog.

For decades, Buckminster Fuller maintained a reputation as a visionary innovator transforming our approach to everything from auto design to architecture to geometry. He was profiled in Time as early as 1932, and was its cover star in 1964 even before blossoming as a counterculture hero in the late 1960s, with help from fellow multidisciplinary visionary Stewart Brand and his Whole Earth Catalog. Fuller became a generation-gap-bridging icon of technology as a means to goals both pragmatic and transcendent.
Fuller always had doubters as well as acolytes; rarely did his design or building ideas work out as he hoped, either as objects or as revolutions in cars or housing (or bathrooms—his interests were wide-ranging). As a public intellectual, his prose and speaking style could be so hermetically convoluted that one editor disbelieved one of his books was even in English. (He was punchy at times, though, as when he wisely noted that losing our industrial infrastructure would be an unspeakable tragedy, but losing all our politicians would likely make us better off.)
In Inventor of the Future, Alec Nevala-Lee deflates Fuller's reputation, portraying him as an often prevaricating credit hog and serial business failure as he strove to create a new housing industry based on lightness and standardization, resulting in his iconic geodesic domes. But his failures and overreaches aren't the whole story. Industries such as personal computing and physical discoveries such as a new form of carbon molecule were indebted to his ideas, even if he was sometimes a bit of a snake oil salesman. By popularizing the importance of ephemeralization—using technology to get more human value with less use of finite resources—his inspiration underlies the best possible tech futures.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
About time there was a piece about my namesake!
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://www.LiveJob247.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply
COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE________ http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
Now I have to ask: "Is being called 'Full of Buckminster' necessarily a good thing?". 🙂
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently (ibf-13) making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link-------------------------------------->>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I remember as a kid when all the adults were going on and on about geodesic domes. "Just a dome" I said. And it's true. Any civilization could have invented it provided they had first developed soda straws.
Useful for building? Uh no. As a kid I didn't know, but as an adult I know. The reason buildings are square and oblong is because that makes them a heck of a lot easier to construct when you're working with wood and steel and prefabs. They are also more space efficient for those living in them. Actually imagine living in a dome, what do you do with the top half of the dome besides pay for heating it? A squat cylinder is more efficient.
Yada, yada, yada. Yes, he's over rated.
"The reason buildings are square and oblong is because that makes them a heck of a lot easier to construct when you’re working with wood and steel and prefabs."
It's also modernist aesthetics. Post modernists like Frank Geary shun the rectilinear and embrace the curve. They can do this thanks to advances like computers and 3D printing.
"A squat cylinder is more efficient. "
How? A dome encloses the most volume with the least surface area. The greater the surface area, the more heat is lost. Domes didn't fail because of energy inefficiency, but due to water leaking from the outside to the inside.
Because putting square furniture against curved sides wastes space. Curved furniture doesn't solve the problem; it also would be more expensive, have to vary its curvature for your exact house, and who would want to sit on a curved sofa whose ends are too short and middle too deep?
As for the top, yes it's a waste. The sides have to be high enough for people, meaning the center is too high. Houses used to have 10 foot ceilings; they no longer do because it wastes all the heat the collects there. A house where you can't walk within 3-4 feet of the walls and the center is so high that your head is cooler than elsewhere? What a dream!
"Because putting square furniture against curved sides wastes space."
You'll find domes along the lines that Fuller envisioned in harsh environments like the arctic and antarctic, where energy efficiency is paramount, and the lack of readily available curved furniture is not seen as a deal breaker.
Great for the Arctic and Antarctic. Thus igloos. Great for submarines.
Inefficient elsewhere. Funny how your efficiency dwindled so fast in the real world.
"Great for the Arctic and Antarctic."
That seems to be the case. Because energy efficiency is paramount. I imagine if we ever build structures on the moon they will be domes. Though possibly large domes enclosing smaller rectilinear structures furnished with conveniently arranged standard furniture for human habitation.
"efficiency dwindled so fast in the real world."
The polar regions are just as real as anywhere else on the planet. The difference is that in these regions energy efficiency trumps convenient furniture arrangements.
Make money online from home extra cash more than $18000 to $21000. Start getting paid every month Thousands Dollars online. I have received $26000 in this month by just working online from home in my part time. every person easily do this job.OPEN>>
HERE====)>>> GOOGLE WORK
You are trying to deflect again. Here is your original comment:
No mention of Antarctica or the Arctic. Just a bald-faced claim that domes failed because they leaked.
Mtrueman, true to form.
Sorry for not making my original comment more comprehensive. Or mentioning polar regions. Domes in polar regions don't have the leaking problem. In temperate zones, they do. Ask any architect, though be careful. Some of them are proggies. Leaking has always been a problem. The dome in Montreal was leaking from day one.
"Houses used to have 10 foot ceilings; they no longer do because it wastes all the heat the collects there"
The reason for 10 foot ceilings is due to the lack of air conditioning in those times. Every internal and external door would have transoms, which is a window above the door. And external windows would reach to the ceiling as well. In the Summer, when heat collected near the ceiling, it could easily move through the building and be expelled. I attended a school in the 1960's that was built this way in the 1940's. Most buildings built during or prior to that era would have that type of construction.
Also, if the efficiency of surface area vs volume were paramount, houses would be underground, or would be cubes. I knew someone whose dream house would be a square to maximize volume vs surface area. When I pointed out that a one story cube was less efficient than a cube, he blew his top and told me how stupid I was.
There's a reason no one builds square houses: they want windows in every room. Imagine a 50x50 house, 2500 square feet. There's going to be space in the center with no windows. Do you put all your closets, pantry, and other storage in the middle? People won't like it, it's not practical.
Imagine instead you make it two stories, 20 feet tall. Now it only needs to be 35 feet square. Put the stairs in the center, every room has a window. You lose, what, 100 sq feet to the stairs? Make it 36 feet square. Or go to three story, 30 feet tall, 30 foot wide.
Domes squeeze out the last drop of heating and cooling efficiency only is you ignore all the extra size from all the wasted floor space at the sides, and ignore the extra construction and maintenance costs. I'd like to see your shingling pattern, or however you think you'd manage a roof.
"Also, if the efficiency of surface area vs volume were paramount, houses would be underground, or would be cubes."
The geodesic domes in the arctic and antarctic are above ground. I suppose the designers had their reasons for above ground structures.
"Do you put all your closets, pantry, and other storage in the middle?"
When Andy Warhol visited the dome in Montreal he was impressed like everyone else. He said though it would have been better if they'd left it empty.
And this is relevant to real life ... how?
Your strawman has fallen apart. Perhaps you forgot the mud and shit binder.
"And this is relevant to real life … how?"
Define 'real life.' Are you objecting to the use of domes in hostile climates as somehow unreal? Or just nipping at my heels for lack of anything better to do?
"Your strawman has fallen apart."
You don't understand what a straw man is. I'm pointing out that a sphere is the most efficient way to enclose space. This might be too 'proggy' for your refined tastes, but it's true, I promise you.
No, you claimed domes failed because they leaked, and when I pointed out they suck for real life, you switched Andy Warhol saying they were best when empty, which kinda backs up my claim they failed in real life for practical reasons.
"which kinda backs up my claim they failed in real life for practical reasons."
Avoiding a leaky house is about as practical as it gets. Had they been less leaky they might have caught on beyond the hippy fringe in temperate zones. Andy was right. Being in the middle of an empty domed structure has a special feeling to it. It's a proggie kind of feeling, I'll grant you that, but it's a spiritual thing. Many people like meditate and pray in dome shaped rooms. Fuller was aware of this. He had a deeply spiritual side to him, as well as grasping materialism.
Domes in polar regions are built more for their engineering advantages.
"all the wasted floor space at the sides,"
That's an interesting point you make. Have you ever been to a Japanese traditional home? The floor will be covered in tatami mats and there will be a few low tables and cushions but little else in the way of furniture. The homes are rectilinear structures but it's easy to imagine such a set up in a dome, and the same space that you call wasted would be easily put to use.
And lastly, I just noticed who I am responding to. Hilarious! Typical proggie with no common sense.
Smart but not wise, is how someone characterized Fuller.
And incidentally, Fuller (who'd died a year before) had nothing at all to do with the discovery of buckminsterfullerene, a spherical configuration of carbon atoms. Like the geodesic dome, 'buckyballs' seem to have failed to live up to expectations and hype.
Who claimed Buckminster Fuller discovered Buckminsterfullerene?
You are full of deflection again.
Brian wrote that the discoverers were indebted to Fuller's ideas. Not true. They discovered it entirely independent of Fuller without some of the team knowing of his work, or name even. They were going to call it something else but one member persuaded them to name it after Fuller. These ideas predated Fuller by thousands of years, Fuller put them in an attractive package and sold them on the lecture tour and books.
"A dome encloses the most volume with the least surface area. "
Just a nit, but the structure that has the most volume with the least surface area is a sphere. A geodesic dome, while a close approximation, is likely much cheaper to construct.
I wonder if the technology updated from Fuller's day could allow the construction of a true (hemi)sphere, all in one piece, solving the problem of the leaking and making construction cheaper and faster.
I was surprised to learn that Fuller had nothing at all to do with the most iconic dome, the one opened for the Montreal 67 Expo. The building was a huge success and nevertheless made him an international celebrity in any case, inspiring thousands of creative types like Steve Jobs. When Andy Warhol visited the Montreal dome, he loved it but said it would have been better if they had left it empty.
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> GOOGLE WORK
I suppose a libertarian web site might have told us something about Bucky's philosophical or political values, or even how his technology impacted liberty.
He was an engineer concerned with getting the most from his materials with minimal waste. Read his 'Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth' for a full account.
http://library.lol/main/CC62BD1BA3BBEDDB45D46A7B9B479869
Though he appealed to the young, artists and the avant garde, he was essentially conservative, concerned with protecting his ideas with patents and recognition. The many businesses he was involved in failed and he was most successful as an inspirational speaker and author.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier… They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information………….>>> onlinecareer1
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://www.worksclick.com