Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jorge Clúni's avatar

While Ted was not flawless, his argument in ISAIF is sound. However, the question is, what actually motivates people to insurgent action? Is it a sound logic and persuasive argument grounded in rationality? Or is it belief which really drives people, feelings of resentment for what is, a belief that things can be improved through action, a willingness to abandon any available comforts and security to strike out for a significant change?

I think this question can be answered by a clear-eyed assessment of which risk-taking groups people join up with and sacrifice their time for, even risking their freedom or lives.

Expand full comment
Robert John's avatar

"[The industrial revolution has] greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but ... [has] destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering ... and [has] inflicted severe damage on the natural world."

OK. It seems that this invites us to ask whether life was more or less 'fulfilling' before or after the industrial revolution.

It certainly wasn't before the Black Death (ok - that didn't happen in America). Life for the survivors markedly improved after that because the balance between the owners and the workers changed. But would one wish the Black Death on anybody?

So, do we take our 'before and after' as c1350 or c1750? Or 1650, as that was pre-enclosures (in England).

Or do we need to take it before c12,000 BCE, the agricultural revolution? After all, current thinking is that that happened because hunter-gatherers had already (without the industrial revolution) made extinct those animals that provided very profitable protein such that farmed protein became worthwhile (on a protein cost-benefit basis). And that revolution made many in humanity 'subject to indiginities'.

We might also note that the English and Spanish invasions of the Americans were pre-industrial revolution and they pretty much extinguished native American life. Rather worse than 'indignities'.

I'm no technophile, but we might note that the Trump tariffs are not being welcomed by, say, the Vietnamese or Bangladeshis, who risk severe job losses as a result - jobs that are 'post-industrial revolution'. Their previous existences, say 50-100 years ago, do not appear to be preferable to them, otherwise they would be less concerned by Trump's actions. Less than 100 years ago, millions were starving in Bengal and China.

I am not suggesting that we are in a good place. But Trumps and their ilk (and worse) have existing throughout human time - including pre-industrial revolution. We cannot blame the existence of toxic leaders - that some of 'us' put there - on technology.

I'd take ridding us of toxic leaders over ridding us of technology.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts