Adding first draft of the philosophy of tech series

1 files changed, 110 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/blog/112_p1_primitivism.md b/content/blog/112_p1_primitivism.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c48971e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/112_p1_primitivism.md
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+Title: Part 1: Against Primitivism
+Category: Blog
+Date: 1312-13-13
+Tags: culture, technology, anarchy
+
+This is the first of two blog posts that will be slightly more
+philosophical than other texts on my blog.
+
+For some of my regular readers this thesis might not be particularly
+radical, but I still feel like it warrants being said.
+
+## What is primitivism?
+
+I think this is the most important question to ask and one that has
+many answers. Depending on who you ask, and what their political
+background is, the answer might be "a joke", or even "a slur".
+
+In simple terms, primitivism yearns to return to a simpler time,
+removing technology from human lives as much as possible. This is
+meant to address one of the largest sources of anguish and anxiety in
+our modern society, removing it from the equation. In many places
+primitivism even frames itsels as revolutionary.
+
+The problem with this analysis is that it is inherently linked with
+privilege. This can take many forms. A mild form would seek to
+abolish the internet, personal computers and phones, arguing that
+letting people return to real-life communities will result in more
+happiness and a more "natural" life.
+
+This fails to acknowledge that these technologies are life saving for
+many, giving both social outcasts and various disabled people a space
+to have a community.
+
+But most often it is not those affected who make the case for these
+measures. Usually it is white, able bodied men that fail to
+understand how their perception of society is skewed because of their
+own biases.
+
+An even more extreme form of primitivism would reject more general
+technological advancements, arguing for things to be "good" because
+they are "natural". This analysis, even more so than the last, ignores
+challenges that those who propose these solutions don't have to deal
+with: what about medicine, what about artificial aids?
+
+## Against the internet
+
+It is true, that in the modern world technology has been turned against
+us. Except for a small group of technologists (software developers,
+hackers, ...) the usage of technology is heavily controlled by
+companies, that use it to spy on people, control their behaviour and
+[more][rigging]...
+
+On some level it is understandable that the narrative of primitivism
+has emerged (not that it is in any way new, but it feels like the
+ideas are making a comeback in various communities). 
+
+For someone, not being able to code and only having minor
+technological literacy, this fight might seem lost. Approaches like
+the one previously outlined seem welcome. I feel it is important to
+point out though that the demographic of people coming to this
+conclusion is already skewed. More vulnerable people that are
+dependent on technology have a different analytical framework and come
+to radically different solutions (more to that later).
+
+It is this narrative that inspired these posts, at least in part. I
+feel that to proclaim to "blow up the internet" (for example) is lazy
+and counter revolutionary at it's core. It frames all conversation
+about improving technology and using it in our struggles to liberate
+ourselves as regressive, and somehow collaborative with an abusive
+system. Suddenly instead of talking about strategy to our solutions
+you are thrust to justify your work to people who misunderstand it's
+basis asd see it as part of the thing you are trying to fight.
+
+## Misunderstanding technology
+
+So what do I mean by that, and do I have an example? I'm not trying to
+say that someone has to be a programmer to critique technology. I'm
+arguing that the same level of engagement people would expect of
+someone doing art criticism be extended to tech.
+
+There is this notion that computers are fundamentally flawed, not
+because they are fallible and replicate a human's biases, but because
+of their foundational inner workings: binary! The sheere fact that
+computers operate on the basic assumptions of truths and falsehoods
+means that there is to assume to _be_ universal truths. Right?
+
+Wrong! Not only are conclusions from this hypothesis often shallow and
+reductionist, they also misunderstand the performative,
+interpretational nature of computers. On the wire every signal is
+analog. It is the interpolation to binary that gives them
+meaning. But: this does not mean it is represantative of a truth, it
+is merely a projection of an assumption. The same way that axioms in
+mathematicts are not "truths", but rather assumptions to build
+discoveries on top.
+
+The same can be applied to binary data: on the wire all data looks
+pretty much the same. Again, it is an interpretation that turns
+something into a text or a picture. There is no truth to data, only
+relative perspective.
+
+Computers are indeed fallible and as flawed as the humans using
+them. But this is precicely because there is no underlying truth to
+computing, only the interpretations of those who make the
+instructions. This is why I argue that machines are merely an
+extention to ourselves rather than any "autonomous" system.
+
+I say "autonomous" systems, because it is another term that is deeply
+misunderstood. But this time it is because the creators of these
+systems want it to be misunderstood. This is what the next essay will
+cover.