Live data from Hacker News

Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

noemamag.com

71–80 of 183 posts

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#71
post #32
post #28

> critique of modern certitudes > it’s bottom of the barrel degrowthism Every. Single. Time.

I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up. There are a lot of problems faced by modern society, and those problems are uncomfortably complicated. Most people don't understand the details of them. However, the incredible productivity of modern humans…

> the incredible productivity of modern humans is one of several fragile bricks in the wall between us and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago.

I think it's important to have perspective when speaking of history (and understand how difficult and perilous to obtain the correct perspective). I am far from against technology, but in many ways past lives don't seem so uncontroversially horrible to me.

Disclaimer: I am not a historian (or anthropologist)! Some of my claims may contain an innacurate portrayal of history or other people (please correct me if that's the case). However, I wouldn't write it without feeling somewhat confident about my claims.

If you were a peasant or a farmer in the past, that's what you did: farming throughout the day. I believe farmers in general worked fewer hours than we do now, because you were constrained by daylight (and sometimes winter and seasons). Again, I prefer modern life, but you can look at say the Amish, or several surviving pre-industrial societies which include native tribes to get a feel for their lives[1]. The least I can say is: it's not the hell many would naively expect.

Was their life horrible? I don't think so; farming work is very hard but not in a horrible way (some people take up farming as a hobby really); diseases were largely outside people's control. People tend to think Living longer = Linearly better. I have my doubts. The lack of comforts too is something that you get used to: in the end, most things turn into a sort of game. The game we play today is being glued to a screen typing symbols, interpreting data and rules. The game people played was farming, herding, crafting, with the occasional bureaucratic jobs. That's not to say I don't prefer living today. However, someone from back then could see us in some ways in equally dystopic lights: people glued to tiny screens watching videos, depressed in their homes, etc.. We have far higher rates of obesity today.

I think the progress doesn't come from obvious things like health and comfort. Progress is largely afforded by those things. Because we're healthy, or rather, in some sense we can in theory be healthy, there are several activities we can do that simply couldn't be done, say playing games and sports, having a more diverse and balanced life. Living longer affords us to be educated and dive deeply into subjects, and obtain a deep understanding of nature and even our own nature. But we also sacrifice some of those very valuable things in the name of comfort. We (sometimes!) work crazy hours in meaningless jobs; we destroy the environment; we stay at home depressed and glued to addictive devices, addictive substances and compulsive behaviors[1]. Because we believe in silly equations like Comfort = Linearly better, or Money = Linearly better, and so on. This is why we need progress not only in technology but in wisdom too, so we can continually learn how to use our resources well (to genuine improve our lives), and make sure they're sustainable (and not collapse within a short time).

[1] Many of the improvements are surprisingly subtle, although I'm partial to peace and lack of violence: I think violence tends to create a state of constant fear that genuinely sucks (although we are well adapted at dealing with that too, and in some ways we live in more fear from TV and internet blasting bad news). Part of the "technique" of improving our lives comes from lowering the chance of getting robbed or assaulted, part comes from our psychological ability to handle whatever risk exists without sacrificing our lives to cowering in fear.

A fun illustration is that in older times we would adventure in the forest to hunt or from necessity, now we don't have to: instead, we go on hikes :) , with some people choosing to experience those same old ways voluntarily. We forego the comfort of our beds to go on adventures in sleeping bags. We are hobby gardeners and small scale farmers. It's not that is was by itself bad, it's that we can live experiences in a more controlled, selective and sustainable way, with lower risks of ending our lives from the natural risks.

I think understanding this subtle nature of life and experiences is important in attaining wisdom to live a good life. (and also important so that we make the best of our limited resources so we can help everyone have the best lives possible)

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#72

    > Illich defined conviviality as “autonomous and creative  
    > intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons  
    > with their environment.” He contrasted this to “the  
    > conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon  
    > them by others” from above and afar in the name of  
    > advancing progress. 
For someone who claims to criticize "Western" thought, this appears to be quite deeply steeped in a particular Western prejudice, namely that conviviality contrasts with order and obedience. From a Confucian perspective, they are one and the same - the "demands made upon them by others" are the very basis enabling people to engage with society and to therefore realize themselves as moral subjects. Without the demands of productivity (or, equivalently, the demands of effective statecraft), conviviality is therefore impossible, or, at the very least, meaningless.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#73

> Illich defined conviviality as “autonomous and creative > intercourse among persons, and the intercourse of persons > with their environment.” He contrasted this to “the > conditioned response of persons to the demands made upon > them by others” from above and afar in the name of > advancing progress. For someone who claims to criticize "Western" thought, this appears to be quite deeply steeped in a particular Wes…

he's a westerner, clearly; nobody has contested this.

it's interesting how you not see any distinction between an autonomous creative impulse from the self outwards to the community and environment AND the enviroment prompting some person who was taught a conditioned response already to enact certain behavior.

the difference is between "inner impulse from the individual outwards to their environment" and "external environment draws out a conditioned response from within the individual"

but how you say that Confucian (i.e. chinese) thought is different but also not really is ver interesting. considering "freedom with responsability" as the highest value in contrast with "harmony with your surroundings"

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#74
post #13

> In his words, “By breaching the limits set on man by nature and history, industrial society engendered disability and suffering in the name of eliminating disability and suffering. … The warming biosphere is making it intolerable to think of industrial growth as progress; now it appears to us as aggression against the human condition.” This resonates with me.

> industrial society

I dislike blaming "industrial society" as an impersonal, abstract villain. The fact is that it is humans who may either organise themselves and build a society or fail in the trying. Modern industry and the modern economy have achieved remarkable, good things on a global scale.

Even on the scale of our solar system, if we consider the exploration of other planets.

The fact is that humans have trouble thinking at scale. We had never achieved the scale of activity that we have in our modern world. The individual human has always harboured resentments and been subject to pyschological problems and limitations. We cannot expect to scale human growth without confronting human psychology.

That said, fanaticism and the petrostate kakistocracies are the worst elements of our world today. It's their scale that has become an existential threat.

Although I welcome an intelligent discussion, how we can make the world a better place in a practical way is the constructive mode that I prefer.

> individual mobility turns into collective congestion when everyone has a car

This is a pertinent example to illustrate. The manufacturing is brilliant, the machines are ingenious, but humans fail at scale if they see only selfish interest. We certainly can do better.

> One does not have to embrace Illich’s romanticization of premodern times

This "embrace" would be my fundamental objection to his solutionless critique.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#75
Criticizing modern medicine makes a lot of sense if you're a devout Catholic because the afterlife tempers the sadness of death.

For non-believers, though, earthly life is all there is, so reducing suffering, disease, and poverty are much more pressing goals -- goals that might be worth a little alienation.

I would emphasize choice: people can (and do) embrace alternative ways of life, from the Amish to kibbutzim. Similarly, we don't have to drag out our final years: we're free to opt out of medical treatments. You can also opt out of modernity in smaller ways, decisions like not owning a car, not watching TV, and so on.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#76

Something that goes without comment by the uncritical author is Illich's vile comment that medical science and its quest to extend life at all costs "extends the suffering of cripples". In other words, he doesn't see the life of disabled people as having value.

Speaking as someone who has teetered on the edge of disability most of my life, so does essentially everyone else. We tie health insurance/access to healthcare to your employer for a few reasons, but I think fundamentally it's because we believe that those who cannot work are undeserving.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#77
post #43
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already hav…

It's not only emergency vehicles, it's also stuff like mini-vans and lorries that keep us well-fed. It's about who's going to pay for those highways once the personal cars are gone? How are you going to keep a Western logistics network in place without those highways and roads? No, extending the railway network to its past glory days (like the left-hand map in this photo [1]) won't work and will definitely not happen…

> It's about who's going to pay for those highways

Those who are paying now. And if it's only for emergency vehicles and trucks that bring food to cities (because you are right, cities need them to survive), then don't you think you need less infrastructure? Doesn't seem to me that 6-lanes highways are fully used by emergency vehicles and trucks.

> won't work and will definitely not happen anymore.

It's not black and white, it's a gradient: you can definitely try to move from the right-hand map towards the left-hand one.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy cow you were not kidding…. > Illich’s central contention was that persons are relational beings embedded in a matrix of the natural cosmos, convivial community with others and, as a fallen but still faithful priest, God’s grace. As the maverick thinker saw it, Western modernity rent asunder this multidimensional oneness of “Life.” The whole thing is full of this… sounds like Depak Chopra level word salad trying…

ChatGPT to the rescue: Illich's main argument revolved around the idea that individuals are inherently social creatures, connected to the natural world, their communities, and, in his view as a religious person, to God's grace. He believed that Western modernity disrupted this holistic interconnectedness of life.

That's so much more readable, even as someone who's read some Illich.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#79
post #36
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have. And I think it is definitely worth it to read it, because he brings a lot of clarity to a lot of things. Buuuuuut. In the end, I think Illich fail his own test. He claims to analyze systemic impacts, but fail to recognize the systemic impacts of his own solutions. I always use the "speed" example for this. Illich basically advocate for more or less banning the use of any mean of transportation faster than a b…

> Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already hav…

You forgot the road themselves. Note that Illich also refuse train, so you have to build them with all logistic to build them on bicycles cargo.

On top of this, the ambulance we know how to build today are not the one from when we first managed to go faster than a bicycle (average human).

Which means you would be stuck at state of the art engine, car, brakes, etc from the 30s. Or maybe the 10s even, as it was already valuable in first world war.

Same for planes. Trains. Etc

And would we really build the infrastructure for them to actually drive on if it was so limited?

As the other answers point out, this fails to acknowledge the systemic impact of such rules.

My usual test for a lot of critics of current systems that offer something "far better" with nearly no downside compared to the current one is to ask if they could invent, develop and produce MRIs in enough quantities.

It is actually really hard to build systems that would. This is a taller order than you think.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#80
post #77
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only emergency vehicles, it's also stuff like mini-vans and lorries that keep us well-fed. It's about who's going to pay for those highways once the personal cars are gone? How are you going to keep a Western logistics network in place without those highways and roads? No, extending the railway network to its past glory days (like the left-hand map in this photo [1]) won't work and will definitely not happen…

> It's about who's going to pay for those highways Those who are paying now. And if it's only for emergency vehicles and trucks that bring food to cities (because you are right, cities need them to survive), then don't you think you need less infrastructure? Doesn't seem to me that 6-lanes highways are fully used by emergency vehicles and trucks. > won't work and will definitely not happen anymore. It's not black and…

Note that illich is against cities. In his mind, a more atomised world would emerge from such a ban, more localised and focused on communities in neighborhood, with less dependencies outside.

So the only thing using roads would be emergency. Food would need to be local too or transported slowly by speed of walk or bicycle.

Which means that we would all be taxed pretty high for something rarely used.

Post reply on HN