We are clearly addicted to technology and consumerism. That’s a bad thing, because as a result we are suffering from climate change due to the immense use of fossil fuels (cheap energy) which has accelerated technological development at little relative cost. Typically, we hear the blame put on consumers. It’s those rich Americans consuming! But, that places the focus on the endpoint of consumption. Have you ever thought about the source of consumption, which is namely, the people who invent technology?
Of course, people invent technology because they get money and hence a livelihood. That’s certainly a strong reason why so many people are attracted to technology. But there’s something a little more sinister going on here that goes beyond mere profit. After all, many people who invent technology could theoretically invent much less of it and still live a wholesome life, and at least take solace in the fact that they are minimizing their impact. Of course, many people might not have a seriously critical view of technology, but one would think that at least the current climate disaster would give them some idea.
Yet the creation of modern technology is moving more quickly than ever. And I think it’s important to examine the psychological reason behind this, from the source. And the explanation is rather simple. Those who create technology do so because intellectual exploration and intellectual development has become one of the sole sources of meaning for those with high levels of intelligence.
If you actually stop to think of this, it’s actually a brilliant but tragic feedback mechanism. Technology takes away the meaning from gathering our food and building our own shelters. It takes away a sense of community because people rely more and more on technology instead of on people. And it continues to take away things we used to do ourselves, which now includes many creative tasks that can no longer be done for money due to generative artificial intelligence.
The only thing left is thus the creation of even more advanced technology. And this is a horrible thing because we have droves of computer scientists, programmers, researchers, engineers, and mathematicians who only have nowhere else to turn for meaning in life except to create more technology. Of course, CEOs and big business are doing it for their own vast accumulation of wealth and even many programmers are attracted by large salaries, but when it comes down to it, one of the key reasons that technically-minded people create technology is because it has become one of the cornerstones of themselves.
Now, the outlet of creating technology as the primary mean of self-definition is a seriously pathological and sick condition, and yet it is quite subtle because one person creating technology in a vacuum is harmless. Yet, collectively at our current population scale, many people creating technology is nothing else than running a machine that is immensely destructive. Thus, on an individual level, the act of technology creation is harmless, but its larger effect is absolutely devastating.
Therefore, if we want to dismantle industrial society, we must understand this point. Even if we find a theoretically-sound strategy to reduce our technological output and regress to a more primitive way of life, there is a large mass of people for which the creation of technology is not only their livelihood, but also a large component of their self definition. And this group of people will vehemently oppose any dismantling of industrial civilization regardless of the benefits, because their emotional state is dependent on technology. For them, it would be a great cognitive dissonance to acknowledge the destructive effects of technology and thus they are effectively blind.
So, what is the solution to this problem? Again, ideally it would be to awaken the love of nature in as many technophiles as possible, because then an emotional attachment to nature would counter the emotional attachment to technology. Of course, that may be too idealistic. If so, another strategy would be to effect some sort of action to reduce the love of technology among the general population. Although most people like some technology, if enough people are brought to hate the latest technologies, then technophiles who create things like AI could become social outcasts and thus this would reduce the attractiveness of choosing technological development in the first place for such technophiles.
Regardless, we need to work on a strategy to disconnect technology from personal development. It is only by reducing the capability of technology to embed itself in personal definition that we can shift people away from developing technology.