Re: CHAT: Religion, Philosophy & Politics

I could probably be considered an anti-civilationist (although I must
admit that, having recently made the move to New York City and having
discovered that, by God, I actually like it, I am probably a bit lapsed),
but I am definitely not a Luddite, neo or otherwise.  The loss of
technological progress  would be, at best, a necessary evil of converting to
a hunting-gathering/tribalist society, certainly not a reason to embrace that
sort of society.  But I'm not convinced that technological regression is even
necessary, since I see no need for everyone to become tribal--I would be
perfectly happy to hunt and gather and  buy my satellite phone from those who
chose to urbanize, so long as they left me alone.  And, with nanotechnology
seeming to get closer every day, an entirely decentralized and
post-industrial technological base seems to me quite plausible.  Imagine
an Earth with a million or so hunters-gatherers-herders who seperate
into tribes according to their preferences but are all participants in
a global data network through nanomanufactured interfaces, who are
kept healthy and clean by ubiquitous von Neumann machine-style
self-replicating nanotech.  That's my ideal, and yes, I realize it sounds as
hopelessly optimistic as the '50s ideas about the end of human labor.  But
hell, hope springs eternal and all that...:)

eli . ishmael@pocketmail.com
gone to croatan

<- Original Text ->
    Anti-Civilizationist in the sense that they are radical
anti-Eurocentricists. & yes some tend to espouse a modified hunting&gathering
lifestyle (these are the neoLuddites amongst them... they are the Far Far
Left of "survivalists"... the UnaBomber is their "patron saint.")