Speaker 1: Al Zone Media. Welcome back to happen Here.
Speaker 2: I'm Andrew Sage and you can find my stuff on
Speaker 2: my YouTube channel, Andrewism.
Speaker 1: I'm joined once again by.
Speaker 3: James getting no less a quid as we go, Behi, Andrew.
Speaker 3: I'm excited to learn about what we're going to learn
Speaker 3: about today.
Speaker 2: Yes, we're picking up where we left off by tackling
Speaker 2: the Luddites of today. In our previous episode, we unravel
Speaker 2: the story of Luodites who sit against the encroaching forces
Speaker 2: of the industrial revolution and more specifically the abuses of
Speaker 2: workers by profit seeking capitalists. They were challenging the world
Speaker 2: view of lazy fair capitalism with this increase in amalgamation
Speaker 2: of power, resources, and wealth, rationalized by its emphasis on progress. Today,
Speaker 2: it seems this history as we've repeating itself as we
Speaker 2: face a similar struggle against technological changes that come.
Speaker 1: About to the detriment of workers.
Speaker 2: As some tech has been used by tech companies in
Speaker 2: various industries to drive down wages and worsen conditions for
Speaker 2: common workers, say, for example, technological unemployment. For the rights
Speaker 2: who once resist the encroachment machines would find their concerns
Speaker 2: reflected in a modern world as a technological advanced ones
Speaker 2: often come with the cost of those whose jobs can
Speaker 2: be automated away. For instance, in the manufacturing industry, robots
Speaker 2: and automated assembly lines of streamline production lead into increased
Speaker 2: efficiency and lower costs for companies, but these efficiencies often
Speaker 2: meant the displacement of human workers, and such as in manufacturing,
Speaker 2: the ripple effects extend to various sectors like customer service, transportation,
Speaker 2: and data analysis, and so there's this fere of job
Speaker 2: displacement looms large. However, technological unemployment, which is the belief
Speaker 2: that as technology advances, human jobs are at risk, potentially
Speaker 2: dating to widespread unemployment, has been described by some economists
Speaker 2: as a fallacy. Back in the early days of the
Speaker 2: Industrial Revolution, when the advance of mechanization began transform in
Speaker 2: various industries and with workers fear and automation would render
Speaker 2: them job less and devalue their labor, the people took
Speaker 2: a stand, but as time passed, new industries and job
Speaker 2: opportunities emerged to replace some of the old ones, ultimately
Speaker 2: absorbing that workforce. Fast forward to the twentieth century and
Speaker 2: the rise of computers and automation technology reignited concerns about
Speaker 2: technological unemployment, but again, new jobs were created in new industries.
Speaker 1: Today.
Speaker 2: The debate continues as artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation advance
Speaker 2: at an unprecedented pace, and it remains to be seen
Speaker 2: what the long term consequences of those technologies may be.
Speaker 2: My position has really always been that we should be
Speaker 2: working less anyway, but instead people are obsessed with creating
Speaker 2: new jobs, even when they're unnecessary. See you know, of
Speaker 2: course David Graeber is supposed jobs. But you know, even
Speaker 2: if the idea of mass unemployment due to tech is
Speaker 2: not true, if we end up replacing the jobs that
Speaker 2: are e raised with new jobs. Whatever the case may be,
Speaker 2: tech is nevertheless quite capable of destroying livelihoods, creating unintended consequences,
Speaker 2: and further concentrating power in the hands of fewer and
Speaker 2: fewer people. For every tech advance, whether that makes a
Speaker 2: job more fulfilling and enjoyable, there are also those who
Speaker 2: make it more tea us and grinding. I mean, yes,
Speaker 2: tech can free us from some tasks. You know, accountants
Speaker 2: have digital spreadsheets to make their lives much easier. For example,
Speaker 2: writing is way easier now that the personal computers is
Speaker 2: more common. But while technological progress can produce prosperity, there's
Speaker 2: really no guarantee that the prosperity.
Speaker 1: Will reach the workers.
Speaker 2: In most cases, on the cut, it very clearly doesn't.
Speaker 2: In fact, many of the benefits of the industrial revolution
Speaker 2: were really not felt by the workers until decades later,
Speaker 2: after many of them have been you know, crushed or
Speaker 2: poisoned or killed or you know, died in a factory
Speaker 2: fire or whatever they shut down when protesting, you know,
Speaker 2: like that, they didn't see the benefits until much later on.
Speaker 2: You know, it's not like, you know, these things introduced
Speaker 2: and boom, everybody benefits. I mean even now, not everybody
Speaker 2: in the world is benefiting from you know, the computer age.
Speaker 2: There are still many people, like for example, in the Congo,
Speaker 2: who are endurance, slavery and staves like conditions in order
Speaker 2: to you know, procure the materials necessary for the computer
Speaker 2: age totally, and yet they're not seeing those benefits and
Speaker 2: arranged we're seeing when they'll see the benefits that many
Speaker 2: of us enjoy in various parts of the world, and
Speaker 2: particularly that there was enjoy in the global North in
Speaker 2: our relentless pursuit of progress and technological advancement as defined
Speaker 2: by capitalism, we also end up losing our nature, our community,
Speaker 2: and in many cases are craftsmanship. I mean remember John Booth,
Speaker 2: the one who had said can you keep a secret?
Speaker 1: Or so can I? He has other words?
Speaker 2: You know that the new machinery might be man's chief
Speaker 2: blessing himself his curse if society were differently constituted.
Speaker 1: That's where I have to.
Speaker 2: Bring in the one and only the ls I've spoken
Speaker 2: about him before, of course, the Austrian philosopher, the theologia
Speaker 2: and the sort of everything.
Speaker 1: Guy Ivan Ilich. Oh, yeah, fun times, fun times. Yeah.
Speaker 2: He was a thinker ahead of his time. You know,
Speaker 2: it's really strange in some of his positions, I think,
Speaker 2: but a lot of his concepts resonate today in various movements.
Speaker 2: One of the foundational concepts in the modern movement of
Speaker 2: the growth is the concept of conviviality, which was redefined
Speaker 2: and introduced in the context of our Tools in Ilish's
Speaker 2: book Tools of Conviviality. Eligio's vision, as explored by the book,
Speaker 2: is one in which technology serves humanity, not to plant it,
Speaker 2: where convivial tools empower individuals and communities, fostering creativity and
Speaker 2: autonomy while preventing the concentration of power in the hands
Speaker 2: of the few. According to il conviviality is individual freedom
Speaker 2: realized in personal interdependence. It's basically the ability of individuals
Speaker 2: to interact and to interact creatively and autonomously with others
Speaker 2: and the environment to satisfy their individual and collective needs.
Speaker 2: Convivial tools are those which are robust and durable, preserve
Speaker 2: or enhance ecosystems, level unequal power relationships, and give each
Speaker 2: person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich the
Speaker 2: environment with the fruits of their vision. And a convivial
Speaker 2: society is one in which tools, which, according to ilag
Speaker 2: includes physical hardware, productive institutions, and productive systems. So tools
Speaker 2: will be factories, hospitals, schools, farms, all of those things
Speaker 2: are being included in his definition of tools, and a
Speaker 2: convivial society is one of which those tools operate on
Speaker 2: the humans scale and save the people instead of rulers.
Speaker 2: The idea of convivial tools really challenges us to view
Speaker 2: technologies and means to enhance our lives rather than displace
Speaker 2: our livelihoods. It's a call to harness innovation for the
Speaker 2: bettering of society instead of the perpetuation of radical monopolies,
Speaker 2: which I spoke about in a previous it can happen
Speaker 2: here episode. I think a Lodites like John Booth would
Speaker 2: have certainly appreciated that message, yea, and to the rights
Speaker 2: of today certainly do because yeah, I'm not the first
Speaker 2: nor the only person to see lessons to be learned
Speaker 2: from the la Lite movement. The concept of a Neolodite
Speaker 2: movement has been embraced by a variety of folks who
Speaker 2: may or may not understand what the original Latite movement
Speaker 2: was about. Like, you know, you have these primitivists who
Speaker 2: embrace the Neolotte cause because I think it means hate
Speaker 2: and technology, and you have the anarchists and the trade
Speaker 2: unionists and the environmentalists. We're looking more at the label,
Speaker 2: organized and roots of the original Latite movement, and of
Speaker 2: course even see echoes of you know, Ogloodite action in
Speaker 2: the vandalism against self driving cars.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: The Neolodite movement is composed of activists, workers, scholars, and
Speaker 2: social critics who stand against the predominant worldview that unbridled
Speaker 2: technology represents progress, point ins key, then critiques, and in
Speaker 2: some cases actual action against technologies and tech companies who
Speaker 2: desecrate our planet and our society. Philosopher Lewis Mumford, who
Speaker 2: had written the Myth of the Machine Pentagonic Power, reminds
Speaker 2: us that technology encompasses more than just physical objects. It
Speaker 2: also includes the techniques of operation and the social organizations
Speaker 2: that make up particular technology work.
Speaker 1: Technology reflects our worldview.
Speaker 2: The forms of technology we embrace, whether they be machines, techniques,
Speaker 2: or social structures, are seemply rooted in our perception of life, death,
Speaker 2: human potential, and the relationships between humans and nature.
Speaker 1: Our choice of technology, in many ways, mirrors.
Speaker 2: Our outlook on the world. That outlook in the modern
Speaker 2: world is shaped by a rather mechanistic approach to life,
Speaker 2: characterized by rational thinking, efficiency, delitarianism, scientific detachment, and a
Speaker 2: belief in humanities, ownership and supremacy over nature. That's a yeah,
Speaker 2: we're going to text like the military industrial complex, and
Speaker 2: they weren't sprawl. Honestly, in a sense, the old ltites
Speaker 2: kind of had it easy. Not I mean, obviously their
Speaker 2: conditions were horrible. When I say they had it easy,
Speaker 2: I mean it's in the sense that their machines could
Speaker 2: be destroyed by their sledgehammers.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, yeah, what technology is a lot more ephemoral.
Speaker 1: You know, it's in the cloud.
Speaker 2: It's as nebulous as microplastics in the soil, the water,
Speaker 2: and the breast milk. I mean, it's everywhere, and it's
Speaker 2: integrated into everything. It's like, where do you even begin?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: In the book When Technology Wounds by Psychologists Childish Clendening
Speaker 2: by psychologists Chellis Clendening, she studied technology survivors, people who
Speaker 2: had suffered injury or illness in recent years after being
Speaker 2: exposed to various toxic technologies in their homes and workplaces,
Speaker 2: whether nuclear, radiation, pesticides, asbestos, both control devices, or drugs,
Speaker 2: and covered how they had begun to question not only
Speaker 2: the processes that maimed them, but the world that indifferently
Speaker 2: forced those processes on them under the guise of progress.
Speaker 2: Glendoning saw these victims as the basis of a new
Speaker 2: bloodlight movement struggling against what has been called the Second
Speaker 2: Industrial what has been called the Second Industrial Revolution. Alongside
Speaker 2: thinkers like Lewis Mumford and Ivan Ilich, those survivors have
Speaker 2: gone on to create groups such as Asbestos Victims of
Speaker 2: America Aspartame, Victims of their Friends, Citizens Against Pesticide Misuse,
Speaker 2: DALK and Shield Information Network des action In, National National
Speaker 2: Association of Atomic Veterans, National Committee for Victims of Human Research,
Speaker 2: National Toxics Campaign, and the VDT Coalition, of course are
Speaker 2: based in the US, and there are also actives groups
Speaker 2: like earth First that could could have been classified under
Speaker 2: the Neolotte cause and Earthful strategy was to stop environmental
Speaker 2: intrusions by.
Speaker 1: Any means available, legal and otherwise.
Speaker 2: So they would be slashing engines, slashing tires, disabling engines,
Speaker 2: blocking roads. Most famously, they would drilled spikes into trees
Speaker 2: and wilderness forests to prevent them from being logged by chainsaws.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But you know, while all these movements and organizations are
Speaker 2: happening in the Western world, it really wasn't just the
Speaker 2: Western world where this is happening. A positive undercurrent of
Speaker 2: the right spirit has surged where indigenous peoples have led
Speaker 2: the charges against the incursions of industrialism. Quncities are mainly
Speaker 2: resisting the machines and projects from dustrialization, but also pushing
Speaker 2: back against its cultural impact. Peasants and farmers staunchally rejecting
Speaker 2: participation in the various development initiatives imposed upon them by
Speaker 2: compliant governments, often in the inence, often under the influence
Speaker 2: of entities like the World Bank or the US State Department.
Speaker 2: For example, during the early nineteen eighties, some farmers in
Speaker 2: Mali took a stand against the construction of dams and
Speaker 2: dykes for a rice growing program that they wanted no
Speaker 2: part of. Other communities elsewhere have rallied to hold dam
Speaker 2: projects that threatened to submerge their ancestral lands, and some
Speaker 2: of them successful, as seen of the villagers who protested
Speaker 2: the Narmada Dam in India in the early nineteen nineties,
Speaker 2: and others have faced more daunting challenges, like the people
Speaker 2: of eastern Java who protested against the Neper Irrigation Dam
Speaker 2: and faced deadly consequences at the hands of Indonesian security
Speaker 2: forces in nineteen ninety three. Intergous tribes have also organized
Speaker 2: to combat deforestation and road building projects that encroached upon
Speaker 2: their territories. The Chipco tree huggan movement in India during
Speaker 2: the nineteen seventies and eighties famously succeeded in stopping government
Speaker 2: clear cutting efforts and similar projects of echoed across the globe,
Speaker 2: from Malaysia to Australia, Brazil to Costa Rica, Solomon Islands,
Speaker 2: Indonesia and beyond. Traditional fishermen in many regions, such as
Speaker 2: the Indians of continent, Malaysia, Indonesia, and multiple ports along
Speaker 2: the Pacific coast of South America including Ecuador and Columbia,
Speaker 2: have also taken action against industrial fish and fleets encroaching
Speaker 2: on their waters and jeopardizing their livelihoods. In some cases,
Speaker 2: these protests may have involved the destruction of machinery, but sabotage,
Speaker 2: you know, is not unheard of, like in the case
Speaker 2: of a high tech chemical plant in Thailand in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty six. The driving force behind these actions really mirrors
Speaker 2: to ethos you know, as they share this full und
Speaker 2: desire to preserve the traditional ways of life and livelihood
Speaker 2: in the face of industrial capitalisms relentless pull towards a
Speaker 2: wage and market system. And then, of course, outside these
Speaker 2: movers and shakers, these underground activists, there are also you know,
Speaker 2: the philosophical lirites. Like the aforementioned illage. The Neola spectrum
Speaker 2: is more diverse and intriguing than one might imagine. While
Speaker 2: it may not have crystallized into a more formal movement
Speaker 2: with clear representatives, as is expected of movements these days,
Speaker 2: it unites a wide array of individuals to share common
Speaker 2: awakening from the allure of unchecked technology and resist various
Speaker 2: aspects of the industrial monoculture. Perhaps in the connections between
Speaker 2: these separate groups strengthen we'd see a greater recognition of
Speaker 2: the interconnected challenges in this grand tapestry of all evolving world.
Speaker 2: But the thing is to address the challenges posed by
Speaker 2: these technologies. It's not enough to merely regulate or eliminate
Speaker 2: in visual items like pesticides or nuclear weapons. What's required
Speaker 2: as a profound shift in our thinking about humanity and
Speaker 2: in our relationship to life itself. We need to craft
Speaker 2: a new worldview that paves the way for a different
Speaker 2: way of interacting with our world, our technologies, and our
Speaker 2: fellow human beings.
Speaker 1: We need to reconsider a.
Speaker 2: Place in the ground scheme of things and to imagine
Speaker 2: a world where harmony and balance take precedence of a
Speaker 2: domination and control. In Notes toward a Neulart Manifesto written
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety also by Cheldish, Clendoning, The author outlines
Speaker 2: three core principles and four prescriptions that could drive the
Speaker 2: Neulrite movement. In terms of principles, firstly, and I suppose
Speaker 2: most essentially to addressing the misconception, Neulorites are not anti technology.
Speaker 2: Actually says technology is intrinsic to human creativity and culture.
Speaker 2: But what they oppose are the kinds of technologies that
Speaker 2: are at root destructive of human lives and communities. The
Speaker 2: next principle two is that all technologies are political. Quote
Speaker 2: a social critic Gerrymander rights in four argumented Elimination of Television,
Speaker 2: a book I read some years ago, by the way
Speaker 2: that a Ferminian to revisit. But continuing the quote, technologies
Speaker 2: are not neutral tools that can be used for good
Speaker 2: or evil dependent on who uses them. They are entities
Speaker 2: that have been consciously structured to reflect and serve specific,
Speaker 2: powerful interests in specific historical situations. The technology is created
Speaker 2: by mass technological society. Are those that serve the perpetuation
Speaker 2: of mass technological society. They tend to be structured for
Speaker 2: short term efficiency, ease of production, distribution, marketing and profit potential,
Speaker 2: or for war making. As a result, they tend to
Speaker 2: create rigid social systems and institutions that people do not
Speaker 2: understand and cannot change or control. The last principle three
Speaker 2: is that the personal view of technology is dangerously limited.
Speaker 2: Glendening argues that the oftenhood message, but I couldn't live
Speaker 2: without my mood processor.
Speaker 1: Because of course she's right in this. You know, years
Speaker 1: and yeares ago.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you have my word automatic typewriter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but this oftenhod message that I couldn't live up
Speaker 2: my word process. So, and I guess you could substitute
Speaker 2: that for smartphone, not computer. That message denies the wider
Speaker 2: consequences of widespread use of computers, for example, the toxic
Speaker 2: contamination of workers and electronic plants, or the certifying of
Speaker 2: corporate power through exclusive access to new information and databases.
Speaker 2: As Manda points out, producers and disseminators of technologies tend
Speaker 2: to introduce their creations and upbeat utopian terms. You know,
Speaker 2: pesticides will increase yields to feed a hungry planet. Nuclear
Speaker 2: energy will be too deep, too cheap to meter.
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: And of course you know you have to throw in
Speaker 2: that potshot had nuclear energy. It's very very twentieth century
Speaker 2: coded text. Yeah, however, quote. Learning to critique technology demands
Speaker 2: fully examining its sociological context, economic gratifications, and political meanings.
Speaker 2: It involves asking not just what is gained for what
Speaker 2: is lost and by who. It also looking at the
Speaker 2: introduction of technologies from the perspective not only a few
Speaker 2: in use, but of their impact on other living beings,
Speaker 2: natural systems, and the environment. And then there's the neololide program,
Speaker 2: which loses me a bit at some points, even where
Speaker 2: I may agree with some of their principles, and you know,
Speaker 2: you might say that's a sign of my propagandized mind
Speaker 2: in our technological society.
Speaker 1: But I'll leave you to be the judge of that.
Speaker 2: Here's what Glendening explicitly proposes one, as I moved toward
Speaker 2: dealing with the consequences of modern technologies and preventing further
Speaker 2: destruction of life, the new Lolite movement should favor the
Speaker 2: dismantling of nuclear technologies, chemical technologies, genetic engineering technologies, television,
Speaker 2: electromagnetic technologies, and computer technologies, which, according to them, you know,
Speaker 2: according to her Coales, disease and death create dangerous me
Speaker 2: to gens. In case of television functions, as a centralized
Speaker 2: I'm controlling force, poisons.
Speaker 1: The environment, all these different things.
Speaker 2: And I mean I gets some of the justifications for
Speaker 2: some of these technologies, right, Yeah, of course, disease, death,
Speaker 2: you know, pollution, social issue is right, yeah, But I
Speaker 2: at same time, I don't believe in through and I
Speaker 2: was entire sciences and technologies.
Speaker 1: Who will see like that?
Speaker 2: You know, it feels like it feels like a very
Speaker 2: myopic view being presented on some of these texts.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I guess this was before really the
Speaker 3: decentralization of some of the means of dissemination of information
Speaker 3: that happened kind of later on with things like some
Speaker 3: parts of the Internet. I don't want to say by
Speaker 3: any means of the Internet is decentralized, but at least
Speaker 3: the promise of that which we occasionally see deliver as well, right,
Speaker 3: Like if you saw today that I was just watching
Speaker 3: a video of the Yeppe Gay in Syria that the
Speaker 3: people in Rajaba like talking about the importance of women
Speaker 3: in the revolution in me and and like just occasionally
Speaker 3: the internet or technology gives us the thing they were
Speaker 3: supposed to give us, a disability to connect without barriers. Absolutely,
Speaker 3: but yeah, like you said that that's the computer or
Speaker 3: the cell phone and that was recorded on or whatever
Speaker 3: happened because somebody somebody in the congo and in horrific
Speaker 3: conditions and the DC had to dig out some rare
Speaker 3: earth chemical and then got paid next to nothing and
Speaker 3: their ancestral homeland was ruined by some rabid company that
Speaker 3: makes billions of dollars and pays people like shit.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, I mean, I absolutely agree that the supply
Speaker 2: side of a lot of these technologies need to change drastically. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and also the you know, just the supply gene as
Speaker 2: a whole, you know, from the raw materials to the
Speaker 2: finished product and how it gets to us. I mean,
Speaker 2: that might mean no more of certain technologies, or it
Speaker 2: might mean a different approach, but it really remains to
Speaker 2: be seen. We really haven't tried other approaches because you know,
Speaker 2: we live under this capitalist hegemony. The next step in
Speaker 2: the program to the New Rite movement should favor a
Speaker 2: search for new technological forms and the creation of technologies
Speaker 2: by the people directly involved in their use, not by scientists,
Speaker 2: engineers and entrepreneurs who gain financially from mass production and
Speaker 2: distribution of the inventions. I don't know little about the
Speaker 2: context in which their technologies are used. I don't necessarily
Speaker 2: believe in, you know, splitting it down the middle like that,
Speaker 2: as if you know, scientists and engineers are not going
Speaker 2: to be the people that are directly involved in their use.
Speaker 1: And in some cases that's true.
Speaker 2: But another case is, you know, you know, people who
Speaker 2: are using the pros sometimes the people who invented it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, iterated on that to whatnot?
Speaker 3: Like when I think about before there were three D
Speaker 3: printing weapons in a revution in the amber, they were
Speaker 3: three D printing press theses because land minds are so
Speaker 3: common there, right, and so like for those people where
Speaker 3: the engineer is a person whose brother or sister or
Speaker 3: non binary sibling or what have you needs a leg,
Speaker 3: and so they have iterated or designed a leg, and
Speaker 3: like that person is very much both like benefiting from
Speaker 3: the end use and doing the engineering exactly.
Speaker 2: I get this is kind of like, you know, a
Speaker 2: screed against the Ivory tower types.
Speaker 1: But yes, I don't think that reflects on you know,
Speaker 1: all of.
Speaker 2: The or even most of the scientists and engineers. A
Speaker 2: lot of engineers on the ground, a lot of you know,
Speaker 2: barefoot scientists as the expression is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, Nick, when we talk about things like permaculture
Speaker 3: or the things we talked about before, like, some of
Speaker 3: that is a science too, right. We have a thesis
Speaker 3: and we test it and we prove it, and we
Speaker 3: keep iterating on it like it's a hypothesis, I should say, Like,
Speaker 3: and that's certainly a sign which is rooted in a
Speaker 3: place and people and respect for the environment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the manifesto goes a little bit further
Speaker 2: on this particular point. You know, she's advocating for the
Speaker 2: creation of technologies that are of a scale and structure
Speaker 2: that makes them understandable to the people who use them
Speaker 2: and are affected by them. She's advocating for the creation
Speaker 2: of technology is built with a high degree of flexibility,
Speaker 2: so that you do want to impose a rigid and
Speaker 2: iror woosibile imprint on their users. And she's advocating for
Speaker 2: the creation of technologies are foster independence from technological addiction
Speaker 2: and promise political freedom, economic justice, and ecological balance.
Speaker 1: They are I can't disagree, you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, I'm down with that.
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely down with advocating for that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The third point in the program, she says, we favor
Speaker 2: the creation of technologies in which politics, morality, ecology, and
Speaker 2: technics are merged for the benefits of life on Earth.
Speaker 2: For example, community based energy sources utilizing solar, wind and
Speaker 2: water technologies, organic biological technologies and agriculture, engineering, architecture, art, medicine, transportation,
Speaker 2: and defense, conflict resolution technologies which emphasize cooperation, understanding, and
Speaker 2: continuity of relationship, and decentralized social technologies which encourage participation, responsibility,
Speaker 2: and empowerment. Now you know, I'm the solar punk guy.
Speaker 2: I'm the you know, the anarchists on you tube whatever.
Speaker 1: You got me on these.
Speaker 2: You know, I agree with all of these obviously, But
Speaker 2: what I find interesting is that this list seems to
Speaker 2: ignore how, you know, the technology is being advocated here
Speaker 2: are linked to.
Speaker 1: The previous technologies that would just be in decride.
Speaker 2: You know, like in one section she's talking about, you know,
Speaker 2: a fan of these chemical technologies, but chemistry is an
Speaker 2: inevitable component of the biological technology advocating for are You're
Speaker 2: saying that you don't like computer technologies, but when you're
Speaker 2: talking about like solar wind and water energy, which to.
Speaker 1: Be fair, can be low tech too. Yeah, there is usually.
Speaker 2: Some involvement of a computer in those energy systems. So
Speaker 2: I think there's sights inconsistency there, But I don't know,
Speaker 2: what do you think?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think yeah, like we can't sort of yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: sometimes we can't say that to like you say, to
Speaker 3: a degree, all of these systems will require a technology,
Speaker 3: and like, I suppose we start to get into like
Speaker 3: what is the technology right before we get too far,
Speaker 3: and then I think that's probably a question worth asking.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I think it's easy to throw the maybe
Speaker 3: out of bar water. I suppose.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, like like Momford it said, technology is more
Speaker 2: than just psical objects, it's also techniques of operation organizations.
Speaker 1: That reflects a wild view.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, so I suppose, as you said before, right, Like,
Speaker 3: it's what I think about often. It's like what we
Speaker 3: need to change is the way we see the world,
Speaker 3: and then the other stuff, well we can change.
Speaker 1: In a MIDI will fall into place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think again, I'm gonna get back. So I
Speaker 3: was just in ros Java for the last few weeks.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that I heard from everyone there,
Speaker 3: right from like and not just from like people in
Speaker 3: the women's movement, but also from like random guy in
Speaker 3: the market who I'm having tea with is like that
Speaker 3: this idea that we can't can't decolonize the country until
Speaker 3: we declonize our family, and the notion that like women
Speaker 3: were the first colonized group of people, which and so
Speaker 3: like if we can't do gender equality, what you know,
Speaker 3: what are we doing? What we can't Why why we
Speaker 3: find this revolution to liberate our entry when we can't
Speaker 3: liberate our spouse, daughter or what have you. So definitely, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's just it's a very powerful I know it's not
Speaker 3: like as fun as taking a sledgehammer to a cotton mill,
Speaker 3: but like if we if we replicate that kind of
Speaker 3: extractive extractive capitalism is what makes the supply side of
Speaker 3: these things so bad, and it's what also leads us
Speaker 3: to think about using them in a way that can
Speaker 3: extract the most value from the worker. And so I
Speaker 3: would absolutely say that, you know, the break the frame
Speaker 3: in your mind.
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's a good point.
Speaker 2: And it's funny, as you mentioned, you know, as as
Speaker 2: fun as you know, smashing a cotton a cotton mill
Speaker 2: or whatever.
Speaker 1: It made me think that you know, perhaps.
Speaker 2: In a revolutionary society, I guess society.
Speaker 1: You may see.
Speaker 2: Therapeutic rooms where people can smash out some of their
Speaker 2: last frustrations against the capitalist system.
Speaker 1: Yea, consequences they have left for them to fix.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, to get that out before you you take
Speaker 3: that out on.
Speaker 1: Other go and rewild or something. You know, you have
Speaker 1: to get that energy out.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, yeah, yea, yeah, remove the toxicity. I like
Speaker 3: that place where you can take that anger out.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: So finally, the fourth and final element in the program,
Speaker 2: she says that we favor the development of a life
Speaker 2: enhancing worldview in Western technological societies. We opened in still
Speaker 2: a perception of life, death and human potential, and technological
Speaker 2: societies that will integrate the human need for creative expression,
Speaker 2: spiritual experience in community with the capacity for rational thought
Speaker 2: and functionality. We perceive the human role not as the
Speaker 2: dominator of other species in planetary biology, but as integrated
Speaker 2: into the natural world with appreciation for the sacredness of
Speaker 2: all life. We foresee a sustainable future for humanity if
Speaker 2: and when Western technological societies restructure their mechanistic projections and
Speaker 2: foster the creation of machines, techniques, and social organizations to
Speaker 2: respect both human dignity and the nature's wholeness and progressing towards.
Speaker 1: Such a transition.
Speaker 2: We are aware that we have nothing to lose except
Speaker 2: a way of living that leads the destruction.
Speaker 1: Of all life. We have a world to gain. And
Speaker 1: coote word that was that.
Speaker 3: Was a nice nice, a nice very rhetorical flair at
Speaker 3: the end.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: I mean, in my opinion, coming to a close here,
Speaker 2: the neololites a.
Speaker 1: Hits and a miss. They hit a lot more than
Speaker 1: they miss. There's things I have some slight.
Speaker 2: Quibbles with, and I really, of course I have to
Speaker 2: give them credit for doing a lot more to investigate
Speaker 2: and confront technology than the vast majority of people. I mean,
Speaker 2: they're asking the right questions, questions that you don't see
Speaker 2: being asked at all, you know. See, you get these
Speaker 2: announcements for new technologies, new innovations, new techniques.
Speaker 1: New whatever.
Speaker 2: It's always just like you know, marketing and advertising, and
Speaker 2: then it's just implemented. There's no say of people, there's
Speaker 2: no ad raising questions about what are the consequences of this?
Speaker 2: Be ten years on the line, twenty years on the line,
Speaker 2: fifty years on the line, one hundred years on the line.
Speaker 3: You know, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the lessons of letters are very clear. Technology
Speaker 2: should serve humanity, not the other way around.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think that's that's a key take home, Like, Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's there to make our lives better. We don't have
Speaker 3: to not to allow us lands more exploited.
Speaker 2: Yeah, landscape is vast and it's constantly evolving. But the
Speaker 2: principles of the lights and the vision of convivial tools,
Speaker 2: I think they can offer us some guidance. And I
Speaker 2: hope you're way able to take that away from this
Speaker 2: two part too. Yeah, and that's all I have for today.
Speaker 3: Great.
Speaker 2: Thanks you follow me on YouTube, aurism support and patroon
Speaker 2: Slash sent Drew. Thanks James for being part of this.
Speaker 3: I thank you. That was good. I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: This has been It could happen here, Peace. It could
Speaker 1: happen here as a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool
Speaker 1: zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever.
Speaker 3: You listen to podcasts.
Speaker 1: You can find sources for It could Happen Here, updated
Speaker 1: monthly at cool zonemedia dot com slash sources.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening,