[acroyear]

this article struck a nerve with me as well (even compelled me to register).

I have had similar thoughts except mine have been orientated towards technology. Whereas the priests of economics chant “growth”, the priests of technology chant “new” (and “monoculture” and “monopolies”). Why are the latest technological advances of the last 50 years necessarily good for us? I also ask – ‘where are we going?’. Nobody ever questions why we must have these things else they are labelled a backwards luddite.

Is the ultimate goal to reduce labor to zero (a la H.G. Wells’ Eloi?) .. is it interplanetary expansion? what is it? I find either extremely dubious. The further you go down the evolutionary tree, the creatures get more and more specialized to the current environment. Whether we like it or not, the human condition is confined to labor on Earth imho.

However, the priests would have us believe that we need to find ways to run away from creating our own food/tools and supplement our lives with gym memberships and vitamins.

I agree with Nicole in that we won’t be able to fix the current situation (unwind), rather we need to prepare ourselves for a neo-dark-age which will consist of localized economies and low(er)-tech methods. In the same way the localized economies insulate us from pyramid schemes and currency manipulation, low-tech life preserves a self-reliant livestyle because all of our tools/food can be produced by folks in our village. Throw away gadgets (because nobody knows how to fix anything anymore) is also un-sustainable ultimately.

The bias towards modern life is un-questioned .. did people in the 19th century (for example) really have it so bad w.r.t. quality of life? Yes there were wars, yes there was disease, etc, etc .. but we haven’t solved any of this (our wars are more hideous and we have created new prevalent diseases). We are relegated to a life of hardships .. the alternative is some sicko version of thx-1138.

– steven

[Author]

Posts