The Industrial Snare: Our Entrapment, Part 1

The Industrial Snare

Technology and its industrial application are an accepted mainstay of the modern world, an established axiom of civilisation around which all else conform. To briefly illustrate this, consider the mainstream political philosophies of the post-enlightenment era. Yes, they are varied, and some have advocated an apparently radical restructuring of society, but none question, in any serious way, the dependence upon technology and its industrial application as the foundation upon which the society is built. The very notion of consideration towards a possible inclination to question these foundations would be considered entirely absurd, even to the most radical, iconoclastic political currents. For we have come to accept that a society designed in this was is not only unchangeable, but also desirable regardless of one’s critique of contemporary life. Those few fringe thinkers who have asked the question have often been met with suspicion, bemusement and, inevitably, irrelevance, bordering ignominy. One must be straying towards insanity, they will say, should he utter such nonsensical ideas. But why? For what reason is it considered social heresy to question our attachment to technology and its industrial application? Why, despite the obvious sickness and degeneration in our world and despite the way in which our technological advancement has destroyed that world, are we so committed to it?

The reason for this instinctive attachment is our belief that this type of social organisation satisfies our basic instincts as living beings. That is to say, that we believe technology and its industrial application to be inseparably joined with our primal instincts in a conscious and subconscious way. To demonstrate this, let us establish what our primal instincts are and how they align with society’s structure today; our instinct is essentially survival, and therefore it consists of basic necessities such as food, water and shelter, followed by a second tier of requirements that include medicine, reproductive potentiality and so on. We believe that technology and its industrial application to be the only form of social organisation capable of fulfilling those instinctive requirements, thus we sublimate thereon our genuine attachment to food, water, shelter and the rest. We cling to this Industrialism as if we will perish without it. In this context, the inability of people to consider a society not based upon these principles is entirely understandable, if frustrating. It is undoubtedly difficult to advocate, or even contemplate, removing from the world the very aspects one believes provides him, his family, friends and wider society with basic sustenance. To establish the truth or otherwise of this belief, it is important to define precisely what is meant by ‘technology and its industrial application’ (Industrialism). Subsequently, we must then analyse whether this instinctive sublimation of Industrialism for basic needs is realistic, or not.

There are both philosophical and material definitions of technology, but for the purpose of this exercise we shall agree that, here, by technology we mean manmade equipment, buildings or other items derived from scientific knowledge. And ‘its industrial application’ is the use of these things for society’s foundational economic model; mass production. For centuries, particularly in the Western world, we have used technology primarily for this purpose, to maximise economic productivity – the Industrial Revolution was truly revolutionary, in that technology was harnessed for mass production which enabled proprietors to drastically increase profit potential. Today our society is a product of this mode of production, this usage of technology for industrial purposes. Even if, for instance, we no longer see factories and coalmines, Industrialism is ubiquitous; what are offices, if not highly technical factories mass producing a product for mass consumption in the wider society? Despite the changing face of Industrialism, its practical continuum is evidence by the unchanging principles of its mode of production. Businesses, regardless of what service or material item they produce, seek to harness technology to optimise production and, therefore, maximise the positive imbalance between production costs and revenue. Another trait of Industrialism that we see today – to an even greater degree than previously – is the concentration of untold masses around densely populated urban areas. These are the wage slaves required to oversee and further optimise mass production. That we concentrate ourselves in such great numbers is solely a result of the industrial application of technology – to mass produce, masses are required. There are further “qualities” that persist within every iteration of Industrialism, such as low pay, poor living conditions and so on, but for the purpose of this exercise it suffices to describe only what Industrialism is in practical terms.

However, there is a deeper truth of Industrialism that we must recognise. It is that the arguments for its continued application as a societal and economic system are produced by a cynical Hegelian Dialectic, which sees the system using its ability to solve questions it asked in the first place. The following example could be used to demonstrate this point; Industrialism stimulates population growth as a result of its continued demand for expansion and increased profits, then asserts that only through mass production can an overpopulated city be fed. Another notion perfected by Industrialism is the ability to create new innovations that are inauthentic and entirely worthless (but addictive), then use its own ability to mass produce them as self-justification. An example of this is the television which has no practical application – and for those who cry ‘recreation’, let it be said that recreation existed long before televisions, and public contentment was higher – except mass spiritual inoculation. Therefore, we can observe, time and again, the economic system providing justification for its own existence which leads public participants therein to sublimate it as an instinctive requirement for the continuation of life on earth. In actual fact, it is perfectly possible to sustain life and good health without this mode of production. It is possible, should we be prepared to think outside the realms of accepted normality, to envisage a world in which technology and its industrial application are surplus to requirements and done away with entirely

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Depersonalism and Industrialism

Depersonalism and Industrialism        “If you want to be an individual, go elsewhere!” The Industrial System is a web of contradiction. Most notable of all its hypocritical attributes is its apparent social focus on individualism whilst simultaneously promoting a way of being that we may call Depersonalism . Note, we have not used the extant noun ‘depersonalisation’, for that describes the action of removing the qualities which make one human; Industrial Society ensures individuals never receive the opportunity to develop that which makes them an individual, thus it pursues a policy of Depersonalism. Depersonalism is the way in which the Industrial System breeds legions of cogs to perform near-identical functions in its vast array of industries, cogs whom we may call the Underman (as opposed to “subhuman”, for we are discussing variable attributes as opposed to objective and inherent value). The contradiction is such that the people are encouraged to disabuse themselves of a
Read more

Climate Change: A Flawed Perception

In light of current events, it feels another epoch between ourselves and the climate change debate, which raged so heatedly and with such passions just two months ago. It will, inevitably, resurface as the defining issue of our times before long, which is fundamentally positive. Yet, what we witness in this debate is a distinct lack of sound perspective on behalf of the loudest climate protesters, which often betrays their flawed ambitions and worldview underpinning their motivations for activism. It represents a frustrating conundrum for sincere environmentalists, who see through the charlatans and their motives yet wish to support the essential message nonetheless; the diagnosis, namely that the planet is dying and we are killing it, is scientifically sound, yet the framework within which this is then extrapolated to remedies and the aesthetic of the "final product", so to speak, is so shockingly flawed it understandably acts as a barrier to those sincere believers who woul
Read more

US Race Riots: The Crux of the Problem

We tend to view riots, such as those taking place across America at this moment, in terms of their primary causes; in this instance, there's the case of George Floyd, an African-American man suffocated by a police officer during an arrest in Minneapolis last week. Generally speaking, commentators and even participants take the surface level approach that the primary cause of such unrest is police brutality. They may even go as far as to reference something more broad, like institutionalised racism or the prevailing social attitudes of that which they are against. It's symptomatic of the world today that we can't steel ourselves to delve deeper into these events and diagnose the real sickness, instead preferring sources that give us someone tangible to blame. The commonality running through the protests right now, and other protests with a racial bent in America over the years, as well as Britain and other places east of the Atlantic, is a sense of powerlessness felt by pa
Read more