Novel Vs. Counterfeit Technologies
How much technology is too much?
Where do we draw the line?
I’ve pondered these questions, and ones like them, since reading Ted Kaczynski’s work. He doesn’t seem to give a precise answer as to whether some pre-industrial technology is acceptable or not. I believe I have settled upon a good criteria.
We seem to live in a world of concurrent tools and systems. Every natural thing seems to have an artificial, often digital equivalent; mimicry. To match the human brain we have a computer’s processor and memory. For herbal medicines we have drugs. For community we have smartphones and ‘social media’. For wood we have plastic. For courting we have ‘Tinder’. For sex we have porn. For legs and horses we have cars and bikes. For live entertainment, recorded music and video. Instead of rivers we have motorways.
But there are some technologies which do not replace a function available from nature or by the natural abilities of the human body. For example: The blade, which enables us to harvest plants and herbs, to fell and shape wood. Fire-making tools, which enable us to keep warm. Musical instruments, which enable us to create beautiful sounds that our mouths cannot. Paint and paintbrushes, which facilitate our artistic expression. Needles and thread, so that we may clothe ourselves.
I will call the former ‘counterfeit technologies’, and the latter ‘novel technologies’.
Of course, the argument can be made that some counterfeit technologies enable us to mimic natural abilities, but with so much more speed and efficiency so as to be almost incomparable, but they nevertheless don’t enable us to do anything essential to our existence that can’t already be done using what nature provided. What is of more significance is that the harm these counterfeit technologies does far outweighs the convenience they provide. This has been detailed in length, by Kaczynski, so I shan’t repeat it here.
Furthermore, novel technologies cannot by their very nature replace natural methods. Counterfeit technologies always and only seek to replace the natural method they mimic, by exploiting the weakened instincts of man. The apparent benefits of counterfeit technologies only exist within a Capitalist system, which places all emphasis on economic growth and profit. For example, the quick-fix friendship interactions provided by ‘social media’ via smartphones would not be necessary if most of us didn’t work nine or more hours per day, plus commuting and consuming. We instinctively know that time spent in real life, face-to-face with friends, is far better, but we accept the poor substitute of ‘social media’ out of necessity. Computers didn’t make our lives richer, or enable us to work less; they merely increased the efficiency of business and raised the level of competition.
The benefits of these counterfeit technologies have enabled our masters to extract more from us. They haven’t enabled the same productivity with lesser toil of the slave. In short, the advantages that counterfeit technologies provide have not been shared with us. The slaves believe they need this technology only because demands upon them have been increased to such an extent that they couldn’t function without it.
Dan Capp
26th February 2020