AFAIK wrote:Thanks for those posts w-i-p.
Perhaps an internet forum isn't the best place to find Luddite or Amish opinions....
That's for sure! There are sympathetic treatments of their beliefs and culture online, but they are still written from the outsider's perspective. We have large Mennonite communities in Southern Ontario, and an issue that is not given much cover in the news is that rapid urbanization, rising land taxes and property values are making it increasingly difficult for them to live by the old ways. Many have moved to more remote locations, while others are trying to follow the traditions while switching from farming to making and selling crafts and handmade wood furniture.
To be clear I am not opposed to technological developments as I consider it to be amoral.
The Chinese used dynamite in fireworks for centuries before transferring the technology to military applications.
That sounds similar to an observation about Ancient Greece in p.54 of the previously mentioned book -- Techno-Fix. 40 years ago, when I was in high school...taking mostly shop classes, I chose Ancient History as an elective subject. I recall the teacher mentioning the mystery to historians as to why the Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians developed most of the scientific knowledge (including the steam engine) that would later be applied at the start of the Industrial Revolution, yet never began that revolution during their time. My teacher gave us the very plausible theory of the expert consensus - that the Greeks had so many slaves, especially in the trading centers like Athens, that there was little economic need to industrialize. But only recently, when I picked up Techno-Fix, did I become aware that there was more to the story:
What is particularly interesting is that the Greeks, despite their great interest in advancing scientific knowledge, did not use science to develop useful technologies, as was done following the Enlightenment in Europe, because this would have clashed with their worldview of universal harmony and balance. As Jacques Ellul writes:
In their golden age of science, the Greeks could have deduced the technical consequences of their scientific activity. But they did not.... The Greeks were suspicious of technical activity because it represented an aspect of brute force and implied a want of moderation.... Here we find the supreme Greek virtue, self control. The rejection of technique was a deliberate, positive activitiy involving self-mastery, recognition of destiny, and the application of a given conception of life..... In Greece, a conscious effort was made to economize on means and to reduce the sphere of influence of technique. No one sought to apply scientific thought technically, because scientific thought corresponded to a conception of life, to wisdom. The great preoccupation of the Greeks was balance, harmony, and moderation, hence they fiercely resisted the unrestrained force inherent in technique, and rejected it because of it potentialities. 171
So, the difference between Ancient Greece and the scientists and philosophers at the start of the Enlightenment had little to do with slavery or their ability to apply knowledge in creating technologies, and using those technologies widely....instead it had more to do with the fact that the Greeks and just about every pre-enlightenment society had a natural aversion to change...at least to changing without trying to think through the consequences of making the changes.
The biggest downside of uncontrolled use of technology is that technological solutions detach the observer from the consequences of their actions. So today, we have all sorts of technologies exploiting stored carbon in an almost completely uncontrolled manner, and most of the changes that will result from dumping sequestered carbon into the atmosphere will be felt by future generations after we're gone. People who aren't even born yet provide more detachment from the consequences of our actions than smokestacks polluting the air thousands of miles away from us.
Other examples of how technology allows people to do great evil when they do not have to see its consequences would be:
Third world sweatshop labour, such as the textile mills in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka...where western consumers feel no qualms about buying a $10.00 shirt at Walmart, because they do not see the misery of thousands of women working 14 hour days under abusive conditions worse than the worst sweatshops of England at the start of the Industrial Revolution....out of sight....out of mind to the average consumer!
Another good example is that most westerners...and a growing number of people in developing nations eat high (too high) quantities of meat and dairy products. These would be too expensive if produced by the old farming methods previous to WWII, but thanks to modern mechanized factory farming - where thousands of animals are born and live out brief, miserable lives in ghastly conditions, once again consumers feel nothing about the steaks, ham, milk products, chicken etc. that they buy at the local supermarket...except to bitch about the prices going up. If the consumer had to watch how their animal products were produced (just a thought -- let's see if moralizing Republicans insisting that women seeking abortions view their sonograms want to apply the same method to consumers of factory farmed products), that might motivate a lot of people to make some changes to their diets....especially those who have already been advised by their doctors to cut their meat consumption for health reasons.
And then we have warfare! Remote weapons...starting with the first muskets, allowed soldiers to kill remotely...although in the early days, a soldier would only be able to get off one shot unless there was a significant lull in the battle...so that bayonet had to be put to use as the battle raged on. Once we get to tanks, heavy artillery, airplanes....war allows greater acts of evil to be committed because of the detachment provided. I'm reminded on this of a former U.S. Senator - Bob Carey, who did several tours in Vietnam and was a strong critic of pro-war policy, that he sensed a difference among Nam veterans dividing the Grunts who had to do the dirty work, and the flyboys who did the bombing runs. Most of the warhawk Vietnam veterans have tended to be the flyboys like John McCain - who has never seen a weapon or a war that he didn't advocate for. The difference in perspective of having to fight on the ground and from 10,000 feet above, likely plays a big part in their different attitudes after the War. And then we get to drones! The ultimate in remote warfare! Wait until drones can be completely computer-controlled and remotely guided, and see what future warfare unleashes.