Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

Yunlunuae wrote

I always respond to primitivist assertions with this.

Foremost in that small primer on primitivism is the outright denial of the slow genocide in 'deaths of generations'. As always the largest misconception of 'technology' a la primitivist definition is entirely one of control rather than one of expanding diversity and the ways in which we interact with the world. Modern systems, built on their hierarchical basis, by and large foment control as opposed to deeply connected and diverse interactions but this is not inherently the case with 'technology'.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

thanks for linking that gillis piece, i'm familiar with him but i've never read it before. if i could just respond to a few things you said off the cuff:

  1. demography is a tricky problem as far as primitivism is concerned, and i'm definitely not here to defend everything primitivists have said on this point. but i wouldn't say a falling population even necessitates a high death rate -- birth rates are pretty quickly declining all over the world right now and the global population is expected to hit its peak in the next few decades, but i wouldn't say we're currently living through a period of worldwide mass genocide.

in any case i do think the problem we need to address first is western overconsumption rather than all this obnoxious prattling about overpopulation that seems to pop up in the media every few months in a desperate attempt to blame anyone but white people. in fact in a few decades i expect the only people fully equating birth rate decline with genocide will be white supremacists! its already one of their favourite talking points, especially in say, russia or germany.

  1. there isn't necessarily a contradiction between technology "expanding the ways in which we interact with the world" and its role within regimes of social control. a car obviously allows you travel greater distances much quicker than on foot, but can we separate that function from the way it organises space according to industrially planned routes and transforms people into consumers for transportation (essentially turning movement into a commodity, and in some cases, a privilege)? a socialist or anarchist system might make the transport industry slighty more equitable but we're still left with the original problem of having been made habitual passengers, and that's because rather than in spite of the car's benefits as a technology.
2

Yunlunuae wrote

No problem on the gillis link ^_^

I think it's important to distinguish technology itself as the expansion of the manners in which we interact with the world rather than one of the tools in which we do so, this can be actual tools that we utilize or the very nature of linguistic frameworks or concepts as 'technology'. I agree there isn't really a contradiction between its utility function in terms of liberatory manners or its capability to control, ultimately this comes down to personal/societal usage. Absolutely transportation can turn to a privilege, especially in the manner cities are built to facilitate cars over shorter ranged transportation but again this isn't inherent to the technology, rather it is a reflection of the power systems at play in social organizing.

Alter the actual root of the problem and systemic change propagates outward, proscribe bandages and things will remain largely the same if not, as you put it, more equitable. I've no illusions on how control mechanisms are entirely problematic and our methods of interaction are largely limited by these control mechanisms, but this is disparaging the control mechanisms themselves and not intrinsically the methods of interaction.

1

raindropq wrote

interesting at the interesection between trans-human-technology and anarchist primitivism