đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș anonymous-antitechnology-0.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:23:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Antitechnology #0 Author: Anonymous Date: 2009 Language: en Topics: anti-civ, anti-technology Source: http://antitecnologia.acracia.net Notes: Text version of the fanzine Antitechnology #0
We present this publication attempting to answer the questions that
first arise around anti-technology and also with the aim of raising
awareness of the subject.
We recommend you read these texts in the woods, where the fanzine and we
belong.
Make as many copies as you want, send it to anyone to whom it may
interest.
Anti-technology is a non-profit publication, the price, if any, canât
exceed printing costs.
Warning! We didnât find any ânativeâ speaker to proofread the english
version.
A rabid dog doesnât stop being dangerous simply because you change its
collar, you canât educate, tame or cure the dogâs rabies. We can look
back and remember when the dog was good and friendly, but that does not
solve the problem, we can look ahead and imagine how nice it will be
when the dog stops having rabies. But if instead of being distracted by
the past or the future we look to the crude present then the best
decision is to kill the dog as soon as possible.
Itâs not normal.
You always suspected there was something in the world that didnât quite
work, that something was wrong. Your instinct tells you but your mind is
unable to fix it, is something elusive that consistently eludes any
attempt of identification. Sometimes you lie to yourself telling
yourself youâve already found it, but soon see that it doesnât explain
the real root of the worldâs problems. Is it a political issue? Social?
Environmental? Philosophical? Genetic? Spiritual? You scanned the
philosophical, sociological, political, and religious mysticism, and did
not fill that void, something doesnât fit, and you know it must be huge.
The answers are half answers, the proposals donât work and thereâs still
something missing, something important and fundamental, above all, a
concrete explanation for what is really happening, for what doesnât fit.
Overcrowding in large cities, the destruction and irreversible
modification of nature, human life being highly controlled and
regulated, factories, offices, universities, governments, banks and all
that make them work are serving the Technosystem, technology and
technique, theyâre chained to it. Technology cuts our freedoms, destroys
our nature and makes happiness impossible, itâs like the gold bag that
drowns the sailor because heâs unable to let it go. Havenât you ever
felt that life was meaningless? Itâs because of technology, with it
there is no motivation to live a meaningful life, only an empty and
robotic life. Our life is not life, itâs just a choreography driven by
technological progress, a general disenchantment that weak personalities
fill with addictions, sexual aberrations or the most disparate hobbies,
habits and ideologies. People spend a lifetime looking for the perfect
love, the perfect job, the ideal method or the ideal partner to bear the
unbearable, they always seem to be about to get it, but as the donkey
behind the carrot they never get it, the maximum one can aspire to today
is to self deception.
Itâs not exactly technology itself but the whole technological system of
and technique. Our reality, our day to day, is given by the
Technosystemâs needs. If we live in overcrowded cities, destroy the
natural âresourcesâ of the world, pollute the environment or have a life
that is highly regulated and monitored itâs solely because the
Technosistem requires it to progress further. Our life and our freedom
are subject to the progress and continuity of the Technosystem, any
other issues are secondary even if this goes against us. The
Technosystem disables or destroys whatever it takes to continue its
course, we must highlight its need to destroy freedom, animals and the
environment to keep going. We can say that in our society donât matter
other consequences than the survival and expansion of the Technosystem.
Think about issues like nuclear power, the protection of natural areas,
indigenous rights, the right to privacy, the whaling ban or GMOs. All
that is trampled upon without hesitation as soon as it obstructs the
Technosystemâs progress. The example of the whales is paradigmatic
because even while being in serious danger of extinction itâs still
allowed to hunt them for scientific purposes. It has nothing to do with
left or right, with communism, globalization or democracy is, quite
simply, that the Technosystem, technology and technique have priority,
and nothing else matters.
One might think that the Technosystem is really âgreedâ or the endless
desire to get rich of some large companies and powerful people who will
not stop in front of anything or anyone in order to make more money. The
difference is that the desire to get rich without limit has been part of
human attitude since long before the rise of the Technosystem, this
attitude has undoubtedly created great pain and discomfort but this has
always been proportional to the technology and technique available.
Therefore in the past the plans of these big corporations and powerful
people could only have the intensity that the technology and technique
of the time allowed them.
At present and due to advances in technology and tecnique, corporations
and organizations have expanded their influence, power and consequences
to all corners of the world and have multiplied exponentially the
unpleasant effects that their attitudes cause. Victims who formerly
could fight or fly in front of those attitudes now have no option or if
they do it has been greatly depleted primarily because the Technosystem,
technology and technique always play against the individual or small
community and for the large company or organization, whether public or
private. Eliminating the Technosystem certainly would not eliminate
completely âgreedâ or these endless desire to get rich, but its
capacity, performance and power radio would be greatly diminished.
The Technosystem can be viewed as an amplifier. Greed above mentioned,
destruction of nature, control and intense regulation of our lives,
depending on decisions made by people who we do not know and that we
canât influence, the emergence of mental illness, etc.. are amplified
exponentially by the âadvancesâ in technology that either make
destruction and control easier, or alienate us further and make us more
dependent on the Technosystem. Many unhappy people try to rebel and
attack the problems separately, which are many, however we believe that
what must be attacked is the amplifier of these problems, i.e. the
Technosystem, technology and technique, as they are the tools that make
them really dangerous.
Modern agriculture, rapid transportation, telecommunications,
electricity, engines, firearms, psychology, psychiatry and cheap energy
among others enable the Power Elite to destroy nature and control life,
not only they can do it, they need to do it more and more for the
Technosystemâs further progress.
The destruction of wild nature and the control and regulation of human
life are proportional to the available technology. See for example the
case of the German Democratic Republic: Under that political regime life
was highly regulated and monitored by political causes, but thanks to
the technology of the moment. If the STASI had disposed of modern
technology (like video surveillance cameras at low cost to extend
throughout the city, computer files containing all information that they
wanted, movement control of the population by mobile phone, satellite
images or internet to name a few) the life of the citizens of that area
would have been much more regulated and controlled than it was. If the
STASI did not have a video camera on every corner or in every house was
because it was technically impossible, such technology was not
sufficiently developed, it was too expensive and difficult to
centralize. If they did not have a computer scanning all emails of the
population was because people did not have email, if they had lines of
guys opening all mail coming in and out of the area was because a
machine capable of âreadingâ, scanning, saving, and searching key words
in written communications didnât exist: if there had been one they would
have used it. Therefore the intensity of the control of the population
in East Germany was more subject to the available technology of the
moment than to the political characteristics of the area. Clearly the
political will of those who ruled or the political model they followed
influenced the desire of wanting to or needing to control the
population, but it did not matter much how great that desire or need was
since that could only be carried out it in terms of the available
technology, therefore technology influenced more the control of the
population than politics.
Similarly if the Spanish who went to the Americas in search of gold had
had engines, the ability to build roads and bulldozers, the destruction
of nature in America and of its indigenous peoples would have been
exponentially greater. The destruction was equal to the available
technology, if more wasnât destroyed was because technically it couldnât
be done, not because they didnât want to.
If the whole world opted for a political option the least controlling
and destructive we would still be against the Technosystem, because at
any time the political model could change and the technological tools
and technology would be there to continue the destruction of nature and
the control of population.
We have presented examples of nondemocratic countries. That does not
mean that democracy cancels the effect of the Technosystem, technology
and technique in democratic countries. Currently the UK is developing
what some Brits call the rise of the âDatabase Stateâ a technological
and technical progress that will enable the State to centralize and
store large amounts of information about peopleâs life by creating a
profile stored in huge computer databases to which âonly the government
will have access.â The information can range from websites visited by
the person to dialed calls, medical records, purchases made by credit
card or any other data that can be processed by a computer. All that
unified in a single computer file. There is no doubt that the STASI
would have loved to use these advances and that the only reason they
didnât use them was because they did not exist. If we speak of democracy
we can also observe that the biggest destruction of nature, something
unprecedented in human history, is being carried out by organizations or
governments of democratic countries and their powerful elites.
The only notable feature of democracy is that it tends to destroy nature
in a brutal way preferably outside its borders, but that doesnât mean
that inside it leaves it intact, much less.
In the case of communism or right-wing dictatorships we must waste no
time showing the low esteem these schools of thought have for nature, as
is public domain.
If the Technosystem has not destroyed us is because it needs us. It
needs the lower class to perform the more tedious tasks, the middle
class to control the work of the lower class and to develop technical
and skilled tasks, the upper class to control the lower and middle class
in their work and the Power Elite to control the whole. Reversing the
order of factors wonât alter the product, if anything, it will create a
society thatâs more or less efficient or more or less repressive, but we
will still have the Technosystem.
Leave at Technosystemâs hands the task of solving the problems created
by the same Technosystem makes no sense.
Yes, if you really care about numbers bear in mind that the more
technology expands the more population will increase and with it the
chances and catastrophic consequences of collapse. If the system
collapses in two hundred years more people will die than if it collapsed
now as population will continue to grow.
Because population will continue to rise according to the available food
inevitably a time will come when our lives and especially our
reproduction should be organized in a highly efficient manner. That
means that the State, the Elite or whoever is in charge of the situation
will decide, among many other things, if you can have children or not
and how many you can have. To decide this, and to carry out its decision
effectively our lives must then be highly controlled and regulated
because otherwise people will circumvent these rules and measures of
birth control will fail. We hold that a life as highly controlled,
regulated and organized by third persons is inhumane, unnatural, and not
worth living. Moreover, the irreversible estruction and modification of
nature will continue to advance, which we also oppose.
technology, leaving my phone, selling my car or giving up electricity?
Anti-technology is not an ideology to tell anyone how to live, also itâs
not meant to design an ideal world. Its sole purpose is to halt and make
step back the technological system as a whole.
Do what you want but it is totally irrelevant to this discussion if you
have a mobile or not. The Technosystem has instilled in us that âwe can
change things with our consumption habitsâ but thatâs nothing more than
a fallacy. In the same way that the worldâs water problems are not going
to be solved if you quit showering, the technological problem will not
be solved if you personally disconnect from it. Although, obviously,
disconnecting will bring you many personal benefits.
Life without the technosystem will be hard and probably brutal since we
lack all tradition and culture necessary to be prepared, weâve been
modeled to depend absolutely on the technosystem, but how will life be
if we let the Technosystem continue expanding indefinitely? Life without
Technosystem will be marked by two obvious facts: first people will live
close to nature as it will provide food, and second the amplifying tools
for the destruction of nature and for the control and regulation of life
will be heavily depleted.
This is the question that often many make us.
They hear or read our discourse, and then, inevitably, the question
arises.
So, why do you use computers?
And they think they have hit the nail on the head.
Five reasons would suffice as an answer.
use any means to expand and destroy you.
planning the collapse of the concentration camp with the tools that are
in the same camp.
biotechnology âfor the good of humanityâ playing God, the bankers who
âare concerned about keeping the economy afloatâ when in fact engaged in
saving their own, the politicians who speak of âensuring the common
goodâ when only look after their own, âpacifist governmentsâ who sell
weapons by tons or transgenic laboratories who just want to âsolve world
hungerâ when all they are going to achieve is to modify life, generate
more food, and consequently more hungry people.
But those answers do not suffice. Why? Because itâs a trick question.
Especially if made by an anarchist conscious with the struggle against
exploitation and domination of some humans over others.
But in any case, itâs a trick question.
Every society has a culture that individuals internalize to greater or
lesser extent depending on the degree of integration over the collective
and the degree of satisfaction that daily life activities, social
organization and the individualâs function contribute to its members.
Ours is a mediocre society, unable to meet our needs (even the most
basic) without creating us new ones in the short and long term. The only
thing required is obedience, conformity, passivity, stupidity and
nonviolence.
No satisfactory at all. So one day, perhaps because weâve thought, read
books or viewed films or documentaries, or because we were looking on
the internet, or simply because it happens to us, we become conscious of
the scam. Then we acquire knowledge about the functioning of society in
which we live that makes us fight it and try to find an alternative. The
culture to which we belong clashes with the culture to which we want to
belong, which causes a rupture. After that break, that tear, that
impossible reconciliation with the world in which we are born, we try to
create a new one that makes us happy and see as essential to break down
the one that has made us become so miserable and cowardly.
Our culture is useless. However, all our day to day, all our routine,
our livelihood, our social life, depend on civilization in one way or
another. We have some specific tools within our society, not only to
spread our ideas and our message but also for everything else. If we are
to change our lives we have no choice but to eliminate what destroys us,
because it will never allow us to be free, and create a new culture, an
alternative to the one we refuse, one that provides the resources we
need to achieve our aims. Those, indeed, who have decided to break with
civilization entirely, usually are only successful when they have chosen
to live with another culture outside of civilization, which has provided
all necessary means to satisfy their needs.
The question, which comes mainly from leftist factions (anarchist or
not), is malicious and mean, because itâs not only partial and poorly
argued, itâs also hypocritical.
If not, weâll try to make it to them, reactionaries.
Are the computers the left uses product of production systems organized
horizontally, without the exploitation of some by others?
Was the production process controlled from the beginning so that even
the miners, factory workers, etc.., had fair working conditions?
Even âalternativeâ cooperatives use products that have been obtained
through the exploitation of people and animals worldwide, from the
destruction of ecosystems and indigenous populations. See for example
the issue of coltan, a mineral essential for the production of
technological products that has led to the Democratic Republic of Congo
into a war since 1998, let alone what John Zerzan says âat the end
someone has to get in the mine, you donât want to do it, I donât want to
do it, then who does it?â the answer is simple, someone to whom the
misery caused by the Technosystem forces him. What reasons have those
who are against war or exploitation to use a technology that has
devastation as a prerequisite? There is no justice or ecology or anarchy
throughout this process. So, why do they work to support these
companies, why do they buy at the supermarket, why do they make use of
electricity, drink tap water, buy shoes, write or ultimately lack a
culture and society self-sufficient that enables them to produce
everything they need without exploiting others? Is this the example they
want to give us? Is this to be consistent and coherent?
Probably not.
So while we, the hypocrites, continue to live in this culture we will
continue to make use of it, in all the cases where we find it
convenient. And we will not give more explanations than those given in
this answer. Because no one gives them to us.
Whatever the concept âleftâ may have meant in the past, when the world
was forming as it is now and technological advances dazzled people so
that no one could see the impact they had on life and liberty, we will
focus on what we think it means today.
A lefty is all for progress. Furthermore, he encourages the State to
intervene in or resolve all problems of the individual or the most
important parts of his life. That is why a lefty will always be in favor
of the Technosystem, technology, technique, industrialization, science
and so on, although he enacts naive restrictions, ethics, and
responsible uses of it.
With unions sold out, worker solidarity eradicated, a precarious present
and future, seen how communist countries evolve in true dynasties and
with social achievements being thrown overboard like ballast from a
balloon, today, being a lefty has been relegated to something akin to
following a religion with many rules regarding social behavior,
organization, decision making and ways of proceeding of his followers.
Totally integrated with the Technosystem the sole purpose of leftism
today is pure proselytism and its only function the cancellation of any
group with the potential to change reality.
It is remarkable the watchdog role that develops with a particular
interest in nobody protesting or trying to change things in ways not
approved by the system. These methods such as collecting signatures,
peaceful demonstrations, the piece of paper in the ballot box every X
years, and above all nonviolence, have proven useless in achieving the
revolutionary aims that allegedly pursue and have had the only effect of
absorbing and channeling the hatred and anger that people have against
the system and do it ways that do not involve any risks to it. Such
practices have its ultimate expression in the âFree speech zonesâ set up
in some events of the United States. These fenced areas, far from
everything and packed with video surveillance are the spaces âreserved
by the organization to protest.â
Leftist today are obsessed with everyone using non-violent methods
against an extremely violent and well armed system, this amounts to a
suicide, if not, ask the Jewish people whose pacifism in front of the
Nazis almost completely exterminated them. As if this were not enough,
leftist pacifists have created myths, like that the Vietnam War ended
because the hippies sang songs in front of the White House, when in fact
it ended because of the armed and violent actions of the Vietcong. Or
that Gandhi achieved independence peacefully in India when in fact the
British Empire, weakened after two world wars, knew that it could agree
to his demands or face a popular and violent uprising. Or Martin Luther
King who, like Gandhi, gave the other side to choose among its peaceful
proposals of equal justice or face the wrath of twenty million blacks
with a right to keep and bear automatic weapons. For those who want more
information about this point we recommend reading âPacifism as
Pathologyâ by Ward Churchill, downloadable in pdf.
To fulfill its proselytizing purposes leftists advocate for the tyranny
of political correctness and a very peculiar notion of âconsensusâ that
has nothing to do with voting or autonomous operation, based on
silencing at any price those who disagree with the precepts of their
pseudo-religion.
It should be noted that in recent years due to the logical concern that
many people show for environmental degradation, the left, fully aligned
with the system, have wanted to make his the environmental discourse
painting technological progress as âgreen.â For our part we want to make
clear that in the anti-technology movement there is no place for them.
Does this mean that you are right wing? We are not right wing or
nationalist, these two concepts are also closely linked to technological
development, industrial development and progress.
âIn losing his freedom, he loses his humanity. To be human is to be
free, man is a being-for-freedom. â
(Pierre Clastres [1])
The concept of anarchism has been severely undermined by the continuing
influence of leftists, supporters of its status as slaves, who have
infected with their tyranny of political correctness all
anti-authoritarian initiative. People who have taken over the bourgeois
claims of the Illustration and Marxism speaking of technological
progress and development of production as key points for developing a
free and classless society, which is quite ironic when it has been
precisely technological and scientific progress the responsible of
extending domination in all areas of daily life.
To make matters worse, many hypocrites, opportunists, charlatans and
lazy often call themselves âanarchistsâ when in fact their ideas, if
any, are not even remotely similar to what we understand should belong
to a healthy anarchist movement.
In this context, we might answer that weâre not. That simply by
definition we are not anarchists. That although our arguments can
converge with those of some branches of anarchism, the absolute priority
for us is to stop the industrial technological system, regardless of
other political, social or organizational issues.
But then one might ask, why is not anarchist this goal?
The anarchist, in general, aims to manage both horizontally and trough
assembly a society inherently authoritarian. Pretending to be its own
members who decide at each moment what should be changed or not, there
is no place for promises of real structural change.
The society of which we speak is not self sufficient, so it only can
fulfill his prodigious consumption by looting the resources of the rest
of the planet, wiping out the various indigenous peoples throughout the
world and destroying many ecosystems in its path, displacing wildlife
and indigenous flora and causing irreversible or quasi irreversible
situations of unlikely or of very slow recover, in addition to the
hopeless homogenization of what once was biological and cultural
diversity. And that society will act the same way no matter the hands
that seek to control it, it is a standalone machine whose logic does not
follow the same laws that govern the symbiosis and the balance of those
who enslaved the rest of living organisms. It is useless to try to
modify it from within, since it is rotten in itself and its actions do
not depend in any way, on the will of the people. Quite the contrary, it
is the people (and the rest of the worldâs inhabitants) who have to
adapt to its operation.
The mega-machine canât grant privileges to all: to survive it needs to
bleed precise areas of the world we call âpoor countriesâ, which
ironically have a lot of resources in order to feed those residents of
what we call ârich countriesâ, again paradoxically, because they are
absolutely incapable of self-sufficiency. The mega-machine knows no
equality or freedom, the division between rulers and ruled is not in any
way, anecdotal or casual: it is a prerequisite for its proper
functioning.
Clastres says [2] that a relationship of power is oppressive, that any
divided society is inhabited by an absolute evil because the denial of
freedom is something unnatural, and that being good a society in which
the natural absence of division ensures the realm of freedom, a bad one
is that in which divided beings allow the triumph of tyranny, because,
before of social division there was necessarily, in accordance with the
nature of man, a society without oppression and submission.
It tells us that primitive societies are âequalâ because they ignore
inequality: a man is not âworthâ nothing more nor less than another,
there is no superior or inferior, no one can do more than another, no
one holds power, the chief doesnât rule because he doesnât have any more
power than any member of the community.
The natural part of domination is then denied by observing and living
with various indigenous peoples of planet Earth that many
anthropologists and ethnologists have practiced for years. Most human
groups have not developed authoritarian structures, neither have
separated the various areas of daily life. In them, specialized
institutions independently controlling different areas of life donât
exist. The social, political and economic are part of an unbroken whole,
and therefore there is no State or any organ that organizes society from
outside. Our civilization, this âtechno-systemâ is not the norm nor is
the logical evolution of any human population, but quite the contrary is
very exotic: of all human societies that have existed on planet Earth
and that today exist, very few have developed civilization and, for the
latter, only the West has developed the most effective method of
annihilation ever seen.
We could answer that we are not anarchists, but maybe we are.
Because we intend to stop a lifestyle that has nothing sustainable or
natural, that does not follow any basic homeostatic principle, that
bypasses all the rules of the game, preventing the existence of the rest
of the community of life (including all other groups humans), we may be
anarchists.
By pretending to end the central axis of the worst system of domination
that ever existed, and instead seek to develop forms of organization,
culture and interpersonal relationships, horizontal and
anti-authoritarian, based on mutual support and self-sufficiency, we may
be anarchists.
Because we aim to recover the original anarchy for which all human
beings are born, the one our forefathers enjoyed for over a hundred
thousand years and yet many people are enjoying today, to the extent
that modern society allows them, perhaps we are anarchists.
Because we do not want to take control of Babylon, but to destroy it,
because we donât want to manage a society of slaves or manage our own
death, because we do not want to be part of a group of dedicated workers
who daily struggle to make of the air something even more unbreathable,
of water something even more poisonous, of wilderness a dream ever more
distant and of freedom an unattainable impossible, surely we may be
anarchists.
Many will disagree. We donât care.
They can call it what they want. We are who we are.
No more nor less.
social justice or the termination of police brutality?
Most of these issues, when attacked separately, distract from the main
problem, technology. The only notable exception is found in the Animal
Liberation due to the peculiarities that the liberationist movement has.
Given that we advocate animal liberation to its ultimate consequences,
because the human being is a mammal like many, perhaps the question is
whether we want all those animals that the modern world uses for their
daily consumption out of their cages. The answer is yes.
We therefore support the Animal Liberation movement, whose members we
feel ready and courageous people, with clear ideas and, of course, and
perhaps more importantly, with courage enough to put them into practice.
However, in the Animal Liberation movement there are people with a
special focus on the struggle for non-human animals, that involves a
separation between us and them, them who are allowed to eat one another,
like if they were some kind of mentally retarded who donât know what
they are doing, and we, the hyper-rational humans, that should question
the morality of all acts we perform daily regardless of the medium in
which we find ourselves.
However, being rational again, looking at different situations, we may
conclude that a vegan urban or agricultural diet to feed a lot of people
would probably cause greater damage to the ecosystem (and thus the
animals and plants live there), that a tribe as the Sami of Scandinavia,
which feed mainly on non-human animals.
Conflict, therefore, with some members of the animal liberation
movement, would focus on something as simple as the food we eat daily,
and less on the fact that their actions could not be attacking the
system âwhere it hurts.â
We believe that the idea that eating other animals is a crime is
relative and depends on the conditions under which these animals have
lived their lives. In a context free of the Technosystem,
self-sufficient and integrated into the environment, the use of animals
for food as far as may be necessary would involve little or no power
over other animal species, and therefore, there wouldnât be necessary to
question the âgoodnessâ or âevilâ inherent in these everyday acts, as
the tools that amplify the authoritarian power of man over nature would
have been abolished in all its forms.
Without talking about our own diet (since there is no common denominator
between those who write these lines), we could say that we donât stand
for the vegan diet for reasons explained below:
â Industrial society requires the destruction of ecosystems,
exploitation of different resources (human or animal) of slavery, land
use (and therefore, the fauna and flora) of the annihilation and
irreversible change of wildlife to obtain the necessary means with which
to satisfy its needs. What needs? In essence the same as every human
society. Modern society canât, as reality evidences, supply its own
needs in a differently way than it does, and while it tries futilely it
destroys any possibility of society, both future and present.
â In this context there are only three ways of being vegan:
product not vegan (although its consumption does not imply any
collaboration with the production process of this product)
â The first option supports the same system that tortures and kills
animals (human or not). The products come from monocultures worldwide,
for which it has been necessary the destruction of large tracts of
wilderness, the displacement of indigenous populations, pollution,
industrialization, cheap energy, large transport, machinery ... This
involves not only the torture and killing of domestic animals raised for
that purpose, but the genocide of the last free individuals and
ethnocide (cultural genocide): natives of America, Africa, Asia... An
example maybe inappropriate would be soybeans (since currently there are
vegans who are opposed to the consumption of soy), which involves not
only growing deforestation of a large number of hectares in the Amazon
but also the progress of GM technology, besides the consequences on the
ground: the land becomes infertile, there are also consequences on the
ecosystem: unpredictable reaction of genetic modification. The vegan,
therefore, wouldnât be fighting in this case in no way against the
system: simply heâd be altering the way he supports it.
â The second option is reasonably useful in an urban context, as the
vegan does not consume and therefore does not support the system and is
not involved in the production-consumption process. The freegan could in
any case, recycle any type of food without supporting the food industry,
but the freegan vegan opposes it. It might seem respectable. However,
the ethics that lies behind this thinking are highly questionable:
practice some form of consumption of animals depending on the ecosystem
and on the society in particular. Consumption of meat / fish can vary
from 10â20% (the Bushmen in Africa surveyed by Richard Lee gave great
importance to the collection of mongo-mongo, Brazilsâ Nawe Enawene
conduct fisheries, farming and gathering, and do not eat meat, the
Yanomami of the Amazon reviewed by Jacques Lizot and of whom we can find
lots references in the works of Pierre Clastres and Marvin Harris, grow
bananas in their nomadic gardens, hunt and gather, ...) to 90% (Inuit).
This allows them to continue their way of life. The ethics of these
practices are unquestionable: they behave like the human animals they
are and do not abuse any resource, donât hunt or fish or harvest or
cultivate more than they need. If they choose to cultivate only, that
would require them to flatten large amounts of land to satisfy its
people and theyâd be disregarding all other sources of food, while
domesticating the wild.
Whoever is opposed to the way these people relate to their environment
and favors to educate them to change their practices is an authoritarian
who has not understood that a culture can only survive by changing
whatâs wrong in it through the self emancipative action of its own
members, in addition to advocating a form of economy incompatible with
wilderness that assigns a central role to cultivation, which is the
least ecological way of obtaining a livelihood that humans possess.
As a horticulturist:
environment is quite difficult, if given this opportunity, thisâd be a
useful tool against the logic of production and consumption of modern
society.
A vegan non-industrial production combined with the gathering of wild
foods, based on personal effort and entirely separate from the
Technosystem seems a very respectable choice to us, but probably can
only be applied to some types of soil and climate. But we insist that by
âresponsible consumptionâ one doesnât knock down the giant or change
anything in an effective way, responsible consumption is a scam well
defended by the left to try to defuse the wishes of many individuals who
are seriously thinking about activism.
Moreover to practice only one kind of economy forsaking all others
establishes a clear separation between man and nature, moreover if you
use products, seeds and machinery from the techno-industrial system. In
this case the alleged ethics that would govern this diet and type of
production would be in contradiction with itself as it would be leaning
and depending on the Technosystem and, therefore, in general, promoting
animal suffering.
Taking into account all previously said, a vegan diet does not seem
necessary to contribute to animal liberation, while the total and
absolute dismantling of modern society appears as the only objectively
useful way towards obtaining liberation (both human and non-human).
While animal liberation groups (following or not a strict vegan diet) do
not contribute to the dismantling of modern society per se, by releasing
some quantities of animals in certain specific times they do damage
certain sectors of the industrial system and its actions contain a high
symbolic value in addition to inspiring many people and serving for the
evolution and learning of the activists themselves.
Therefore, we will support them as long as their actions do not pose a
risk to wilderness: for example allowing alien species to displace
native species, releasing liberated animals into ecosystems that are not
their own.
The liberation of Earth, the building self-reliant communities, the
destruction of civilization and animal liberation as a whole, is long,
costly, ambitious and essential. Although critics such as that in Ted
Kaczynskiâs âHit where it hurtsâ are of considerable importance for
understanding the current state of things, in some cases could encourage
individuals to be confronted by the dilemma of either doing something
decisive or doing nothing, to what many may respond by doing nothing.
Small actions against the system are not only important insofar as they
contribute to the destruction of the system but also to the extent they
contribute to the formation of free individuals, prepared, aware of
their capabilities and limitations, courageous and capable of fighting
for what they claim.
Because of all that, long life to the Animal Liberation Front and the
Earth Liberation Front.
The system is effective in adapting people and the formation of thought.
At an early age we are subjected to its rules as it takes advantage of
the complete dependence of whom still canât help himself. We are
proposed a life of âluxuryâ, âcomfortâ and fleeting pleasures, without
asking much in return ... only our freedom. There is no reason not to
deliver it, since it is worthless. âFreedom is an ambiguous concept,
complex and subjectiveâ That said, there is no intention to preserve it
and fight for it. Few are able to define freedom without jeopardizing
their lifestyle, while for most it is impossible to explain what they
never knew.
It is interesting to analyze the mechanisms the technological system
uses for its preservation. Education has always been a means by which a
society legitimizes and reproduces the prevailing social model, «the
Sumerian âschoolsâ, had the function of teaching writing to those whoâd
form the ruling class of society» [3]. All social structures and systems
need to be replicated to maintain benefits for a class or the elite.
Thus, the education provided by the State does not intend for people to
criticize the state, but to accept, respect and defend it. Education
under a democratic government reproduces its values, just like under a
dictatorship it spread its ideology. But there is nothing original in
these ideas. Criticism of the educational system, its methods and
purposes is extensive and varied. However, the different educational
streams do not criticize technology, not do they propose emancipation
from technological society, but from the liberal and capitalist economic
model. Behaviorism, emerging from Evolutionary vision [4], was strongly
opposed by nascent constructivism from Historical Materialism [5]. The
first raised the banner of social reproduction, and the second punished
the values and methods of the existing order. The Marxist concept of
education, proposes a change in ideology and critical thinking in
relation to liberalism. Why donât they criticize the technological
system? Simple: because people must be educated to adapt to
technological society, the model that prevails in everyday life.
The libertarian pedagogy is the closest thing to the formation of free
and independent thought. Importantly, the educator should be aware that
freedom of thought is not built by imposing ideas but by motivating its
creation and personal development. Where is freedom of action in a
person being influenced and manipulated by imposed ideas? Also variety
in choices does not represent freedom but its conditioning. No one could
ever say that an anarchist professor makes freer people than a Marxist
professor. If both transmit and impose their ideology then contribute
equally to the training of slaves.
The educational system requires adaptation to technological
civilization. Practical works written by hand belong to the past, now
they are required to be made in computers. When contemplating the search
of information itâs usually appealed to the Internet and technological
graphic media. Similarly, the materials used to study are products of
the technological system: rules, pens, backpacks, sheets, notebooks,
etc. Furthermore, the formation of cities requires the use of
transportation (in most cases) to reach the place of study. So if a
person wants an education has to be an active participant in
technological society and submit to its model.
The natural character of exclusion that technology adopts is also
manifested in schools: the lack of access to information due to lack of
computer knowledge and the inability to work âneat and consistently with
modernity,â displace those non willing or able to adapt to the
technological system. âComputer skillsâ are exclusive of any work that
society deems as worthy, so an educated and trained person must be
handled within the parameters of current technology. Hence the
imperative of the system that people be formed in the mold of slavery is
essential for progress.
Education, in a technological language, can be interpreted as the
programming of people to insert them into an artificial world, away
forever from the real world (nature), attempting to eliminate all forms
of emancipation from the technological system. The results are clear: a
youngster average age of 18 knows how to use a computer, a car, buying
groceries at a supermarket and cook them, respect rules and social
norms, and be useful to the system through any job. However he is not
able to obtain food from nature, or build a shelter and obtain water, in
short, he is not able to survive outside the technological system.
Although the current pedagogical trends are considered critical to the
system, and emancipative from the same, they are just one of many means
to divert attention to continue producing slaves. Freedom is not
acceptable to the techno-industrial system.
The love of technological civilization is printed in the unconscious of
people, reaching extremes in which phrases like âletâs talk like
civilized peopleâ that echo in educational institutions quite naturally.
In this sense, children who do not respect the rules are âsavagesâ some
ârudeâ to be punished heavily to transform them into âgood citizensâ.
Human domestication runs from birth to death. As trees are tied to a
stick to grow straight, man suffers physical domination, cultural and
mental so he is formed identical to the stereotype image of the slave
the system so badly needs. Never mind then if he is a respected lawyer,
a distinguished writer, an ambitious businessman, a renowned politician,
or a simple worker. The essential thing is to respect the technological
system, that he is unable to live outside it and never forget the
benefits of evolution.
Civilization could transmit a highly revolutionary thought against the
economic and social order. Could even encourage criticism and
destruction of capitalism, encouraging class consciousness, but it could
not allow them to question the foundations that give it life. More
exactly the technological engine canât be questioned. âThe dominant
force is technology, understood not as this or that particular machine,
or this or that branch of the techniques, but as an organized and
interdependent whole that is imposed through the modernization of
everyday life, from politics, economics, and bureaucratic
administration, to media, advertising, fast food, transport and
tourism.â[6]
It would be illogical to ask the system to undermine itself, nor expect
that education ceases to be used as an ideological apparatus. The
reproduction and consequently technological expansion, demand the
learning of techniques and the domestication of people to sustain the
model. Is no longer novel to say that the technological system grows by
itself, nor that its way to do it are the people in a situation of
complete slavery.
The net is seen by most as a set of computers, cables, connections and
links lacking malice. The main argument is that the net provides access
to a vast amount of information and communication to people who
otherwise would have ignored this information and remained isolated from
each other. Also there is the fact of immediacy and no cost.
If there is one lesson about capitalism we should have learned by now is
that everything has a price. Google or Microsoft havenât spent millions
in supercomputers, engineers and technology centers so you can enjoy,
search for information or send emails for free. The world does not work
that way. A net, be it tiled by spider or by a group of computer
scientists, has always one single purpose: to pass unnoticed to capture
its prey.
Write an email to someone from Gmail telling him about flowers and when
he gets it Google will have inserted and advertisement about flowers at
the foot of the message. How do they know? Itâs easy, they scanned the
message. The same goes for attachments or files stored online, your
browser history, and obviously with the searches you do in search
engines, everything is associated with your profile. This is not a
secret, all search engines have publicly acknowledged it as a way to
provide better search results. Google says its aim is to get to know you
so much that a Friday afternoon you will type in your browser the
question âWhat do I do this weekend?â And Google will be able to give
you an answer.
For discussing the access to large amounts of information part we would
like to invite people to think about the latest educational trends to
substitute books by computers. Without going into a debate about the
terrible effects on the ability of understanding that such foolishness
will lead in young students and to avoid extending too much on the
subject we will comment only what follows: it is extraordinarily
difficult to scrutinize the world in search of each copy, for example of
history, and change or remove content that you do not consider
desirable. In contrast, if all content is in digital form this task
becomes much easier and more efficient, one only needs to have access to
the files that everyone downloads and edit or delete them (that is
precisely what Winston Smith -the main character of the novel 1984-
does, although he does it in analog, because not even George Orwell was
able to conceive such a degree of control). Furthermore, this progress
has the incentive of allowing Google, the government or anyone else to
know what you are reading or have read.
Finally there is the issue of everything having no economic cost. That
today all these services are free of cost does not necessarily mean they
will stay like that forever. One might assume that when they are become
totally indispensable and unavoidable the major suppliers will discuss
whether is worth it or not to give for free something that without any
doubt they will pay you for. Or do you believe that shareholdersâ
meetings are in for charity?
dimension?
We are not a cult. Religious / spiritual beliefs are each individualâs
own business. If anyone has religious / spiritual beliefs or not it is
not of our concern.
We are currently looking for historical data on different ways in which
major social changes have occurred in past societies (i.e. revolutions,
riots, popular uprisings and so on.) and revolutionary movements
(whether they have achieved their objectives or not). If you know about
(or want to research about) this subjects you can collaborate by
extracting and synthesizing ideas on those subjects and sending us this
information along with the sources. Also you can propagate the ideas of
this or similar publications.
Is there no other practical way to radically change our society or to
knock down the Technosystem? Yes indeed, if you have any ideas send us a
message or put them into practice yourself, you donât need anyone to
tell you what to do, you rule your own life, do what you think that
should be done.
You can find us at:
or
antitecnologia (a.t) acracia (d.o.t.) net
Â
[1] Freedom, misfortune, Unmentionable. Research in political
anthropology. Pierre Clastres. Editorial Gedisa, 1980â2001. 121.
[2] Ibid. Pp. 121â123.
[3] The invention of writing marked a new instrument of domination and
its uniqueness was in the hands of dominant social sector.
[4] Line of thought that comes from Darwinâs theories. It considers man
as a being condemned to evolution, thus defining the different stages of
human evolution and justifying their social structures and historical
times as inevitable.
[5] Line of thought that criticizes Evolutionism. Argues that the
structures and historical processes can be explained through the
relationship of men with the means of production.
[6] John Paul Russo. Las humanidades en la sociedad tecnolĂłgica.