From 7385bdb50fd815060a89a1a2b9fe890d63a58c47 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Katharina Fey Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:50:56 +0100 Subject: Adding first draft of the philosophy of tech series --- content/blog/112_p1_primitivism.md | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/blog/112_p1_primitivism.md 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. -- cgit v1.2.3