Anti Tech Revolution Why and How

[Anonymous No.13266156]

Even after reading this depressing book, my support for the technological system still remains. The reason is the increase of the luminosity of our Sun. It is theorized that due to changes in the Earth's environment due to increase of solar radiation and Earth basically becoming a Venus (evaporation of oceans etc) it won't be able to support multicellular life in 800 million years, eukaryotes will go extinct in 1.3 billion. So i think even though how risky and unstable it is, technology is a gamble that's competely worth it since it may allow complex life to spread and survive beyond Earth for billions of years or even more. If the Sun is going to kill us so soon(relatively) anyways, it's better to at least die trying to escape this shithole. Am i wrong?

[Anonymous No.13266196]

>>13266156
>am I wrong
If technology itself expedites the extinction process then yes, youre wrong on your own terms. If not, then no.

[Anonymous No.13266229]

>>13266156
>spread a retarded biological virus across the stars
Maybe, just maybe, humanity fucked up and shouldn't keep throwing money at the problem money caused. That being said, if you can make it happen in the face of anti-tech revolutionaries, more power to you. It will be a multi front war for everyone involved. See you on the battlefield

[Anonymous No.13266557]

>>13266156
>Am i wrong?

Absolutely. Your whole post is reeks of some assumptions that are shared by collective humanity and are inherent to our psyche; even though such collective obsession over spreading "life" is in fact your obsession of spreading and continuation of the current status quo.

I am not anti-tech, I am anti-democracy. Those who invented electricity should have keep it as secret as did the alchemists: technology, even the most revolutionary, should have been kept underground in the hands of the small and few who would have achieved Demigod-like status within their own circles. This way it would have attracted only the brightest minds, and perhaps socially hostile and deadly weaponry such as nuclear armament would not have been ever even developed considering there was no national interests or pressure to develop such weapons of war.

[Anonymous No.13266635]

>>13266557

I don't think you know what the story of change entails.

Homo Erectus went extinct because it made tools exactly the same way without change.
There is no platonic right way of doing things, and so stories change not because there is a right way of doing things, but because lots of ways are tried and the one that survives is the one we tell.

There is no way the variety of technology we have ever would have manifested were it not for the free exchange of ideas and the countless opportunities of instantiation of those ideas.

Stories work because they work, and to find out if they work you have to tell them in many ways.
Hiding stories away kills them.

In fact it is the conservatism of telling the same story, usually promoted because of greed and exploitation, that newer better ideas cannot be tried.
It is not the fault of democracy that technology has gotten us to the point of extinction, it is the fault of conservatism that stops its development in order to extract selfish gain. Were there no intellectual property or profit motive, technology would both never get so big as to threaten the planet, and never get so small as to be undeveloped and lost.

[Anonymous No.13266677]

>>13266635
>There is no way the variety of technology we have ever would have manifested were it not for the free exchange of ideas and the countless opportunities of instantiation of those ideas.

This is where you are wrong. It probably would have happened; but not as suddenly as it has happened now: at the cost of planet itself

Technology, let to develop only by the small elite who would have guarded its secrets from the profane, would have drastically reduced the acceleration of it. There would have been no world revolutionizing things such as the industrial revolution or other mass producement facilities

Environmental catastrophes, even world wars, perhaps could have been dodged.

It would only need a Newton or Da Vinci to appear every 1000 years to make things keep rolling. Instead of few hundred of years it would have taken perhaps 10,000 but the ignorant masses would have never even enjoyed the fruits of it

[Anonymous No.13266707]

>>13266677
>>13266635

These Demigod like scientists after would have developed such massive weaponry and sophisticated weaponry that every time a civilization of the normies would threaten to achieve "critical point" in their scientific development: these weapons then would be launched in a tower of Babel type of scenario: perhaps some sort of extremely developed viruses would be released on the public to reduce the current population to 99,9%

These demigod scientists then perhaps would only pick the most biaitful women of those people and place some above IQ seed amongst the ignorant masses so that they could still develop things like trebutchets or catapults when having their cave men like wars over some potato fields or what the fuck people have been killing themselves about

Through satellite technology they would monitor and see if there was some extremely genius guy in some town building mechanical devices so he could be just abducted in the night and introduced to the society and tell him that we have already invented all the stuff and teach him basic calculus, physics etc and he would be let to develop in these faculties

[Anonymous No.13266713]

>reads Industrial Society and its Future ONCE