Luddite reasoning: blame progress for ancient evils.
What’s progress?
This beautiful question reminds me of this question:
And here comes my answer:
With that post we are in firm agreement. 
It’s more interesting than just that however.
You see progress doesn’t include everybody, does it? That whole social inequality thing means that only a few people get to benefit from this progress concept that is being spoken about all the time. Alright, who’s benefiting? Who’s progress are we referring to?
It certainly isn’t meant to convey all of humanity.
The main philosophical proponent of progressivism in the modern era are the transhumanists.
These groups of people are always talking about how there is too many people on the planet and how 95% of the global population needs to be mowed down somehow.
They’re always talking about how they’re a genetic eugenics based master race where they are cosmically chosen to inherit the entire world to themselves.
If this environment of progress is meant only for a few people what the hell are we all working and striving for? A question very few ask themselves.
Understanding this all of historical civilization becomes nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme for a few people where 95% of the global population is just disposable.
Technology, in this case. i’m thinking things like flushing toilets, heated homes, electricity, the printed word, on and on. Technology can be a double edged sword, for sure, but a thread that seeks to blame technology for tyranny is like trying to blame modern medicine for the common cold.
Technology or technique by itself is a temporary “progress” because in the very long run it is also something that comes and goes. Look at the evolution: some animals have developed a primitive technology or technique, but the question whether it is a “progress” for them or not can be answered after their extinction. And for threatened species there is no “Progress” anyway, even then, if they have developed a very great technology or technique.
Sooner or later the human beings will also die out. And the probability is not low that it will happen because of their technology or technique. (Cp. my thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?)
Yes, that’s okay, Tyler.
Technology is tyrannical especially when those that control and monopolize it enforce co-dependency on everybody else.
The aim of all technology is to wield power. Convenience and luxurious living are just added bonuses that is of course if you can afford both.
Co-dependency is the mother of all slavery and tyranny.
It is the tool that is utilized to strip everybody of their dignity and independence.
I would be so bold and say that humanity had more dignity/ independence living in the primitive wilderness off of the land.
Of course that goes against the grain of conventional thought that wants to make human beings look separate and distinct from all other animals.
If technological industrial society is supposedly the height or pinnacle of human dignity, freedom, and independence then they might as well nuke the entire planet annihilating this pathetic ongoing global experiment altogether.
A system of government does not have to be ruled by a so called “elite” of “academic experts”, but merely functionaries, because the so called “elite” of “academic experts” can, should be slaves (and they are!) and/or [size=109]machines[/size] (and they are!). You merely need functionaries for technocracy. Rulers have merely one purpose: control (power). So what are all rulers doing in order to control? They are enslaving humans and/or creating machines by enslaved functionaries and/or machines. The risk is that there will be at last merely machines.
Because humans act in this way, their end is clear. The question is only: When?
It seems to me that technology is about allowing more control with lesser effort or resources. A bigger bomb means you can destroy more stuff easier. Computers give us more information in less time. Medicine saves lives, but what it really does it gives greater control over aspects of people’s bodies to correct affliction. If I’m right that technology is practically by definition a consolidation of power, it’s easy to see how it would aid tyranny, and less easy to see how it would protect against it. If a person wants to control others, I can name any number of technologies that will make it easier. If a person wants to merely be left alone these days, are there technologies he’s embracing, or is he more apt to be avoiding every new advance?
I think we will soon have to get beyond the idea of tyranny always ever being some few discrete individuals or one individual dictating terms to the many. Social media is showing us or will show us soon that we can do it to ourselves; a lack of privacy can lead to oppression even if the only people watching have no more power than you do.
i don’t see how. Would you elaborate?
A great technology to fight off tyranny is still the gun. Swords require the skill and training of a soldier, guns increase in deadliness via training, but they do not require it.
Technology also provides the transfer of information and education, which is equal to the gun in its ability to fight tyranny. More information is passed around today than ever before in time.
Knowing is half the battle, the other half is fighting.
Yes, exactly - technology is a double edged sword for governments just like everyone else. Social media alone forces greater transparency and accountability, and aids immeasurably in organized opposition to power, be it violent or otherwise.
When the classic “rock star” would take drugs so as to enhance his performance, he would create an dependency performance. His creativity, reputation, and personal economy would all be dependent on the expectations from prior performances. If he suddenly stopped taking the drugs, his talent would change. His audience, expecting one thing, would get another and be disappointed, even if his non-drugged talent was in some ways superior. It just wouldn’t be what was being expected by his fans. In losing his fans, his reputation and finances would be in jeopardy. His livelihood becomes dependent upon the drugs upon which it was built.
When a government uses technology to accomplish its investigations, manipulations, and accomplishments, the exact same scenario takes place, dependency performance. The expectations of the people concerning the ability and performance of that government are the result of prior performances. New laws come into effect establishing new boundaries of authority. Older ways of doing things get washed to the wayside and atrophy.
If such a government were to suddenly be stripped of its technological support, it could no longer perform up to expectations. The expectations and dependencies of the people upon that government would be disappointed. The FBI, NSA, DHS, and even court systems, could no longer do what the laws had be rewritten to require of them. Huge gaps in the artificial authority structure would open. And in their weakness and malfunctioning, a great many problems would arise, including a serious change in reputation, loyalties, and economy.
Once a government is infected with technology, it soon becomes entirely dependent upon it. Take away merely the semiconductor, and in the ensuing nonperformance, disappointment, economic shifting, and panic, the entire Western world would collapse.
Maybe, but it probably depends upon what you mean by “collapse”. More to the point is how you are defining “technology”. i don’t want to get all semantic, but a lot of things can be considered technologies (writing, for instance). At what level of advancement does technology start to become detrimental and infectious? Is it okay for the government to rely on, say, the written word in order to conduct its business? Obviously civilization depends upon technology - all of civilization, and not just government. Take away the semiconductor, and we’re all fucked, not just the government. You can lament our so-called dependency on such things, or you can simply accept that creating and using technology is what humans DO. It’s what we’ve evolved to do. That’s not a defense of any particular technology, but rather a defense of a fundamental human endeavor. We ARE our technology, in the same way the artist IS his or her art. You ask how we can govern without technology, i ask how can we exist without technology?
Homosapian hasn’t evolved at all for thousands of years. The more technology (tools) the less evolving occurs. The changes into being only tool-users, is not an evolution, but a manipulation or “manevolution” - designed future state, artificial.
We evolve in different ways because we use technology, but we still evolve - A good neutral example is that we are mostly hairless because of clothing and man made shelters and fire.
i am cynical about humanity and its present direction, but i do not see either that we have become only tool-users or that there is anything particularly “artificial” about technology and tools. We are naturally tool users, and we take the vast majority of our materials from the natural world. Our techniques and designs are reflections of the natural world. i think what’s artificial is the dichotomy between technology and the natural world. And don’t come at me with a bunch of dictionary definitions and/or arbitrary ones you just thought up. That would be circular, the definitions simply define the dichotomy into existence in the first place. i’m talking past the definitions.
Humans are products of the natural world, we have quite naturally developed an extraordinary knack for inventing and using tools to our own benefit. Our technological prowess is our evolutionary advantage. Surely you can’t deny that things like indoor plumbing, soap, and clothing have enhanced human life and survival immeasurably? I’ll ask again: at what stage of advancement does technology become detrimental to humanity?
Homosapian hasn’t naturally evolved for around 200,000 years.
And “natural” means without human intent or design.
Nevermind that it depends what kind of evolution you’re talking about. It’s funny you should present that statement as a fact. Do you have evidence for that number? Googling it reveals a lot of conflicting views, including estimates that say we stopped evolving 10,000 years ago, alongside studies concluding we are still evolving, even in a Darwinian sense. But then again you said naturally evolved, and you define as artificial anything man made, and so you’ve created a tight little circle of definitions wherein humankind stopped “naturally evolving” the moment it started using it’s own creations to aid in it’s survival. Because for some reason, it is unnatural to for humans to create ways to stay warm or prevent infection. i suppose it is likewise unnatural for bees to generate hives, or birds to construct nests? The spider web must be artifice as well!
As i see it, there’s 2 artificial dichotomies at work in what you’re saying: 1)Natural/Man-made, and 2)Humans/Other Animals.
And again, the question still remains: At what point in it’s development does technology become the menace you portray it as?
According to you, nothing man does is artificial, including whatever dichotomies he proposes. So which is it?
Two primary points;
- When a homosapian can no longer defend himself as an individual due to too much technology, perhaps not at his service
- When homosapian is in threat of extinction (due to his own insane/misuse of technology).
The only thing stopping certain interests from shutting down the internet is the fact that a generation of kinds grew up with these tools of “tyranny,” and I would presume more cleverly than expected learned how to use it against the system. The hackers.
Think: if the internet was shut down, we would more-or-less be fucked. It would just be a bunch of people who have lost the ability to think well, surrounded by a near-perfected environment of control.
Given that, don’t you think that it’s fair to say that technology is the only thing holding us together at this point? Most other avenues - food, even - are compromised. But the internet is still a relatively neutral, relatively free place. We need to explore this whole online thing if we want to have any chance at getting out of the Age of Predatory Governments.
It reminds me a little bit of this scene from Inception:
EAMES
Forget it. We go any deeper, we
just raise the stakes. I’m sitting
it out on this level.
COBB
You’ll never make it, Eames.
Fischer’s security is surrounding
this place as we speak. The ten
hours of the flight is a week at
this level- you’ll never make it
without getting killed. Downwards
is the only way forwards. We have
to carry on.
Saito groans.
Cobb looks at him-
COBB (CONT’D)
And we have to do it fast.