Is Technological Responsibility Possible?

There is a problem that those favoring Traditional modes of society face, pointed out by various thinkers. Technological advancement, particularly technological advancement as it pertains to international competition.

It cannot be denied that many ideals that we are fond of were undermined by new technologies. This wasn’t the primary force driving changes (this was a spiritual alteration which set in among Occidentals during the ‘Enlightenment’), but it was absolutely a catalyst. In several areas, because human beings have been able to develop more advanced methods of production of goods and later services, life for people has been radically altered. Not only do we face man’s ‘liberation from labor’, but we are also seeing new technologies exploited by those with power to ensure the propagation of false memes and the perpetuate of the Progressive agenda.

For the longest time, the technologies of civilizations provided innovative ways to do things that would not be possible otherwise. In agriculture, we see things like Archimedes’ screw and grain storage methods going back thousands of years. Civilization has a higher capacity to innovate than nomadic tribal society because it has to innovate to support a larger population which must necessarily specialize to produce more of life’s bare essentials, food, drinkable water, and shelter from the elements, in addition to things that people naturally desire such as grandiosity.

archeo-engineering has a certain timeless quality

However, once we reach the Modern era, technology begins to change. With the introduction of the firm as a key market unit in place of the guild, economic competition takes on a much greater role in larger society, aided by the collapse of religious significance for Occidental life. It is now imperative to spur creative destruction, that is the removal of market agents who refuse or are unable to innovate and provide either better or cheaper products and services. More often than not, this process has served Progressive ends. Media devices such as televisions and the printing press have allowed religious ideas to be disseminated without the use of a temple, and so have their true intentions cloaked as supposed ‘news’. Household appliances have played their part in allowing women access to the labor market, a source of nothing but grief for both sexes, not to mention its detriment to children. Even more remarkable than these, our technological advancements which have made material life much more gratifying than at any other point in history, give us the illusion of that central dogma of the Cult of Progress, which is progress itself. People are seeing, from their limited vantage point, a linear change of improvement. Its like witnessing a miracle in terms of its religious confirmatory power.

But we forget of course that there are far more important factors that determine the outcome of civilization than material. Man is numb to these, and lives only for tomorrow’s innovation. He has become ‘homo economicus‘ with a Progressive operating system. His primary directives are to accrue as much economic material as he can, working within the religious confines of the dominating occult motivator which underlies his entire world.

What can be done? It is no solution to simply say the Reactionary is a Luddite: he sees technology’s hideous effects on the fundamental constitution of man and wishes it done away with. If true globalism was desirable or even possible, then this might find purchase, but in a world where nations necessarily look for every advantage over other nations, the Luddite finds himself on the light end of a balance of power. It’s a rat race we are in fact forced to run. No matter the moral cost, no matter how it might mutilate our internal society, we must compete because if we do not, then our neighbor will. Always, somebody somewhere will be willing to saw their foot off in order to escape the bathroom, even if we aren’t. That person lives. We die. Someone mentioned this to me in the context of genetic engineering, now possible due to the advances in science over the last decade or so. Like many, I find this idea abominable. Not only do I think its a moral perversion (which carries its own set of consequences), but practically I can see looming dangers of such technologies, Our smartest scientists are like newborns at God’s great computer, ready to get stuck in to an incalculably complicated code. Our instinct is to pull them away and say “don’t touch that, you fool!”, but if we do what will be our fate? We know the Chinese or somebody else will do it instead, and while it might lead to their utter ruin, in the short term it could very well lead them to be our masters.

“splicing in some pterodactyl wings should be interesting”

So we have a dilemma. I call it the Dilemma of Technological Competition, that is, how can we maintain good societal health when the technological rat race forces us to develop technologies which may not be healthy?

It is a dilemma that I don’t think has been well-addressed by any contemporary thinkers. There are some trains of thought which definitely engage with it. One says that technological advancement to a singularity is inevitable, but that its destructive power must be managed by Reactionaries if we are to survive at all. Another puts forward that technological advancement is a good means to bring about the end of Modernity in an actively pursued cataclysm, that we should accelerate this advancement to bring forth the next stage of humanity, which will end up being Reactionary.

These are very clear-cut answers. Either future technology is something we can harness and in fact must harness for a more responsible future, or technology will be the default death of Progress itself due to unforeseen consequences worldwide.

I’d propose the answer is not as easy. It seems self-evident that the death of entropic Liberalism will end in catastrophe rather than transition. There are ethnic, religious, military, and economic factors which ensure this on a global scale, which both enhance dangers and spread them over wide areas. Technology amplifies the amount of influence individuals have on this future ‘event’ by an incalculable magnitude. Put simply, our technological abilities allow what would previously have been insignificant portions of society to have a big impact. The problem is, this is in the hands of so many that where it might produce order in the hands of one, it produces further chaos instead. It is impossible to say what the earth will look like in fifty years time, but I would argue we are going to see increasing irresponsibility with regards to technology, as it becomes more widely available, and moves through radical stages of development with increasing velocity.

What does the aftermath look like? Unknown. It seems that technology could fall prey to the survival instinct. Can factories be maintained when civil order unravels? Can companies justify continuing the production of goods to populations in no position to buy them?  I have made clear that from what has been written and what can be observed, we are gradually moving towards a point where Liberalism breaks under the weight of its own contradictions, but the scariest thing is our reliance on technology, and technology’s ties to Liberalism itself. If Liberalism disappears, what of technology? Where does it land? We may end up in a world where technology unthinkable today exists for us in one area, but in another we are reduced to a subsistence level. The question remains terrifyingly open-ended.

just don’t let the ‘TED’ bears near even a pocket calculator

I’ve spoken before about Reactionary policy prescriptions. What does the government of a Reactionary State do, with regards to marriage for example. Can a similar proposal be developed for technology? I believe it can, so long as we hold true the idea of a destiny component, that where history lands next will in fact inherently favor the success of Reactionary ideas as man will return to his organic state. By assuming this, we can say that there may not exist the international competitive pressures which drive technological advancement today.

If so, consider the following:

1) Technology is good insofar as it may improve the lives of the state’s subjects within the limitation of their immaterial requirements. Technology that eliminates all manual labor from the lives of men is therefore maladaptive, for example. Such considerations should always be in play when decisions are made about which technologies are pursued in knowledge of our limited resources.

2) Technology ought not serve the ends of heteronomic or theonomic authorities in illegitimately expanding their spheres of authority. The Reactionary deplores totalitarianism, which can only be possible through the select use of particularly surveillance technologies.

3) No technology should be pursued without first taking into account its long-term social consequences. Extending the lives of a nation’s people through advanced medicine is not a sound policy when these periods of extended life are periods of infirmity during which such people become unable to take care of themselves in any capacity.

4) All technologies should be passed through a moral lens. Just because we can do something, does not mean we should, and rather than viewing morality as the Modernist views it, a series of values judgments based on our subjective feelings, we should see it as a rigid guide with profound consequences for violation, not just for individuals, but societies at large.

5) It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that technologies can be justly limited to caste if there is sound practical justification for this to be the case. Certain technologies, while highly beneficial if held by the warrior caste, may be horribly detrimental if held by the merchant caste.

who’s to say the future can’t be full of sexist bigots?

Beyond the fog of the future, it is hard to comprehend exactly what trials await us in the realms of technology. Which will rear their ugly heads, and which will vanish with a soft refrain of “what is a microwave?”. General principles are useful to postulate in such a dilemma, so that they may be flexibly applied to any given situation which may confront the Reactionary State. Politics trumps any technological interest there is. If it is politically more appropriate to have man live no longer than 60 years of age, then technology must submit to this demand. Machines are not here to serve our personal purposes, but to serve our greater collective mission which is the maintenance of a healthy, responsible, moral, and stable society. It is error to think that greater technological prowess in all areas serves these ends. History says little to support such a notion, and plenty against it. 


22 thoughts on “Is Technological Responsibility Possible?

  1. This all culminates in the battle of the Singularites…

    The technocratic chaos MIRRORS the self-annihilating tendencies of Liberalism.

    At root is a DENIAL that the secular social engineer is “inspired” to annihilate imperfection AS result of Imperfect Creator… And then “dutifully” replace Him.

    “We” have our Singularity and “they” have their “Singularity.”

    Ours is The Most Unique Phenomenon. Theirs is The Redundant Phenomenon.

    And as is apparent with our radically liberated language, the mass concensus CONCEIVES “singularities” as ultimately redundant thus making “universal equality” true.

    So at the deepest recesses of this mind war are the cretinous and duplicitous HIGH IQ “white” males putting forth a concept of Singularity that is not only NONSENSICAL, but really stands as a mechanism of obscurant deception as to the REAL understanding of the Singularity and how “it” properly inspires creation and innovation. And then add to this the idea of a procedural “singularity,” ie., an unknowable technological process, and its ode to an invisibly powerful redundant phenomenon and “we” have to motivation to seek “universal equality.”

    PS. Key liberationist equation to ponder:

    Universal Equality = The Redundant Phenomenon = anti-Singularity…


  2. “All technologies should be passed through a moral lens. Just because we can do something, does not mean we should, and rather than viewing morality as the Modernist views it, a series of values judgments based on our subjective feelings, we should see it as a rigid guide with profound consequences for violation, not just for individuals, but societies at large.”

    Or to quote Ian Malcolm's famous line from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”


  3. I've stated elsewhere, I think singularities are fictitious. They represent 'unapproachable event horizons', close to which we impact the shell of possibility within our own human limitations and fall to earth as Icarus.


  4. Mr. Citadel…

    Again, “we” witness you inexplicably revert to the relativist liberal paradigm.

    Singularities are unique, one-time universe-wide material configurations… SingularitIes are singular phenomena not redundant, not repeated and never replicated. The Crucifixion of Christ is a singularity and because it is a phenomenon that only and forever will happen just one single time, MODERN SCIENCE MUST DENY its existence for it shall never be measurable or replicable under the scientific method and so is not observerable, ie., nonexistent.

    The battle at the highest intellectual level is “Singularity” as a technologically-advanced PROCEDURE with TOTALLY unforeseen consequences (your liberated understanding) versus a Singularity as unique, one-time phenomena, ie., conception, miracle, crucifixion, ascension, incarnation, etc.

    All these phenomena ONLY TRULY HAPPEN ONCE… Such phenomena ARE NEVER redundant. No human conception is ever simply a redundant phenomenon. In fact, the reality is no truly redundant phenomenon AT ALL… The entire “physical” world is a continuous succession of unique, one-time universe-wide material configuration. So when your modern scientist “gets” to the edge of his universe and looks back, he sees “nothing” and then creates a new universal form called the multiverse. So the modern scientist cannot “see” UNIverse without MULTIverse. Modern scientist CANNOT SEE Singularity… He can only see redundancy EVERYWHERE… He calls this “universal equality.”


  5. Kurzweil's “Singularity” TRIES to bridge the gap between singular phenomena and The Redundant Phenomenon. IT CANNOT BE DONE. Both ultimately collapse into each other and then one must pick his metaphysical assumption.

    The radical liberationist picks The Redundant Phenomenon and Universal Equality…

    The white Supremacist picks The Singularity and all subsequent singularities as brute fact….

    This schism is unbridgeable…

    It's separation, eradication or annihilation…

    The imposition of Universal Equality is the total rejection of The True Singularity. It is the ideologically “inspired” desire to snuff out Life right at its Origin.


  6. Any technological innovation that allows individuals and small, self-interested groups to take control of their own destiny is always a good thing. The fundamental conflict of our's, and any time, is liberty vs. tyranny. Decnetralization vs. centralization. Most of the new technologies, bio-engineering and 3-D printing for eaxmple, are inherently decentralizing. That Seattle woman who spent $250,000 of mostly her own money to develop two new gene therapies from scratch in order to cure herself of aging made clear that bio-engineering is an inherently garage-level DIY technology.


  7. again, we have an etymological disagreement. Singularity as I understand it is a utopia-point. It is a point in which struggle for a goal ceases. In technological terms, it is where technology becomes advanced enough to solve almost all human ailments and deficiencies. I do not think this is achievable because of the arc of technological development as a mass market phenomenon. There is only one 'singularity' which is the end of the world and the Second Coming of the Son.


  8. Mr. Citadel…

    Is your reality comprised of BOTH singularities and redundant phenomenon OR just either one or the other? The Modernist CLAIM is that reality is ONLY comprised of redundant phenomena (observable, measurable, predictable) and thus singularities do not exist. And so the Modernist invention of a “Singularity” without belief in unique, one-time phenomena is the mirrored paradox of the radical social engineer attempting to “perfect” man EVEN as he rejects Perfection as real.


  9. Is technological responsibility possible?

    NOT AS LONG as the modern scientist DENIES unique, one-time universe-wide phenomena ALL THE WHILE attempting to impose a reality STUNTED by The Redundant Phenomenon, ie., the “universal equality.”


  10. Mr. Citadel…

    At some point, you must see yourself as one who exacerbates the self-annihilating tendencies of the Modernist BY GRANTING HIM his most fundamental assumptions… Perfection does not exist… There is no Singularity or subsequent singularities… Reality is The Redundant Phenomenon… An Infinite Regress within a General Entropy.

    This ^^^ is the Modernist EFFECT due their anti-metaphysical assumption, “from nothing, all things.”


  11. I have never granted the Modernist the assumption that perfection does not exist. I know perfection exists, but explicitly we cannot obtain it in this life. The leftist strives towards worldly perfection which is necessarily antithetical to God


  12. Mr. Citadel…

    But this is exactly what you do when your conceptions of “white Supremacy” and “Singularity” are LIBERAL CONCEPTIONS.

    White Supremacist is a white man who believes in and therefore strives towards objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection…

    Singularity is a unique, one-time universe wide phenomenon, ie., Big-Bang and/or God…

    On the other hand, the dominant relativist conceptions of “white supremacy” and “singularity” are the relativist conceptions of the most radical liberals such that “white supremacy” cannot even exist UNLESS black pre-exist “it” and the “Singularity” is somehow a “procedure” with unpredictable results beyond an “event horizon.” In other words, the mass perception of these “things” would lead one to beiieve that blacks actually created “white supremacy” and Kurzweil had “transcended” the absolute hypothetical predictability of a strictly empirical paradigm. Thus, his technological “procedure” becomes “invisible.” This keeps most from getting restless at the swipe upon the Logos.


  13. I'll address this point by point:

    “Some on the ‘alt right’ associate technology with liberalism, arguing that the convergence of technology and capitalism may be disrupting the old social order, making society more liberal, godless, and materialistic (Materialism).. But, on the same token, liberals often blame technology for displacing jobs and creating wealth inequality.”

    These are criticisms of an entirely different order. The Liberal is criticizing technology (and he really doesn't do this often at all, GE is overstating it) due to immediate populist concerns. Displacement of jobs is something all people complain about regardless of ideology, especially if its their job that has been displaced. The Reactionary criticism is of certain technologies which have made the degeneration of society possible, or simply more easy. We are not primarily attacking certain technologies because of their material impacts, but their broader implications, in our knowledge of how societies actually function in history.

    “You can see how this would conflict with with the more theocratic variants of The Right, who tend to be critical of laissez faire capitalism”

    This is a misuse of the word 'theocratic'. And he is assuming that criticisms of capitalism as it is conceived today are based on religious arguments, when they are in fact not. They are instead based on structural Reactionary critique, usually centering around caste, which in particular an open labor market undermines. Few Reactionaries are critical of very low levels of government interference in markets, but instead want Traditional social norms to dictate how these structures function.


  14. He then talks about how the cause of the original Luddites was a 'proletarian' cause. This leads into a common error, which is to say whenever a low class has disliked something, it is virtuous to just ignore it and dismiss this as Liberal agitation when in fact there may be deep-seated problems setting in, which will fuel the fire of revolution in the future. Men need work. If GE is proposing that it could be good for society if we moved towards full automation, then he is advocating the abolition of man himself. The economic aspects and concerns are all secondary, men need to work to retain the spiritual health of the nation. We are designed to work. This is our purpose. It gives our life a key part of its purpose and meaning. People who see the class relationships as tyranny over those who deserve tyranny are as misguided as Liberals who see it as tyranny over those who do not deserve tyranny. The caste system that organically emerges is for the betterment of everybody, acknowledging that they are all different, and thus require the occupation of different stations.

    “But, as Steven Pinker showed in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature the historical trend has been towards less violence, possibly due to technology and trade acting as an economic incentive against violence.”

    Again, GE misses the point entirely. Yes, the trend since the 1700s has been towards less violence (I guess he is discounting the World Wars as anomalies?), but the point of the Reactionary critique is that this is a FINITE trend. It has a breaking point. Using historical trends since the beginning of the current epoch proves nothing. Our point is made by entropic force.

    “Somehow capitalism keeps working, despite the critics.”

    Same as above. He seems to think I'm forecasting a recession, which is a bizarre interpretation of what I have said. And this very same argument could be used in defense of democracy, women's rights, or any number of other garbage ideas. It is to see Modernity as the end of history, that we have reached now a pinnacle.

    “Capitalism may be the best ‘moral lens’.”

    How can it be the best moral lens, when it isn't a moral lens at all? He describes creative destruction. How on earth this could be perceived as some answer to ought or ought not questions is a real philosophical puzzler. This would also reduce morality to nothing, since everything that was moral would succeed and everything that wasn't would be destroyed. In this sense, morality would describe everything, and thus nothing.

    “And who should make these decisions as to which technology is moral or not?”

    The priestly caste. Moral questions are decided by religious authorities who mediate the wishes of the Divine Realm. This is very basic Reactionary theory here.

    I have noticed the so-called 'Grey Enlightenment' before, and as far as I am aware it is some kind of hyper-secular ripoff of Nrx, but they believe in the trajectory of the current system towards great things, and are very much pro-democracy Libertarian-leaning (It's really a very harsh, honest, and blunt Libertarianism). So I'll consider this a criticism from the Left, and won't be too concerned about it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s