Questions concerning technology and anarchism

[claptonpond]

Clapton said:

M and W&T - stop being so touchy, both of yez.

Hey, I didn't mean you should shut the fuck up completely. Just argue about the issues and not about each other's debating styles...

[vequalsv0plusat]

Anarchic said:

vequalsv0plusat,
but why would they? People do not revolt when life is easy. You said you favour technology because of the huge problems it causes will bring us closer to a revolt. But then you want things easy?

I'd like life itself to be hard, but the revolting aspect to be easy. It's a little like trying to get someone through a door by setting fire to the room, then soaking the pathway to the door.

You are right of course on both accounts, and whilst I was certain that Bush would get in again (much to other people's suprise), doesn't mean that I wanted him too.
I also don't want all the problems that technology brings, just so that we have something bigger to complain about. Again I do agree that a positive may be the revolution you speak of, but what's the point if it's too late?

...Too late for what? I'm not sure I follow you...are you referring to the environmental damage caused by technology?

We are all coexisting and we are all living in seperate places.

By "living in separate places" I meant "living essentially isolated from each other."

There are no primitive people and no industrial people, there are people, and yes we do all seem to have trouble living together.

By "primitive" people and "industrial" people I meant people favoring a primitive society and people favoring a more industrial society, respectively. It's pretty evident that both of these types of people exist.

This must change. Change will come, are you ready for it?

With luck it will. Even if our society undergoes some incredible transformation we may not be able to live together. I hope we will, but eh, it might not happen, particularly if with this transformation new differences between us humans become evident.

[workerscommunes]

Still no response AT? Come on you're missing out on a prime opportunity here! I've always been attracted to primitivism as a philosophy but have never fully embraced it due to the practical problems I mentioned on my last post but I'm definately willing to listen if you can think of any possible solutions.

Where'd everybody go anyway?

[Anarchic Tribes]

Hey, I didn't mean you should shut the fuck up completely. Just argue about the issues and not about each other's debating styles...

I know, let's argue about arguing. But seriously, I'm really busy this week and don't want to argue about anything with anyone
(besides that's why I'd rather hang out here than enrager. argue argue argue, when essentially, in general, we all agree with each other anyway.)

Hmm, I feel a new thread coming on.

CP,
no, about 100 miles west, in the countryside, but not very primitively at the moment. Taking it easy you might say.

[Anarchic Tribes]

vequalsv0plusat,

I'd like life itself to be hard, but the revolting aspect to be easy. It's a little like trying to get someone through a door by setting fire to the room, then soaking the pathway to the door.

I'm not too good with analogies but I guess I get your drift.

...Too late for what? I'm not sure I follow you...are you referring to the environmental damage caused by technology?

Yes.

By "living in separate places" I meant "living essentially isolated from each other."

Yes I know, but we are aren't we? Unless you're living kind of tribal like.

By "primitive" people and "industrial" people I meant people favoring a primitive society and people favoring a more industrial society, respectively. It's pretty evident that both of these types of people exist.

Ok, but as we all exist already, I don't see how progressing will make it harder to co-exist. Or I didn't until I just wrote that last sentence. So yes, you make a good point. I'll have to think on that one some more.
Cheers

[Anarchic Tribes]

WC,

Still no response AT? Come on you're missing out on a prime opportunity here!

Ah, well you see, I was just trying to save valuable forum space

I've always been attracted to primitivism as a philosophy but have never fully embraced it due to the practical problems I mentioned on my last post but I'm definately willing to listen if you can think of any possible solutions.

I'm sure I can think of possible solutions (it's something I'm 'generally' good at). But not today/this week. I'll get back to you on it eh. Anyway, why are you asking this of me? I've already stated I'm not a primitivist. So who says that I fully embrace it?
The world of science pisses me off for many reasons. When people say things like:

Even the most extreme primitivists recognise that science (and technology for that matter) has a point - they just think the negative side outweighs the point.

I just think, well maybe there's a better word to use than 'pointless'. If something has a point but that point is outweighed by the negative point, wtf would you call it? (I know it wasn't you that wrote that, it was just a general blah eh)
For now, it's like this ok: Next week I have an exam that I hope to do well in. I'm absolutely exhausted by all this easy living. I shall endeavour to come back to certain questions asked of me, but you know how things tend to get lost on forums (unless they're brought back up with persistence or insistance).

[workerscommunes]

Anarchic said:

Ah, well you see, I was just trying to save valuable forum space

;D

Anarchic said:

I'm sure I can think of possible solutions (it's something I'm 'generally' good at). But not today/this week. I'll get back to you on it eh. Anyway, why are you asking this of me? I've already stated I'm not a primitivist. So who says that I fully embrace it?

That's true, you have said you aren't a primitivist, but everything you've said seems to indicate that you are, or at least have strong primitivist leanings. I can appreciate your desire to avoid being labelled but whatever you call yourself you must have some kind of idea how the problems I mentioned would be dealt with in low-tech societies.

Anarchic said:

I just think, well maybe there's a better word to use than 'pointless'. If something has a point but that point is outweighed by the negative point, wtf would you call it? (I know it wasn't you that wrote that, it was just a general blah eh)

Good question. How about 'overated' or something to that effect? What's wrong with just saying what you wrote above about it having a point but the point being outweighed by the negative rather than trying to reduce your view to a single word? I've nothing against using up valuable forum space if it's in the interests of clarity.

Anarchic said:

For now, it's like this ok: Next week I have an exam that I hope to do well in. I'm absolutely exhausted by all this easy living. I shall endeavour to come back to certain questions asked of me, but you know how things tend to get lost on forums (unless they're brought back up with persistence or insistance).

OK then I'll let you off the hook. Good luck with the exam AT.

[Anarchic Tribes]

WC,

That's true, you have said you aren't a primitivist, but everything you've said seems to indicate that you are, or at least have strong primitivist leanings.

"I've always been attracted to primitivism as a philosophy but..." might imply that you have primitivist leanings too. I have strong murderous leanings sometimes but that doesn't make me a murderer.

I can appreciate your desire to avoid being labelled but whatever you call yourself you must have some kind of idea how the problems I mentioned would be dealt with in low-tech societies.

On the subject of labelling: Again I say that it is not that I have a problem with being labelled (call me what you like) but rather that the labeller does. I could call my cat a dog, would the cat care? I could call you a complete bastard, but would that mean you were one?
The problem with labelling of others is that it can be confusing, disinforming, painting an untrue picture to oneself and others etc.
I think what matters most is what the cat thinks of himself, and that he never really considers the names that he's called.

As for the problems you mentioned and how they would be dealt with in low-tech societies, what were they again?

Good question. How about 'overated' or something to that effect? What's wrong with just saying what you wrote above about it having a point but the point being outweighed by the negative rather than trying to reduce your view to a single word? I've nothing against using up valuable forum space if it's in the interests of clarity.

Good questions are good ;D
In the interests of clarity, 2 things:
thing 1) 'valuable forum space is a myth'.
thing 2) What's wrong with just saying what I wrote above about it having a point but the point being outweighed by the negative rather than trying to reduce my view to a single word is that it wastes above said myth.
Actually really the thing is that it's not at all about reducing my view but rather aview. When you show someone a view, you do not expect that person to stay, looking at, appreciating, admiring that view forever or ever even. It's just an opportunity of stimulus freely offered to which the observer can do with whatever they choose.

When you show someone a view they may not understand what the view you have is. You may be looking at the cat called a dog playing in the garden but they may see a grey dull looking sky. The bigger picture can mean missing important details. You may be looking at a beautiful sunset but this time they're wiser and only see the cat called a dog playing in the garden. The little details can mean getting distracted from the big important picture.
'Generally' I try to show a bigger picture whilst throwing some smaller ones on top to give a better view of what I'm looking at.
So in the interests of clarity the more good questions there are the better. This is also because the written word can give much less of a view than if spoken. Also I can speak faster than I can write or type which is why it's far easier for me to adequately describe a view to someone in person despite the fact that they may hold far differents views already, than it is to converse with a bunch of not so narrow-minded anarchists on a message board.

Good luck with the exam AT.

Thanks, it went very well ;D

Space wasted respectfully.

AT

[workerscommunes]

Anarchic said:

Actually really the thing is that it's not at all about reducing my view but rather aview. When you show someone a view, you do not expect that person to stay, looking at, appreciating, admiring that view forever or ever even. It's just an opportunity of stimulus freely offered to which the observer can do with whatever they choose.

When you show someone a view they may not understand what the view you have is. You may be looking at the cat called a dog playing in the garden but they may see a grey dull looking sky. The bigger picture can mean missing important details. You may be looking at a beautiful sunset but this time they're wiser and only see the cat called a dog playing in the garden. The little details can mean getting distracted from the big important picture.
'Generally' I try to show a bigger picture whilst throwing some smaller ones on top to give a better view of what I'm looking at.
So in the interests of clarity the more good questions there are the better. This is also because the written word can give much less of a view than if spoken. Also I can speak faster than I can write or type which is why it's far easier for me to adequately describe a view to someone in person despite the fact that they may hold far differents views already, than it is to converse with a bunch of not so narrow-minded anarchists on a message board.

Bollox!

[workerscommunes]

But seriously...

Anarchic said:

WC,


"I've always been attracted to primitivism as a philosophy but..." might imply that you have primitivist leanings too.

Perhaps I do, I'm not sure. That's why I'd like to how other people with 'primitivist leanings' would respond to a couple of questions I have on the matter.

Anarchic said:

As for the problems you mentioned and how they would be dealt with in low-tech societies, what were they again?

I think you'll find the bulk of it here:

"Quality of life is relative? Clever argument but it's overlooking the fact that primitivist societies would neccessarily be unequal if the the disadvantaged did not have the independance, autonomy and freedom that certain tecnologies could and do provide for them.

You did not respond to my criticism that hierachies of 'strong' and 'dependant weak' could easily develop in a primitivist collective due to their inability to give the disadvantaged an equal opportunity. Of course I don't expect you to have all the answers or provide me with a blueprint but I think this is a serious criticism which must be addressed.

My other major problem with primitivism is that it only seems to be possible in largely wild, untamed places with enough wild-life and vegetation to support human beings. In England, we've simply destroyed all our forrests and most of our wildlife. A thousand years ago, primitivist groups could easily have survived by hunting wild boar or deer but now? This would be especially difficult for those living in cities like I am. I live in Liverpool forchrissakes, what am I going to do chase rats down the docks all morning? Seriously, what do primitivists propose for those living in places such as these?"

WC.

[claptonpond]

And here's another problem for ya, AT:

You said: "From what I know of the children born into tech-less societies that are differently or less able, they seemed to be treated and behaved as equals."

To which I replied: "The ones that don't die at birth from lack of medical technology, that is. I challenge you to find an example of a tech-less society with infant mortality rates comparable to those in the west."

[claptonpond]

The relevance is that many of the children that would be differently or less able simply aren't around in tech-less societies, since they die at birth or shortly after, so the point of how they're treated is somewhat moot.

[Anarchic Tribes]

WC,

Clever argument but it's overlooking the fact that primitivist societies would neccessarily be unequal if the disadvantaged did not have the independance, autonomy and freedom that certain tecnologies could and do provide for them.

You say that the disadvantaged wouldn't have the independance, autonomy and freedom that certain tecnologies could and do provide for them. But this assumes that 1) the disadvantaged have those technologies now, and 2) that the tech provides those things.

hierachies of 'strong' and 'dependant weak' could easily develop in a primitivist collective due to their inability to give the disadvantaged an equal opportunity.

They could, but would they?

My other major problem with primitivism is that it only seems to be possible in largely wild, untamed places with enough wild-life and vegetation to support human beings. In England, we've simply destroyed all our forrests and most of our wildlife. A thousand years ago, primitivist groups could easily have survived by hunting wild boar or deer but now?

Most primitivists that I know of are vegans, so er... what was your point again?

This would be especially difficult for those living in cities like I am. I live in Liverpool forchrissakes, what am I going to do chase rats down the docks all morning? Seriously, what do primitivists propose for those living in places such as these?"

Well I can't speak for the primitivists I guess, but I reckon you ought chase rats down the docks all morning ;D

Your first questions are based on the idea that technology reduces inequality and I must dispute this more than I can agree with it. (See global village thread)
From the afore mentioned thread I see that the suprises come from the lack of computers and college education. Yet you city dwellers don't see too bothered by the fact that we would all have 6 acres of land. And I'm the crazy one? Oh well, all the more for us I guess, enjoy your rats

[Anarchic Tribes]

CP, we weren't talking about dead people though were we, no.
I'll try to find something more to your flavour anyway, later

[claptonpond]

Anarchic said:

CP, we weren't talking about dead people though were we, no.

Not dead with technology, or dead without technology.

Personally, I'd go for the former every time.

In fact, that's one of my main problems with primitivism: a lot of us would be dead without technology.