NOTE 61 expenditure on transportation in various forms. This leads to the question: How does one determine the safe limits (watersheds) of production? To answer this Illich visualizes a society called the convivial society., where each member is guaranteed "the most ample and free access to the tools of the community.55 This should be considered with Hitch's very broad definition of tools Elsewhere : A convivial society should be designed to allow all its members the most autonomous action by means of tools least controlled by others. People feel joy as opposed to mere pleasure, to the extent their labour is creative; while the growth of tools beyond a certain point increases regimentation, dependence, exploitation and impotence. 7 In the past some groups did have convivial life styles but these were based on 'the servitude of others.5 The rationale of inventing machines in the first industrial revolution has been to provide an alternative 10 human slave labour. Tools were essentially designed 10 be used and not to be worked with. This of course does not apply to tools that enhance man's faculties or those that are available to all, at least in potential. Examples of the latter are the mail system^ the legal system, and the telephone. Illicli points out that institutions, as they move toward their second watershed, become highly manipulative. Thus 'it costs more to make teaching possible than to teach.5 An example of this from the Indian context is the fact that the number of supporting staff at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi is five times the number of the academic staff. This should be considered in view of the innumerable complaints that the IITs are producing graduates that are of no use to Indian society and technology. The same is true of most other, Indian universities as well as other industrial organizations. To emphasize the importance of the structure of an organization rather than its ownership, Illich says: Equally distracting Is the suggestion that the present frustration is primarily due to the private ownership of the means of production, and that the public ownership of these same factories under the tutelage of a planning board could protect the interest of the majority and lead society to an equally shared abundance. As long as Ford Motor Company can be condemned simply became it makes Ford rich, the illusion is bolstered that the same factory could make the public rich. As long as people believe that the public can profit from cars, they will not condemn Ford for making cars. This issue at hand is not the juridical ownership of tools, but rather the discovery of the characteristics of some tools which make it impossible for anybody to 'own5 them. The concept of ownership cannot be applied to a tool that cannot be controlled. The issue at hand therefore is what tools can be controlled in the public interest. Only secondarily does the question arise whether private control of a potentially useful tool is in the public interest.8 Illich now identifies the areas in which existence is threatened by