61–70 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, a horse and buggy is somewhat self-driving. The horse knows how to walk and stop and when to make a noise if something goes awry.
Can the horse and buggy automatically move out of the way if someone else is about to hit it?
I think this articles attributes intent and wisdom where it is not due and as such should be at best considered a romanticization of their culture. Even tough it seems they understand the choice they are making regarding some technology and even tough in many case with hindsight it appears that they made some judicious choices for their society wellbeing, I argue they do not have the tools to make those choices in an…
I wonder if the rest of us use technology in an unbiased experimental manner without regard to the consequences? As the decades go by we become increasingly stressed having to deal with commutes and corporations and bureaucracies and living in a world of phone zombies, mass media outrage, echo chambers, etc. All the While our world becomes more complex and less robust.
Personally I think there's a huge lack of intent and wisdom on our part. As a group we're focused on novelty and profit instead of people, and don't seem to be so great at dealing with the resulting problems like pollution, inequality, depression, etc.
It's not just the Amish. Many communities have decided they wish to live at ~1850. It has always made me curious why, what do they know? If you look deeply in many religions they are the same. Buddhist monks aren't excluded from tech but they certainly dont own any themselves. Why? Because it's something to consider and create desires. Just as they shave their head not because of aesthetics but because now you never…
I have a colleague who constantly talks about not having a cell phone and how freeing it is, but on the other hand, he's always asking someone to look something up, asks for someone to navigate him to where we're going for lunch, asks to borrow a phone to call his wife, etc. It really looks like this guy would be happier with a phone. Are phones unnecessary? Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, the way to a happier life isn't…
Good article in general, except for the title. I know many people and see many people online who understand these truths. The hard part is creating a viable alternative culture that can make collective choices about technology use. It’s also worth noting that the Amish rely on the ‘English’ I.e. American legal system and military for their defense. Their way of life doesn’t stand alone outside of American society.
They could manage without our legal system, I'm sure, but I think there's some profundity in the military point. It does no good to create some sort of utopia if that utopia hasn't got an answer to smart bombs or paratroopers, etc. The fundamental game theory of the modern world's arms race has to be considered in any attempt to structure the perfect society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could manage without our legal system, I'm sure, but I think there's some profundity in the military point. It does no good to create some sort of utopia if that utopia hasn't got an answer to smart bombs or paratroopers, etc. The fundamental game theory of the modern world's arms race has to be considered in any attempt to structure the perfect society.
Our legal system is what protects their land and property from just being taken by other Americans. It also allows them to maintain a lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state.
Furthermore, allowing people to maintain their lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state is probably the best possible use of the state in the first place.
Good article in general, except for the title. I know many people and see many people online who understand these truths. The hard part is creating a viable alternative culture that can make collective choices about technology use. It’s also worth noting that the Amish rely on the ‘English’ I.e. American legal system and military for their defense. Their way of life doesn’t stand alone outside of American society.
They could manage without our legal system, I'm sure, but I think there's some profundity in the military point. It does no good to create some sort of utopia if that utopia hasn't got an answer to smart bombs or paratroopers, etc. The fundamental game theory of the modern world's arms race has to be considered in any attempt to structure the perfect society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.
I'm not a pacifist (combat veteran, actually) but I'll point out that you may be missing something on their side of the argument. There are some things worth dying for (for example, freedom as you point out). A pacifist has a similar mentality, but believes not taking a life is worth dying for. Both the pacifist and the non-pacifist want freedom, but the pacifist would rather surrender liberty than kill if that's wha…
> The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransferred.
"Notes on Nationalism", 1945 (https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.” -- George Orwell In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.
That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?
The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”.
They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you?
Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US.
Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.