technology and inequality

[abbielives!]

the is a summary of the most coherant arguement against technology I could find (primitivist 'theory' is mostly rhetoric)

the arguement goes like this: (1) divisions of labor create inquality, and (2) technology creates division of labour thereby creating inequality, thus technology has a negative impact


please focus on the technology arguement, not other facets of primitivist theory

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by abbielives!@September 14, 2007 07:56 pm
the is a summary of the most coherant arguement against technology I could find (primitivist 'theory' is mostly rhetoric)

the arguement goes like this: (1) divisions of labor create inquality, and (2) technology creates division of labour thereby creating inequality, thus technology has a negative impact


please focus on the technology arguement, not other facets of primitivist theory
Technology does not always have to have a divisory effect though, it is this side effect combined with the existing class heirarchy that the capitalists have used to advantage. By sustaining a society where it is acceptable and expected for prols to do menial work, it has smothered technical roles with the petit beourgiouse stereotype and united the working class mindset against it. By removing this culture, automation, amalgamation of technical roles and the education to utilise it into the working mans society means that technology can also be a liberating player. Do not confuse capitalist and progressive technocracy.

[Whitten]

(1) divisions of labor create inquality, and (2) technology creates division of labour thereby creating inequality, thus technology has a negative impact

This arguement is flawed on two counts:
1) technology is not the sole cause of the division of labour.
2) not all technology has the effect of dividing labour.

[Dean]

Originally posted by abbielives!@September 14, 2007 07:56 pm
the is a summary of the most coherant arguement against technology I could find (primitivist 'theory' is mostly rhetoric)

the arguement goes like this: (1) divisions of labor create inquality, and (2) technology creates division of labour thereby creating inequality, thus technology has a negative impact


please focus on the technology arguement, not other facets of primitivist theory
I don't see the basis for this.

I certainly see how technocracy is an anti-humanist philosophy in all the forms I've seen described, but I don't buy that technology is the problem. Technology doesn't create division of labor, and only its current usage perpetuates division of labor. I don't see why a highly technologically advanced culture cannot be egalitarian.

[RNK]

That's as idiotic as wanting to ban swimming because the leading cause of death by drowning is during swimming.

[Dr Mindbender]

i honestly dont buy how primitivism can be construed as 'progressive'. Im tempted to say that primitivists should be restricted.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:27 pm
I certainly see how technocracy is an anti-humanist philosophy in all the forms I've seen described
That's because you're a cretinous waste of carbon.

As for the argument it's a load of bollocks for the reasons Whitten illustrated, also a lack of technology may make us "equal" but only so far as we'd all be equally fucked.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 15, 2007 12:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 15, 2007 12:23 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:27 pm
I certainly see how technocracy is an anti-humanist philosophy in all the forms I've seen described
That's because you're a cretinous waste of carbon. [/b]
Sure, jizzrat. Don't think I haven't read many of the foreward - looking technocrats' ideas, I just don't see much in the way of associative interest in their proposals.

Christ, you're infantile.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+September 15, 2007 12:36 pm--> (Dean @ September 15, 2007 12:36 pm)
Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 15, 2007 12:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 15, 2007 12:23 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 11:27 pm
I certainly see how technocracy is an anti-humanist philosophy in all the forms I've seen described
That's because you're a cretinous waste of carbon. [/b]
Sure, jizzrat. [/b]
My, how original.


Don't think I haven't read many of the foreward - looking technocrats' ideas, I just don't see much in the way of associative interest in their proposals.

For what reason? It didn't link in with the infallible word of Muhammed(pbuh)?


Christ, you're infantile.


You
Sure, jizzrat.

My, my what a highly polished mirror you're using.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 15, 2007 11:09 am
i honestly dont buy how primitivism can be construed as 'progressive'. Im tempted to say that primitivists should be restricted.
It's not and they are. Primitivism is by definition the ultimate reactionary ideology.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:39 pm
For what reason? It didn't link in with the infallible word of Muhammed(pbuh)?
I'm not a Muslim. Why do you keep calling random people Muslims? It really makes you look stupid.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+September 15, 2007 01:06 pm--> (Dean @ September 15, 2007 01:06 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 12:39 pm
For what reason? It didn't link in with the infallible word of Muhammed(pbuh)?
I'm not a Muslim. Why do you keep calling random people Muslims? [/b]
You may not be a muslim but you're cuddled up so close to that reactionary cult as to make you indistinguishable.


It really makes you look stupid.

As does the fact you continue to post, but that hasn't stopped you so far.