I keep reading this thread, but I admit I don’t really ‘get’ it. What exactly are people talking about except a general attitude of “Things are going to change for the worse.” At the same time, many, not all, but many seem to be arguing that in order to avoid this change we have to change in precisely the same direction that we want to avoid. It seems that industrialization is a kind of demonic monster that gives short term pleasure at the expense of long term pain – the party’s over and now we have to pay the bill and deal with the hangover.
But what party are we talking about? The America of the '30’s and the 50’s, the America of the '70’s and the '90’s are pretty different places if you look at them. It’s never been a steady state. That things will change seems a truism not really worth talking about. People seem to adjust to change without scare tactics and prophets, they adjust and adjust quickly. So, the only thing this discussion gives you is the right to say, “I told you so.” But are people arguing a path to avoid “A Canticle for Leibowitz” future by offering a “Soylent Green” one or is it the other way around?
I guess what bothers me here is I’m hardpressed to understand what it is we gain by an assault on industrialization. Industrialization creates war? What was the Thirty Years War? Industrialization creates plague and famine? Ever heard of the Black Death? Pre-industrial societies are not inherently more stable than Industrial ones, there is no garden of Eden that we can go back to.
If anyone can explain this to me more clearly, I’d love to hear it but I really can only read this as yet one more mistaken belief that we human beings are somehow out of balance with ourselves and Nature and we need to get back to something that never existed.
Things never were in balance.