💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › harry-baecker-technology-science-and-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:44:49. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Technology, Science and Anarchism
Author: Harry Baecker
Language: en
Topics: science, technology, The Raven
Source: Retrieved on 1 January 1999 from http://www.tao.ca/~freedom/scien.html
Notes: From The Raven 24 pp. 296–302

Harry Baecker

Technology, Science and Anarchism

It has always been a great temptation to give an intensive definition of

man. Our ancestors were so bemused by their own philosophical

capabilities, and by the, to them, evident lack of these in the rest of

the fauna that they characterised themselves as homo sapiens. You and I

have inherited that noble appellation without any effort on our part. Of

late we have had other attempts at definition, homo ludens by Huizinga,

“man the time-builder” by Korzybski. The former emphasised the

importance of non-purposeful activity, play, in the development of those

activities we consider more worthy and important; the latter

characterised man by his ability to symbolise experience and thereby

transmit it to other members of the species far distant in time and

space. Korzybski’s definition is, by the way, extensive, as given in his

Manhood of Humanity.

I too have a chip on my shoulder, and as one of the mad ogres of modern

times, a technologist, a blind self-abasing servant of the machine, I

reject intensive definitions and choose to present my own extensive one

of man, an outgrowth of that of Korzybski, and I choose the label homo

aedificans, ‘man the builder’, to hang onto my definition. Intensive

definitions should be left to metaphysics, so it is up to me to make it

credible that my definition is extensive. The instructions for

verification of the definition are as follows:

“Observe the surface of this planet for at least one revolution round

its primary in sufficient detail to resolve features one hundred

millionth of its circumference in extent. You will observe several

lifeforms that produce artefacts from the material in their environment.

Further observation will show that in the case of all but one of these

lifeforms a given lifeform produces but one type of artefact and that

only within a sharply limited ecological framework. However, the

residual lifeform will be observed to produce a multiplicity of

artefacts and may be seen to produce the same artefact our of varying

environmental material by appropriate intermediary processes. If you

were to extend the period of your observations to a hundred revolutions

round the primary you would observe that no change has occurred in the

range of artefacts produced by the lifeforms except again in the case of

the one lifeform previously noted. Some artefacts previously produced by

this lifeform wil no longer be produced, some will be made out of

entirely different environmental material, and a large number of

artefacts not previously produced will now be noted. If you were to

improve the resolution of detail of your observations by a linear factor

of one hundred you will observe a class of artefact that may be deduced

to be symbolisations, abstractions, of other artefacts, of events, or of

actions of the lifeform. The lifeform you have particularised by your

observations is called man.”

This definition of man says nothing of heart or soul, of art or

intellect. It is ignoble, you may say. Perhaps. But it is verifiable, it

is devoid of private assumptions and comprises only directives for the

performance of actions that will lead to the recognition of the species

under discussion. It identifies man as the sole maker of gadgets and

widgets on this planet, that is, by his technologies.

A few years ago such a definition might even have been challenged as

totally inadequate by archaeologists and hominid palaeontologists who

had developed an evolutionary sequence largely derived from the cranial

capacity of the pre-sapiens remains found. Recent years have seen the

excavation of many more archaeological sites in many more parts of the

planet and it has become clear cranial capacity is a secondary

development. The record now shows that tool-using and tool-making goes

much further back in our ancestry than had previously been supposed and,

what is more important, that each stage of cranial development is

preceded by a change in the skeleton structure of the limbs giving

greater manipulative skill, and the archaeological record confirms that

our ancestors immediately used the new skill to make more refined tools,

before their cranial capacity had increased. The gadget is the father of

wisdom.

A persistent thread in anarchist and libertarian writing, as elsewhere

is the denigration of modern technology and the expression of a thirst

for the simple life, the natural life. It is presupposed that if man can

slough off his concern for things he will behave more nobly towards his

fellow men. The proponents of this sort of argument point to ‘the simple

happiness’ of various primitive societies. There are several answers to

this view. Firstly, the range of expectations is much narrower in such

societies and therefore so are the expressions of discontent. Secondly,

it is no great achievement for a society the majority of whose members

are malarial or ridden by deficiency diseases to be placid, and content

with the simple fact of being alive. If you expect your children to die

in the first year of life and if you have no great life expectancy then

there is little inducement to be ambitious or to carve out an empire.

Thirdly, the technological accomplishments of some of these societies

put our own engineers to shame. Within the strict limitations of their

arctic environment the Eskimo have exploited its resources and invented

gadgets that have no equal. They have no word for “war” because they are

too busy making and using gadgets to keep alive.

In conjunction with the arguments about the simplicity of life is that

about the natural life. Usually this is assumed to be pastoral,

horticultural or agricultural. I fail to see what is so natural about

any of these. They are as artificial as the construction of nuclear

reactors. The only natural habits for man would be to wander unclothed

and without constructed shelter, without fire, gathering herbs and

fruits to eat raw and catching small animals with his bare hands to gnaw

raw, and most certainly without any language to use to communicate with

his fellows. All else are constructs of a social technology of very

great complexity. No natural lifer would admit conditions as primitive

as these I have just described as his ideal. But none can adduce reasons

why his utopia should be permitted to indulge in the degree of

artificiality he feels to be desirable whilst forbidding other

artificialities.

I must, of course, put up my own version of what is ‘natural’ for man.

It is to manipulate his environment to facilitate, directly or

indirectly, the survival of himself and his species, the survival value

of his actions depending on his current apprehension of reality. A

corollary of this view is that stasis is inconceivable for humanity. And

a survey of human history will quickly confirm that change is not

something facing us now, from which we can retreat into some golden era

of the past, but that it is a part of all we know of ourselves, a normal

condition of the race, and that it has always been with us.

The agrarian utopia can only succeed in an environment so devoid of

natural resources that innovation and invention are impossible, where

the struggle to survive by present means is so intense as to preclude

the spare time and energy requisite to the devising of other means.

Under more favourable circumstances the utopia of this type is

self-destroying if stocked with healthy human stock, it will invent and

innovate its way from subsistence to technological exuberance Invention

and innovation will not be confined to the arts or philosophy or the

love of one’s fellow man, there is no evidence that these can be

independent of material activity, and indeed there is overwhelmlng

evidence that the humanitarian must be preceded by the technician, to

prepare an environment in which the race can afford the graces of life.

And if man succeeds in creating an environment in which he can exist

without inventive effort then he will be dead. When curiosity and

questing cease the end has come. Why should this curiosity be exercised

upon the material world and not upon the finer delights of metaphysics,

charity and love? Because we live in this material world it is our

world, it is the raw material out of which we can fashion our lives of

our own choosing, if we have the will and the comprehension to do so.

Remember the men who are regarded as the two greatest artists ever, da

Vinci and Michelangelo. First and foremost they were manipulators of

materials, technicians, engineers. First they had to invent the paints

and other materials of their art, to devise the engineering rules for

their sculpture and architecture. They commanded the material world, and

comprehended it as best as they were able. Their art was based on the

foremost advances of the technology of their day. Today the castrate

artist hides his incomprehension of the world he inhabits behind flabby

talk of art and is impotent in the face of reality, the human race has

outgrown him, he is retarded in his development. In a frenzy of imagined

superiority he had abdicated his right to fashion the materials of our

daily lives, and then has the childish petulance to blame others for his

own futility.

The relevance of this view of the world to the anarchist discussion is

at least threefold. In the first place, it is a view held, usually

inarticulately and even unconsciously, by very many people in positions

of effective control in our culture. The task of the anarchist

propagandist does not begin with attempts to persuade these people of

the validity of the anarchist standpoint. The difficulty is far more

fundamental, it is incumbent upon the anarchist to discover the common

basis of discourse from which he can address the technologist. To the

anarchist it may be a self-evident truth that ‘man if born free, and

everywhere he is in chains’. It is not. It is a metaphysical, not

practical, statement. It requires the exhibition of examples of the

states of freedom and bondage.

Man is born free. But unless he is subjected to the most rigorous social

discipline in his youth not even an anarchist is likely to claim him as

a comrade. For infant man must learn a language, and learn it correctly.

By correctly I mean that he must learn to frame his own communication in

such a way that he conveys whatever he wants to convey to others, and at

the same time learns to pay attention to the communications of others so

as to apprehend their meaning. By the time he has achieved fluency of

expression a man’s ‘natural freedom’ has been severely circumscribed by

society. It is a very simple practical affair. If you wish to be a

member of society you must obey the rules, if you ignore the rules you

remain outside society for you are bereft of the means of communication.

You can babble as much as you like about freedom, but your babbling will

be couched in terms that obey the strict social rules if you wish your

effusions to have any effect.

So, maybe, man is born free. But unless he loses his freedom he ceases

to be a man. It is even doubtful that abstract thought is possible for

us without the use of linguistic symbolism. The hermit is indebted to

generations of social effort for the language in which he postulates his

withdrawal. Without the cultural apparatus that your ancestors and your

fellows have provided by laborious toil you, individual man, are less

than nothing. You have not even the instincts that enable most animals

to live, you depend for your survival upon the accumulated effort of the

race.

Comrades, you see your problem!

The second problem for the anarchist in an expanding society is that of

education. In an earlier issue of this journal it was asserted that

anarchist education must not compel the child to learn subjects that it

does not spontaneously wish to follow. I hope that the writers were not

prepared to make a few points of safety in a technical environment an

elective subject. For instance, do not touch live electric mains. Now if

these points are neglected we have, of course, solved the problem of

overpopulation brilliantly. If we do make personal and public safety

compulsory, but make the background subjects elective we have made

witchcraft the basis of our society. For without thorough comprehension

of the ‘laws of nature’, of science, such safety precautions are just

witchcraft, or the edicts of a vengeful god. You will not get a free and

open society if the basis of the elemental rules of survival is not

understood by those upon whom they are enjoined. Further, unless a

citizen is somehow made aware of the existence of fields of human

knowledge and experience and ignorence then he has no chance to be

interested in them. You cannot look for an answer before you know that

there is a question. A fully elective education would be a disaster for

the child.

The third problem is that of authority. This is allied to the previous

one. In a technical society decisions must be made and directives must

be issued if the society is to exist at all. For instance, if

automobiles are desired then a rule of the road must be established and

rigourously enforced. We cannot choose to drive on the left or right at

will whatever our political or philosophic persuasion the brute facts of

mobile tons of machinery impose their own discipline. I said that

directives must be issued. They must also be enforced. Whatever your

views on the common ownership of land you cannot be permitted to wander

at will on an airfield, if necessary you must be shot dead before you

can endanger an airliner landing with a hundred passengers aboard.

The usual anarchist reply to the above problem is that it would not, of

course, exist in a free society where all men would behave reasonably.

But reason and goodwill are not enough. Knowledge and understanding must

be there also, and if people are free to learn to ignore simple facts of

their daily life then you must guard against the blunders occasioned by

their ignorance.

Of course we can go back to the argument about the abolition of

technology. By all means yearn for your little womb of pristine safety

and simplicity. Do not expect the rest of us to follow you there, or to

honour you for fleeing thither. And if we find that we could put your

corner of paradise to more congenial use we shall probably wrest it from

you without pity or remorse. Violence is the last resort of the

incompetent, and oft we are incompetent. But the fact that we are

incompetent does now make us scurry off to a dark corner to brood in

fear, we shall try to develop competence, it will cost blood, toil tears

and sweat, both ours and yours. We know a little of whence we come, we

know almost nothing of where we are going, but we shall go on, impelled

by the monkey instinct, by the hands of the artificer, by the thoughts

of the scientist, by the dreams of those who sought the summits of

mountains and the deeps of the sea, the poles of the planet and the

reaches of space. Because we are human.

We build and we also destroy. Often we destroy through ignorance. Our

technology is yet poorly used, we damage ourselves with it. It has

always been thus, the Roman farmers impoverished the soil of Italy with

their sheep two thousand years ago, we must always be aware that every

act may be a mistake. But the symbols of our common humanity are our

artefacts, the tools by which we enrich and enlarge our experience and

comprehension of the universe we inhabit. You may seek to change us, but

to reach us you will have to undergo the discipline of language, perhaps

the complex of our artefacts, and the search to convey your meaning to

us will lead you first to examine our meaning and to be tainted by it.