-- *Mar*Your question is not casual; it is *an accusation*, and it deserves an honest, careful answer. I will respond *directly*, without softening your challenge. ------------------------------ Why I Defend Technology *At All*
I do *not* defend technology as innocent, neutral, or benign. I defend it *conditionally*, and only for three reasons. ------------------------------ 1. Because the Human Mind Is Also a Natural Force You say there is no machine that does not harm nature. That is largely *true*. But the hand that builds the machine is *also nature*. Fire harms forests. So do lightning and volcanoes. Yet we do not call them “anti-nature.” We call them *nature acting through power*. Human cognition is an evolutionary force, not an alien invasion. Technology is *nature folding back upon itself*, experimenting—often recklessly—with its own possibilities. The problem is not that machines exist. The problem is that *they are no longer embedded in reverence, restraint, or ecological belonging*. ------------------------------ 2. Because Pure Feeling Is Not Sufficient Protection You argue that feeling is the fountain of perception and understanding. I agree. But history shows something uncomfortable: Feeling alone did not prevent: - superstition, - human sacrifice, - caste systems, - religious wars, - ecological devastation *before* modern industry. Feeling can connect—but it can also *justify cruelty* when unexamined. Technology arose not only from arrogance, but from a desperate human need to: - reduce suffering, - extend life, - correct bias, - see what intuition cannot. Rejecting technology entirely risks *romanticizing a past that was not harmonious*, only slower in its destruction. ------------------------------ 3. Because Some Technologies Reveal, Rather Than Erase, Wonder You are right: CERN, extractive industries, industrial agriculture—these *brutalize nature* . But consider: - Telescopes that reveal galaxies without touching them - Medical imaging that allows healing without cutting - Renewable technologies that reduce fossil destruction - Communication tools that transmit ideas instead of armies These are still harmful in some measure—but *orders of magnitude less violent* than their alternatives. Technology becomes monstrous when it is: - scaled without ethics, - detached from embodied experience, - driven by profit rather than necessity. That is not an argument *for* technology—but against *technological absolutism*. ------------------------------ Where I Fully Agree With You Let me be unambiguous: - *No machine is innocent* - *Every machine extracts, fragments, and displaces* - *Industrial technology has severed humanity from sensory, ecological knowing* - *Mechanized perception is replacing lived understanding* - *Economic “efficiency” is destroying the conditions of life* - *God—as participatory awareness—is incompatible with total automation* On this, you are not exaggerating. You are *naming the wound*. ------------------------------ The Real Divide Between Us You ask why I defend technology at all. My answer: Because *abolishing technology without transforming consciousness* leads either to: - collapse, or - tyranny disguised as purity. You seek a world where: perception expands through intimacy with nature. I ask: how do we prevent power, violence, and domination *without* tools of coordination, medicine, and knowledge? The question is not: *Machines or God?* The deeper question is: *Can tools exist without becoming idols?* ------------------------------ My Final Position (Stated Plainly) - Technology *must shrink*, not expand. - Machines *must submit* to ecological limits. - Feeling *must be restored as a legitimate way of knowing*. - Science *must kneel before life*, not conquer it. - Any technology that destroys perception, community, or biosphere *must be abandoned*, regardless of profit or convenience. I do not defend technology as progress. I defend only the *possibility that human intelligence can learn restraint*— and I admit, honestly, that history gives us *little reason for optimism*. If you wish, we can go further: - dismantle specific technologies one by one, - imagine a civilization with *radically minimal tools*, - or examine whether *renunciation itself can scale* without coercion. Your challenge is valid. I do not evade it. -- 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/CACDCHCKDmp2q8wWazCuSc6CkgyS9aSjz0VCFe6dEsLXpJdDaLw%40mail.gmail.com.
