Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AntiTech OP wrote

A couple years ago I asked:

Most of the anti-tech anarchist stuff I've found is only really anti-tech if the tech is capitalist. Do you know any texts that have a problem with all technology?

This is a typically middle-of-the-road post left crimethinc article rejecting technology that may be a useful resource for some of you.

11

d4rk wrote (edited )

Honestly, if tech was capitalist then there is really no fight is there. Capitalism will win whether we like it or not if that were true.

Luckily, It doesn't have a trace of Nick Land, so that's a relief but there is in the last arguments of Development being inherently oppressive,

  1. Manufacture no new computers, but use existing resources to maintain current machines.

  2. Develop new, non-polluting, non-alienated methods of manufacturing computers (unlikely, but remotely possible – however, the process of researching new methods of manufacture would generate its own pollutants, division of labor, etc.). And computers are not the only (or worst) example of destructive production. Cars are far worse, for example, and a similar analysis of automobile manufacturing could easily become a lengthy book.

which gives it a solid "based" in my book.

4

ziq wrote

Breadtube throws a collective tantrum

10

MHC wrote

Accounting is technology. Sewers are technology.

4

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

The manufacture of a single PC generates 90 pounds of waste and uses 3,000 gallons of water? Really? (Edit: I don't have evidence to the contrary. The number just seems unintuitive.)

Separately, there is a project https://collapseos.org/why.html - that I probably learned about from Raddle - to write usable, useful software that runs on 8 bit processors with performance characteristics of 1980s technology. Devices with that level of power might be practical for a small anarchist community / group of friends to create using local resources. No Netflix or Call of Duty, but maybe enough for some kinds of useful automation.

3

granite wrote

From what I understand running a hidden service isn't cheap nor friendly to the environment when it comes to resource intensitivity.

1

HavenHuski wrote

But will all the autistic loners like myself do without video games? /lh

2

MHC wrote

I think of anarchism as a way of doing.

1

MHC wrote

Large institutions like the Soviet Union, used rocketry to demo what they could do!

1

soairse wrote

Why is it necessary to have no division of labor in an anarchist society? I mean I can understand how something as bad for your health as mining (at least in its current form) wouldn't be there, but what about really complex specialized jobs like scientists and stuff? And I don't see why it would inevitably lead to management positions just bc not everyone does all jobs.

But anyway, what if we got good enough at genetics that we could basically program traits of living organisms and could basically grow computers?

1

mima wrote (edited )

scientists

Well, make some effort to be interdisiciplinary yourself? And one of the reasons why we keep spending so much on science is that civilization keep creating unnecessary problems anyway.

living computers

Hey, as much as I love Ran Yakumo of Touhou, can we not recreate her in real life please? I don't need a Yukari playing god in this world, thank you.

EDIT: And I haven't even mentioned how carbon-intensive that R&D would be...

1

Starfire_dragoness wrote

This comes down to the definition of anarchism.

By one definition, anarchy is 'no hierarchy'.

By another definition, anarchy is 'no government'.

And these are two very different things. Confusing them would be like confusing zero, undefined, null, and 0/0 (which anyone in tech can tell you are very different things).

The first form of anarchy, no heirarchy, is the basis for the original anarchist movement. Hence the phrase, "No Gods, no Masters".

The second form of anarchy, no government, has become popular more recently, and is honestly, nonsense. Any organization, if it is the most powerful one in the area, becomes the de facto government. This isn't an instruction, this is a simple reality. It happens. And humans, being a communal species, will organize. Attempting "no government" basically requires elimination of humans. It's nonsense. So although it's currently the most talked about form of anarchy, I'm going to ignore it because it's pure theory BS that can't actually exist in reality.

With the first form, 'no hierarchy', complex manufacture is absolutely possible. For example, although I have many complaints about its design philosophies and implementation, cryptocurrency is a near-anarchic monetary system. There isn't much in the way of a governing body behind it, and people just use it. There is a full near-anarchic capitalist society running in our world today.

It's just not the dominant, and therefore not "government", and honestly, I think anarcho-capitlism is a horrible idea, as it favors consolidation of wealth and the emergence of tyranny, and much prefer anarcho-socialism to ensure a continual baseline maintenance. That said, when you have currency, and the ability to gain or lose it, you have the potential for complex manufacture, because you then have a motivating force for people to work and for getting other people to help them.

So yes, absolutely possible, and we can expect it.

−2

mm064 wrote

Everything doesn't just vaporize in anarchy, and I always hate these stupid types of arguments. Making chips still provides value, so someone will do it. Some form of script currency will spontaneously develop and then there isn't going to be any problem. The fields that are most affected in my view are things like space, geological science, and so on that people really don't do without government backing. (The private sector here is just drastically smaller than you'd think.)

It's worth noting that the entirety of chip design from the beginning through the 80's was happening in someone's garage. It's not like much of this would go anywhere - there are always hobbyists and most of them are responsible for the real innovations anyway.

−3

Fool wrote

People had mines in their garages? I wasn't aware.

6

mm064 wrote (edited )

People have everything in their garages. If you can conceive of someone making it then someone is, lol.

−1

Fool wrote

If someone has in one building;

  • the ability to mine all minerals required,
  • the ability to refine and smelt/mould the resources into their desired shape, and
  • the equipment to build the technology discussed

I don't think it should really be considered a garage, and I doubt the attached house would be hospitable for long term habitation.

8