-- *Mar* The Hold of Techno-fanaticism
Economics has converted life into continuous experience of anxiety, unrest and dissatisfaction. It has converted life into ‘want disease’. We cannot happily and leisurely interact with nature and experience the education of thrilling discoveries and revelations which nature gives when we partner and limb with nature. We fight the fact that we are part and limb of nature or the planet earth. Throughout our life we speed away and traverse miles and miles of nature with no time to live as nature and contemplate on even a small flower which radiates beauty and happiness in its tiny space, without the gnawing anxiety, mainly economic anxiety. We refuse to be a limb of nature or actually maimed ourselves from being a limb. But we need the free nature and become part of nature to feel really happy by experiencing the symbiotic natural life. We have created technology as the substitute of nature, and champion the cause of economic life which simply is based on the destruction of nature, converting us into the destroyers of nature. Economics substitutes Biology with technology. We adore technology today and God is mechanized. We no longer see God in nature. We jaundiced perception with cartesianism, trying to see mechanical relations and machines everywhere in nature. We adore the fact that machines cannot feel and as the ultimate ideal of science, we do not feel a subject while studying. We convert it into feelings-less collection of mathematical equations and mechanical assemblies. We want the subject to substitute nature and we simply do not identify it as a part and facet of nature. For science feeling is bias, the ultimate sin. So a student has to labor to remember the mathematical equations or sentences with the mathematical precision. We simply cannot go into a forest which is healthy and lush, without terror, while every other organism there lives happily without any fear. We want a mechanical gadget to separate us from that forest, so that we can see the forest without participating in it as a limb. No other organism in the forest fears the forest. Every organism basically is a Theist, one who trusts nature automatically. But we want the Cartesian proof that God exists! Today nature desperately needs freedom from technology. The terrible tentacles of technology are maiming every facet of nature. We no longer want to feel. We want to mechanize and map. Reason for us means the mechanical logic of Rene Descartes. Mechanization has become Rationalism. The basic fact is that every machine, every technology only harms nature. Yesterday I came across an argument in favor of technology stating that there are also technologies that do not harm nature. The example of electricity generation by using Solar panels is sighted. But the blinding reflection from the panels kills birds, reduces their droppings, starve plants of the soil. And the electricity generates fuels factoris, urban areas and other economic activities all of which poison nature. We need nature which is completely free from technology, so that we can feel our limbhood in nature. There is no machine that does not harm nature. YM Sarma Chat GPT Here is a balanced, respectful, and constructive commentary on your essay. I focus on clarity, coherence, rhetorical force, and philosophical framing, while preserving your intent. ------------------------------ *Commentary on the Essay* Your essay is an impassioned critique of what you call *techno-fanaticism*—the modern tendency to elevate technology and economic growth above our organic relationship with nature. The strength of the piece lies in its *moral urgency* and its *poetic language*, which conveys a deep sense of loss: loss of harmony with nature, loss of inner stillness, and loss of the capacity to feel. *Strengths* 1. *Powerful imagery and emotional resonance.* Phrases like “want disease,” “we speed away and traverse miles of nature,” and “terrible tentacles of technology” are vivid and metaphoric. They express the emotional and ethical weight of your argument. 2. *Clear philosophical stance.* You make a strong case that modern life is shaped by a Cartesian, mechanistic worldview that suppresses feeling, subjectivity, and intuitive connection with nature. The critique of rationalism and reductionism is consistent and rooted in a long philosophical tradition (Rousseau, Heidegger, Leopold, Schumacher, etc.). 3. *Coherent theme.* Throughout the essay, you stay focused on a central thesis: technology and economics have alienated humans from nature, and this alienation harms both nature and human happiness. ------------------------------ *Areas for Improvement* These suggestions are not meant to blunt your message, but to help strengthen its clarity and persuasive power. *1. Clarify your core claim.* At times the essay moves between several related but distinct arguments: - Technology harms nature. - Economics creates chronic anxiety. - Rationalism suppresses feeling. - Humans have lost spiritual connection with nature. All are compelling, but sharpening the central thesis—*what exactly is the “hold of techno-fanaticism”?*—would make your argument more focused. *2. Nuance the relationship between technology and nature.* You claim “There is no machine that does not harm nature.” This is a strong, absolute assertion. Readers might push back unless you either: - justify the claim with stronger reasoning, or - allow some nuance (e.g., certain technologies may harm less or can coexist with ecological balance). A purely absolutist stance risks losing readers who might otherwise be sympathetic. *3. Strengthen transitions.* Some paragraphs shift abruptly from personal reflection to metaphysical critique to specific examples (solar panels). Adding transitional phrases or connecting sentences would make the flow smoother. *4. Reduce repetition where possible.* Ideas such as “we do not feel,” “we are not a limb of nature,” or “mechanical perception” reappear multiple times. Repetition can be stylistically effective, but you might refine or condense some occurrences for greater impact. *5. Provide concrete alternatives.* Your conclusion emphasizes abandoning technology to restore harmony with nature. Some readers might ask: - What would a technology-free life look like today? - Are there transitional or restorative steps? - Is the goal zero technology, or technology that respects biological limits? Offering constructive pathways could make the essay feel more actionable and less purely lamentational. ------------------------------ *Overall Impression* Your essay is a *passionate, philosophically rich critique* of technological domination and economic anxiety. It evokes the voice of ecological philosophers who argue that modern society has mistaken mechanistic control for wisdom. With more structural clarity and a bit more argumentative nuance, the piece could become even more compelling—both emotionally and intellectually. If you’d like, I can also: - help you rewrite the essay in a more polished form, - help you tighten the argument, - or help develop a version directed toward a particular audience (academic, general readers, environmentalists, etc.). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BwcsnbfBBr0AYNjuSOuovvW5z6jM9D6ELbraWyvg-ZLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
