A lot of my friends and readers are technophiles. They believe that social networking and other technologies can make the world a much better place. I’d like to believe it, but I don’t.
The industrial economy is rigged. It is not a ‘market’ economy or a ‘free’ economy. It is designed to reduce us to mere, insatiable consumers — of politicians’ promises with our tax dollars, of overpriced, imported crap products, of ‘education’, of packaged information and entertainment ‘products’, of health treatments etc. We are given just enough cash and credit to keep us addicted, and we are isolated from serious social interaction to make us compliant. No great conspiracy. That’s just how the world works best when the objective is to maximize profit and GDP.
We are not people in this economy. We are consumers, taxpayers, students, audiences, patients. Numbers. Demographics.
The natural economy, the one we keep striving towards because it’s, well, natural, is inherently social, which is one of the things we like about it. It engages us as customers, citizens, learners, participants, as peers in the collective enterprise of living and making a living. It disintermediates the robber barons, the corrupt politicians, the boring teachers, the mindless media, and healthcare professionals who profit from our illness. They are not needed in a natural economy. There is no place for them.
It is not surprising, then, that we are attracted to entrepreneurship, to networked rather than hierarchical organizations, to the idea of community. Small is beautiful, and we are social creatures by nature.
The idea of a World of Ends is that we don’t need middlemen to do what is important. With the Internet, with social networking, we can co-produce what we need together, for ourselves, with nothing skimmed or suboptimal. It is suggested, and we would love to believe, that the World of Ends is evolving, slowly, under the corporatist radar, waiting to achieve sufficient momentum that it cannot be stopped.
In a fully developed natural economy, we would all be members of self-selected, self-managed natural enterprises, and of self-selected, self-managed natural intentional communities. Natural enterprises and our natural community would be self-sufficient and self-governed, and as members of them we would look after our own learning, recreation, health and well-being.
It’s a great idea, and we need to work towards it. But there are two problems with how we’re approaching it now:
I know this is hard to explain, which is perhaps why I keep putting off trying to express it. I understand the two problems above intuitively more than intellectually. We can develop software virtually, and we can undertake artistic collaborations remotely. But we cannot build a whole economy on fragile, multiple virtual relationships. Most of what our economy is about is atoms, not bits. It is quality, locally produced food and clothing and building materials. It is creation and recreation that we participate in, in person.
Ultimately we will have to abandon the illusion that we can be part of a global, virtual, ever-changing ‘electronic’ community, that we can be citizens of the whole world, that social networks and technology can change the world. Eventually we have to come back to place, to true community, and make it work, face to face.
The world we will face by the end of this century, a world of cascading crises and horrific scarcity, will not allow us to play with technology. This technology is fragile and needs huge amounts of energy stolen from future generations to work at all. We cannot afford it. This future world, a world of rust and reclamation, will force us to face hard truths. Our future social networks will be held together with flesh and sweat, not messages and VoIP.
It’s time we got down to the business of figuring out how our descendants will live, and make a living, when the ephemeral constructs of our rapacious, delusional age are gone. It’s important to get started, withlove and without illusion. Here, now, in this place.
The time for toys is over.
Category: Technology and Society
if you were accidentally unsubscribed in the changeover of my feed from feedburner to
follow.it please re-subscribe above — sorry & thanks!
My book: Discover the work you're meant to do
Borrow from Open Library
Our card deck: A pattern language for effective group work
CollapsniksAlbert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature PostsAbout the Author (2023)
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
How Our Bodies Sense the World
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
They believe that social networking and other technologies can make the world a much better placeAs useful as the Internet is in letting us practice social arts, it may actually be an impediment to creating real, sustainable community, something we can depend on, live onBoy, are you ever playing fast and loose with a lot of other people’s thinking here, in my opinion.In order to begin making some of the kinds of (very large and fundamental) changes you continuously espouse on this blog, people SOMEHOW have to become more aware of a relatively wide range of conditions and factors, and there are only so many ways to do that … reading books and journals, watching documentaries and reasonably factual television shows, and those will happen in the intensity required only if their interest and concern(s) are sufficiently aroused.Arguably the technology we are privileged to enjoy today we did not have a decade ago or so, and it is a powerful means of spreading information and growing awareness. You are correct that it is not a panacea, the be-all and end-all, a magic wand. IMHO, as a reasonable number of those you tar with your brush of disdain have taken pains to point out, the technology is only technology .. it takes peoples’ interest, concern, care, passion and awareness to use it to further the ends you are seeking.Yes, there is the possibility that its use can isolate people or abet their detachment from other real issues and means of connecting and acting. Bu I do not think it is either atoms or bits .. again IMHO it is both atoms and bits.
Hey Dave,For some reason, my earlier comments seem to have disappeared – but thought I would add them again.I am inclined to respectfully disagree with everything you have said here, but I am giving the benefit of doubt to you – in that, I do believe you have more to say about this than you did here. So, I do not want to comment without giving this some thought.But, I just have a couple of questions:1. Our species started in a natural wonderland to begin with and then ended up with what we got now. Technology was our choice – so question is – how did we get here, in the first place? 2. “The glue that holds natural communities together is physical and emotional, not virtual or intellectual.” – Again, by nature, we are social animals – constantly in need of social changes, seeking new inner circles and trying to get out of older ones. While, Physical and emotional attachments keep us together, are they also the root cause of most of our miseries, including disappointments and disillusionments?Even if we did chose to live in a natural community – I think we will chose to do so only because modern technology offers a guarantee to the members of the physically isolated communities to continue to stay in touch digitally with other communities – without that chance, natural communities will slowly but surely gravitate towards industrial societies.But a very thought provoking posting, as usual.Vish Goda
Dave I agree with you entirely. And it is uncomfortable to even broach the subject. Anyone who has ever been involved in committees or even loose groups centered around an interest realise that whilst everyone does not feel dependant on each other the group does not function, you get the usual bitching and backbiting, leaving everyone with the feeling that democracy does not work and people function best together when just co-existing, forced into the consumer/employee role with a management class to guide them. Yet research done here in Sweden suggests that it is the social relations in the workplace that are one of the most important factors in work enjoyment, ranking along with wages. The things is, in the modern world there is no widely known example of people coming together in the way you allude to. So many people think it can’t be done.I think it HAS to be done. Stuff technology I would rather be in a community of people I trust and like, living off what nature provides than alone at home with the TV, surrounded by gadgets and networks of only slightly committed relationships.Research done by Systems ecologist Folke Gunther (http://globalpublicmedia.com/folke_gunther_talks_about_re_ruralisation_with_stephen_hinton) shows that the optimum number of people from the point of social organisation and production of food is about 200 e.g. 50 to 80 households. Maybe readers would like to look at his ECOUNIT concept. Together with Folke and Ortega from a university in Brazil we looked into the financial and legal aspects of setting up a “tribe” or “intentional community” where you were dependant on the social capital in the group (not technology) for your food, accomodation, feeling of belonging, energy and water.http://ecounits.avbp.net/?q=node/7
in order for change to happen people need to realise that they do have the power. They are not mere consumers or tax-payers. In that arena technology helps us a lot. We can find other sources of information that are not available in the centralised ‘one-agenda’ media. Also it is way easier to identify and associate with people with similar ideas and ways of living even if they are physically far apart from each other. For change you need to first become aware of that you can change. Sure, technology is only a tool and will not solve the issues for us but like any tool it’s up to us to decide what we make out of it. De-centralisation starts first in our minds and only later in physical communities if necessary.
Per Howard Rheingold (I believe) in Twitter discussion of this blog post …“Gutenberg and the Reformation– ppl went to war alongside others not of their local tribe because they shared a belief”
When it all comes down, when the economy collapses in the USA then the world as it surely must, when we lose dependable utilities perhaps because of some antibiotically untouchable plague or the chaos of war, it will have to be our neighbors we turn to or defend ourselves from. If we have become friends, perhaps we can survive by helping each other, trading goods and services, co-operating to build/rebuild what we can. I do not believe that this is an outlandish thought. I do believe that it will be most difficult if we have not laid the groundwork for friendship in advance. However, I happen to live in a red-neck small town area. I have a few friends within walking distance but most of my neighbors are total strangers as we cannot relate to each other except on the most primitive level, a serious obstacle. Add to that the fact that I am horrendously shy, and, well, things are not looking too chummy.
I made a donation a few years ago to a “Dorothy Day” house, a group that exists to serve the needs of the poorer people in a community. I naturally asked for their email address and was surprised that they explicitly rejected having a house computer, largely because it was too distracting. I certainly couldn’t disagree – there’s only so many hours in the day, and intellectual curiosity in a wide world probably always means neglect to the one closer to home.I suppose I am a technophile, although still in denial, consider no loyalty in that world at least, nothing to defend except the open roads of access. I much appreciate the access to information of the internet, communication with like-minded people far away. I suppose the internet is like “travel” that is instantaneous. Joseph Campbell talks of the “Hero’s journey”, leaving the comfort and safety of home into the wilder world, and coming back with something won to aid the community. But maybe when travel is too easy, we let our “wanderlust” hold us too easily, too long, and forget our actual mission – to bring something back of worth to the world that really matters to us.On a different side of travel, I imagine the idea of the pilgrimage, traveling to a holy place, where the journey is part of the ordeal, and without some hardship, the destination becomes less powerful. I imagined this contrasting hiking up a mountain in Colorado vs driving up it. Anyway, there is a vast world for all of us, even within walking distance, unexplored, unappreciated, and the virtual world helps alienate us from taking those steps and finding places close by that are worth defending.I know a great wonder of having access to the wider world, through fossil-fuel travel, telephone, internet, as well as mass-media, being able to “choose” our like-minded friends and heroes to look up to, and give up trying to understand or find common ground to family and community who “don’t understand”. Even political parties too easily force people into collecting into like-minded groups where real issues and differences can’t be discussed, or even recognized.It takes power to face our differences, our conflicting world views, and to try to offer something that isn’t appeciated, like fears that the world isn’t going as well as we’d like and hope, and bigger things must change than we can do individually. Anyway, I guess I’m in agreement. Technology must be evaluated from a point of view of its effectiveness to acting in the world. To the degree is separates and distracts us from our true power, it must be rejected or limited.