Comments on: Techno-Salvation

By: The Fifth World Manifesto (The Anthropik Network)

The Fifth World Manifesto (The Anthropik Network) — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:46:47 +0000

[…] In 1966, Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek premiered on NBC. For the past 40 years, it has provided the model of a utopian future for techno-salvationists. What we need is a vision that maintains its hope and optimism without compromising its realism, a goal we can strive for that isn’t a contradiction in terms. As Green wrote of his Afterculture exhibit: The truth is that for the first time we are bereft of a positive vision of where we are going. This is particularly evident among kids. Their future is either Road Warrior post-apocalypse, or Blade Runner mid-apocalypse. All the futuristic computer games are elaborations of these scenarios, heavy metal worlds where civilization has crumbling into something weird and violent (but more exciting than now). […]

By: Thomas Rondy

Thomas Rondy — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:37:00 +0000

And furthering Roxy’s pretense of being a fundie atheist/ skeptizealot, my response to Benjamin’s post would be something along the lines of:

STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! POLLY WANT ATTENTION! POLLY WANT ATTENTION! {AWK! AWK!} SCIENCE IS GOD AND TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US! {AWK! AWK!}

By: Kicking the Habit » The Anthropik Network

Kicking the Habit » The Anthropik Network — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:47:48 +0000

[…] Invoking the savior that is modern technology to solve all ills, even the techno-salvationists can see that Bush’s plan isn’t ambitious enough: Other analysts say the biggest oil savings could be done with a stroke of Bush’s pen, saving more oil than his research proposals far more quickly. Boosting fuel-mileage standards for automobiles saved the lion’s share of US oil savings during the 1970s. […]

By: Energy In Society » The Anthropik Network

Energy In Society » The Anthropik Network — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:19:48 +0000

[…] Leslie White dealt with some of these issues. He was among the first to put forth the idea that the level of a given society’s development was a function of the energy available to that society. He further included technology into his equation. Unlike techno-salvationists, he stops short of proffering technology as a panacea, although his work has been used to defend such positions. These positions are only tenable when the diminishing returns of technological innovation is ignored. With this added understanding, the self-evident fact remains: no system based on perpetual growth can survive indefinitely in a finite universe. This statement is logically undeniable. Scientifically validated. And is common sense. This statement can be further limited with the additional rejoinder that the amount of energy in the universe is less relevant than the amount of energy available to a society. The fact that Jupiter has enough hydrogen to power fusion reactors for millennia is irrelevant if a society does not have fusion reactors or access to Jupiter. […]

By: Thesis #16: Technology cannot stop collapse. » The Anthropik Network

Thesis #16: Technology cannot stop collapse. » The Anthropik Network — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 23:40:55 +0000

[…] William Stanley Jevons is a seminal figure in economics. He helped formulate the very theory of marginal returns which, as we saw in thesis #14, governs complexity in general, and technological innovation specifically. In his 1865 book, The Coal Question, Jevons noted that the consumption of coal in England soared after James Watt introduced his steam engine. Steam engines had been used as toys as far back as ancient Greece, and Thomas Newcomen’s earlier design was suitable for industrial use. Watt’s invention merely made more efficient use of coal, compared to Newcomen’s. This made the engine more economical, and so, touched off the Industrial Revolution–and in so doing, created the very same modern, unprecedented attitudes towards technology and invention that are now presented as hope against collapse. In the book, Jevons formulated a principle now known as “Jevons Paradox.” It is not a paradox in the logical sense, but it is certainly counterintuitive. Jevons Paradox states that any technology which allows for the more efficient use of a given resource will result in greater use of that resource, not less. By increasing the efficiency of a resource’s use, the marginal utility of that resource is increased more than enough to compensate for the fall. This is why innovations in computer technology have made for longer working hours, as employers expect that an employee with a technology that cuts his work in half can do three times more work. This is why more fuel-efficient vehicles have resulted in longer commutes, and the suburban sprawl that creates an automotive-centric culture, with overall higher petroleum use. […]

By: Devin

Devin — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:53:20 +0000

Whoa.

That’s quite the observation.

By: Raku

Raku — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:28:43 +0000

It’s interesting to note that, whether by design, fate, or coincidence, the mythological Devil is a physical representation of the two greatest hardships ever befallen mankind: domestication (horns, hooves and tail) and agriculture (trident/pitchfork).

By: Raku

Raku — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:12:39 +0000

I think Roxy was being sarcastic, Ben.

Well, yes. But actually, I was being serious in a way. This is an argument that I am often faced with when I talk to fundie atheist and evolutionist friends, and it is one of the more difficult things for me to explain my point of view on, so I was interested to see someone else’s take on it. Thanks for the explanation, Ben!

By: Curt

Curt — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:36:45 +0000

A good book to read that is highly critical of science, technology, and this culture is Derrick Jensen’s Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control. I walked away from this book with a full understanding that if were going to survive on this planet it is absolutely essential for us to understand there exists other worldviews besides that of the scientific one.

“When those in power say that outside the Church (or science, or Technology, or Capitalism, or Civlization, or the Panopticon) there can be no salvation, they are lying. What they are really saying is that you better not escape, because if you are outside of thie Church, your continued existence (and happiness) will shake their own belief in the notion that the Church is good for them. Thus the Church itself. If you leave, it ceases to be the arbiter of all meaning and the source of salvation. The salvation of the Church requires not ony your belief and participation, but if you leave it requires your death, and beyond that, your annihilation. In industry, science, religion, and other institutions, diversity must be eliminated.

“Thus the constant violence done by the believers in the Church (Science, Civilization, Capitalism, whatever name the sickness goes by at that moment) against all disbelievers, whether they are indigenous peoples, heretics, or nonhumans.” Derrick Jensen

By: Benjamin Shender

Benjamin Shender — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:53:13 +0000

I suspected as much, but didn’t want to assume. If she was serious it would have been quite rude.