Technology.

[Forward Union]

Now, before I start. Alot of what im about to say, I may not agree with. Im simply playing, devils advocate, but I do want to hear other people's responses.

Taking a somewhat critical attitude to the benefit of technology. Let's raise an issue that we face today, in the search for profit, companies have found ways of mass-producing and modifying and processing foods, that poison us, harm us, give us cancer and increase our likely hood of illness - It's not proper food, it's trash. I pose a hypothetical situation. Post revolution, your community meets up, you need to start organising things, now - people are getting hungry. What are you going to use to produce food? The now idle, capitalist factory farms? that poison us and give us illnesses? Or, increase our ability to produce healthy and organic foods? - by abandoning factory farming, which is also getting us closer to antibiotic resistant germs. etc. What are your personal views on this? Should we destroy the capitalist machines, take our lives back into our own hands, and learn to grow our own food again? or should the majority submit to eating poisonous food produced by the Technocrats, with the alternative of starvation?

[Vinny Rafarino]

We of course take advantage of the current production facilities and simply adjust the "menu".

Large capitalist food production facilities produce shitty food filled with huge amounts of fat and additives not because they are "easier to produce" relative to healthier foods, they do it because it's cheaper.

They most certainly have to ability to produce lower fat, higher nutrient based food that still tastes good but simply lack the incentive to do so.

Primitivism, no matter how it's "dressed up" with hippy-esque buzzwords like "organic", "back to basics" and other such nonsense is still socially regressive and therefore
irresponsible and even harmfull to the human species.

[Rollo]

Everything is about shelf life, get rid of the shelf life preservatives and you've got yourslef a very much less contaminated food. Food may not be as good looking ( colouring ) or may not last as long but we'll have more of it.

[red team]

Primitivism, no matter how it's "dressed up" with hippy-esque buzzwords like "organic", "back to basics" and other such nonsense is still socially regressive and therefore
irresponsible and even harmfull to the human species.

Regressive? Objectively or politically? Toxic chemical pesticides are still used because it's less expensive to use other less toxic alternatives or to develop non-toxic versions of the same pesticides. Using your political "logic" we'll still be using DDT which is a proven cancer causing carcinogen.

[dannie]

We should also take in consideration the strain our current method of food production puts on the environment. f.e. Chicken and pig farms create an abundance of manure which on it's turn gets dumbed in field to grow f.e. corn. The ph of the ground will get too low, contaminating our waters turning them into lifeless pools.
This is just an example of how our current ways of production harm the environment.

I propose that these "food factory's" get shut down as soon as possible, being replaced with other alternatives, being them small scale production (how can you have something against that if it's a persons choice?), geneticly modified food (which should be tested because there is no consensus on the safety of this kind of food), laboratory food, or whatever the possibility in a future society are.

One thing is for sure, and I think we all agree on this is that food, like it is now, shouldn't be eaten after a revolution, but if some people prefer to eat crap, it's up to them. We cannot force someone to eat non-fat food when they choose to eat ox-fat roasted hormonefull porkchops

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:20 PM
One thing is for sure, and I think we all agree on this is that food, like it is now, shouldn't be eaten after a revolution, but if some people prefer to eat crap, it's up to them.
But in many circles, the destruction of current machinery, or objecting to the use of much technology, would be considered primitivist. But I agree with Vinny, that we should keep whatever we can still use. And destroy or reform the dangerous elements of society. Such as fossil fuel factories,

Another issue. Autonomy and technology. For a lot of reasons, we need copper. I think im right in saying we need it for electricity?

Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

I think I put that as simply as I can :wacko:

[dannie]

I think i formulated myself wrong, I'm not against the use of technology, but current technology, used for the production of food, be it meat or vegetables, ..., is harmful. So I'm of the opinion we should develop technology as fast as possible.

Coming to your second question, I'm pretty sure copper isn't the only way to transfer energy, maybe the cheapest way? But after a social revolution money isn't an issue. I don't have a lot of knowledge on electricity, but the first thing that pops in mind is fiberglass cables. Maybe there's a future there.
Advancing technology can take away the need to oppress (reactionary or not) "primitive" civilizations.

But this is all purely hypothetical

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

We should be able to obliterate their primitive lifestyle, yes. As long as we do not obliterate any actual lives. We do not need any backward cultures to stand in the wway of our future society - it is after all for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

[dannie]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 08:00 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 08:00 PM)
Love [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

We should be able to obliterate their primitive lifestyle, yes. As long as we do not obliterate any actual lives. We do not need any backward cultures to stand in the wway of our future society - it is after all for the betterment of humanity as a whole. [/b]
so forcing another culture down their troaths is right? I don't think some small tribe isn't a threat to us.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by dannie+Sep 19 2006, 07:21 PM--> (dannie @ Sep 19 2006, 07:21 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:00 PM

Love [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

We should be able to obliterate their primitive lifestyle, yes. As long as we do not obliterate any actual lives. We do not need any backward cultures to stand in the wway of our future society - it is after all for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
so forcing another culture down their troaths is right? I don't think some small tribe isn't a threat to us. [/b]
Pure emotionalism there. In this scenario we've just had our revolution, we've just forced a new culture down the throat of the bourgeoise, so to speak. Now we have the oppurtunity to spread it to a new group of backward people. To leave them in their ignorance out of respect for somthing as stupid and intangible as their culture is bloody stupid.

[dannie]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 09:30 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 09:30 PM)
Originally posted by dannie+Sep 19 2006, 07:21 PM--> (dannie @ Sep 19 2006, 07:21 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:00 PM

Love [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

We should be able to obliterate their primitive lifestyle, yes. As long as we do not obliterate any actual lives. We do not need any backward cultures to stand in the way of our future society - it is after all for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
so forcing another culture down their troaths is right? I don't think some small tribe isn't a threat to us. [/b]
Pure emotionalism there. In this scenario we've just had our revolution, we've just forced a new culture down the throat of the bourgeois, so to speak. Now we have the opportunity to spread it to a new group of backward people. To leave them in their ignorance out of respect for something as stupid and intangible as their culture is bloody stupid. [/b]
I just don't see the point in forcing a harmless culture to adapt to our "standards", having the opportunity doesn't mean we have to. Have you ever thought about it being harmful to those cultures, for example, the native americans have a lot of trouble with alcoholism and diabetes. Even more than the americans that immigrated, because our bodies were able to adapt to alcohol, and very fat food.


"http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n3/p18.html"
"We have identified two genes that protect against heavy drinking, and these are particularly prevalent among Asians," Li says. "We have shown that Native Americans, who have a high rate of alcoholism, do not have these protective genes."

The bourgeois and a "primitive" culture are two different things, because the bourgeois is dangerous to the social revolution. While some primmie culture isn't.

Don't get me wrong, in no way do I want to live like that, or do I want society to look like after a social revolution.

edit: spellcheck and added source about native american alcoholism

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by dannie+Sep 19 2006, 07:46 PM--> (dannie @ Sep 19 2006, 07:46 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:00 PM

Love [email protected] 19 2006, 03:07 PM
Anyway. We only have so much copper, and will eventually run out, as our needs for it are increasing all the time. One of the worlds largest, untouched copper mines, is in West Papua. In a huge mountain, that many native people occupy. They not only live off the land on (and surrounding) this potential mine, but worship it, it's central to their culture. Do you feel, for the sake of technology, we have the right to obliterate their way of life?

We should be able to obliterate their primitive lifestyle, yes. As long as we do not obliterate any actual lives. We do not need any backward cultures to stand in the way of our future society - it is after all for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
so forcing another culture down their troaths is right? I don't think some small tribe isn't a threat to us.
Pure emotionalism there. In this scenario we've just had our revolution, we've just forced a new culture down the throat of the bourgeois, so to speak. Now we have the opportunity to spread it to a new group of backward people. To leave them in their ignorance out of respect for something as stupid and intangible as their culture is bloody stupid.
I just don't see the point in forcing a harmless culture to adapt to our "standards", having the opportunity doesn't mean we have to. Have you ever thought about it being harmful to those cultures, for example, the native americans have a lot of trouble with alcoholism and diabetes. Even more than the americans that immigrated, because our bodies were able to adapt to alcohol, and very fat food. [/b]
The point is to bring them to an advanced level of technology, to bring them progress so they no longer require their outdated system.


The bourgeois and a "primitive" culture are two different things, because the bourgeois is dangerous to the social revolution. While some primmie culture isn't.

Don't get me wrong, in no way do I want to live like that, or do I want society to look like after a social revolution. If you don't want our society to look like that, why do you want somone elses to?

[dannie]

It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:17 PM
It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.
I'd rather have all of humanity sharing a global technolgoy level and culture.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 08:36 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 08:36 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 08:17 PM
It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.
I'd rather have all of humanity sharing a global technolgoy level and culture. [/b]
So you are against individuals living seperate from main society? Are people not allowed to leave and set up autonomous lifestyles?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Sep 19 2006, 08:56 PM--> (Love Underground @ Sep 19 2006, 08:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:36 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 08:17 PM
It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.
I'd rather have all of humanity sharing a global technolgoy level and culture.
So you are against individuals living seperate from main society? Are people not allowed to leave and set up autonomous lifestyles? [/b]
Why would they want to? If their society started affecting the main one by, for example, preventing resource gathering then it is essential they are assimilated or moved away. Hopefully it will be assimilation so that the main society can dominate the globe. Of course if we reach an interplanetary level then autonomy becomes a lot more reasonable.

[Sentinel]

Like I've said earlier somewhere, I think primitivist enclaves should be tolerated postrevolution as long as the children born and growing within them have access to modern education and medicine.

The grownups can live how shitty lives they want but the kids will get the best. If they then choose to reject everything modern when they have actually seen it and are old enough to decide for themselves, let them.

But no parents should be allowed to let their children die from something that can be cured, or grow up unknowing of the fruits of progress. It'll be the the responsibility of society to intervene against that sort of abuse.

[dannie]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 11:40 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 11:40 PM)
Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19 2006, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:36 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 08:17 PM
It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.
I'd rather have all of humanity sharing a global technolgoy level and culture.
So you are against individuals living seperate from main society? Are people not allowed to leave and set up autonomous lifestyles?
Why would they want to? If their society started affecting the main one by, for example, preventing resource gathering then it is essential they are assimilated or moved away. Hopefully it will be assimilation so that the main society can dominate the globe. Of course if we reach an interplanetary level then autonomy becomes a lot more reasonable. [/b]
There is a lot of reason to believe that technology will be advanced enough to rule out a lot of situations where people need to "assimilate" for the reasons you mentioned in your post.

Post revolutionary, money (as we know it) shouldn't be an issue, so research and technology will develop alot faster than they do know. Resulting in methods of f.e. energy transportation that put far less a strain on the environment, en can be made using methods that we today can't think off.

It's not like a worldwide internationalist social revolution will happen next week.

[SPK]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19 2006, 10:07 AM
But in many circles, the destruction of current machinery, or objecting to the use of much technology, would be considered primitivist. But I agree with Vinny, that we should keep whatever we can still use. And destroy or reform the dangerous elements of society. Such as fossil fuel factories,
Well, I consider primitivism to be the complete rejection of technology, which is not what you're proposing at all.

In a revolutionary society, we will have to transition away from much of the existing productive forces, the bulk of which are completely useless and incompatible with the building of communism. Current ways of organizing the workplace, for instance, are dehumanizing and brutalizing to workers. People have to perform the same repetitive task all day long on an assembly line. Heirarchical management structures prevent workers from having control over their work process. Specialization creates a split or division between workers doing manual labor and those doing mental labor, to use traditional Marxist terminology. So those organizational methodologies which capitalism has used to spur on production need to be abolished.

We will also have to transition away from those technologies -- computers, capital machinery, etc. -- that are incompatible with a revolutionary society. Technology that wastes scarce resources, or manufacturing that pollutes the environment with toxic byproducts, or agriculture that damages the balance of the ecosystem all have to be eliminated. It is also becoming clear that the entire petroleum-based economy is going to have to be scrapped, since we’re running out of oil. These productive forces will have to be redeveloped, many times from the ground up.

Maybe I'm too sanguine about this question, but I am confident that these technologies can actually be redeveloped, and in a reasonable time-frame following a revolution. I don't see us having to wait many decades for that to happen. So much economic activity today is inefficient and wasteful, and not designed to address people’s real needs and the basic necessities of life. With more centralized or coordinated decision-making, particularly early on following a revolution, time, resources, and energy can be focused on the technical infrastructure that needs to be redeveloped first. We won’t be making new consumer gadgets, like another IPod (OK, maybe not for a while :P ). Market competition will have been eliminated, so there shouldn’t be significant overlap in a given industry. People will have their needs guaranteed in a communist society, so they will actually have a material incentive to be more efficient -- if you’re too productive in this capitalist society, that just means you can be laid off a lot faster. Planned obsolescence won’t exist, so you won’t have the whole constant churn or cycle of new, incrementally-different versions of a product (Think about Windows, as an example: Microsoft announces the development of a new version; which leads to the development of bigger hard-drives – since Windows is so huge; and faster processors – since Windows is so complex; and new software – since the upcoming version won’t be fully backwards-compatible; etcetera).

Tremendous amounts of labor power are expended every day in the capitalist system to produce junk. If a revolutionary society harnesses that power and focus it a in a few, critical directions, I’m sure we can find much better alternatives for food, energy, and so on. If we absolutely have to, we can eat Doritos for another decade or so – it won’t kill us. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by dannie+Sep 19 2006, 11:38 PM--> (dannie @ Sep 19 2006, 11:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 19 2006, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:36 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 08:17 PM
It's their choice, not mine... It's their choice to live the way they live, and as long as it does not harm our social revolution and progress, then it's fine by me if they live that way.
It's not about me wanting or not wanting them to live like that, it's their freedom and autonomy I respect, as long is they respect mine.
I'd rather have all of humanity sharing a global technolgoy level and culture.
So you are against individuals living seperate from main society? Are people not allowed to leave and set up autonomous lifestyles?
Why would they want to? If their society started affecting the main one by, for example, preventing resource gathering then it is essential they are assimilated or moved away. Hopefully it will be assimilation so that the main society can dominate the globe. Of course if we reach an interplanetary level then autonomy becomes a lot more reasonable.
There is a lot of reason to believe that technology will be advanced enough to rule out a lot of situations where people need to "assimilate" for the reasons you mentioned in your post.
[/b]
There is, but that has nothing to do with this hypothetical situation, in the scenario we need the copper to progress, the backwards tribe are in the way of it, therfore indirectly in the way of progress - thus regressive.


Post revolutionary, money (as we know it) shouldn't be an issue, so research and technology will develop alot faster than they do know. Resulting in methods of f.e. energy transportation that put far less a strain on the environment, en can be made using methods that we today can't think off. I know. All I was saying is if they prevent resource gathering or the like they need to be taken into the main culture. Otherwise we may as well leave them alone (although a global culture would still be better).


It's not like a worldwide internationalist social revolution will happen next week. Unfourtunatley true.