B
There was a time when men were filled with purpose, when tradition was law, when suffering was not so prolonged as it is today. I am talking about our hunter-gatherer past.
Back then, men were psychologically satisfied by going through the power process. The power process implied exerting effort towards survival, nothing more and nothing less. One might argue that we do the same in modern society, but we certainly don't. While white collar jobs do in fact contribute to our survival the process is indirect. The emotion and the gratification of the hunt isn't there. Our brains aren't wired to understand the dynamics of modern work. We are not the heroes of our own stories. We are mere cogs in the social machine.
As to tradition I can say that it played a role of utmost importance for primitive man. Without tradition there was no unity within the tribe and this had terrible consequences in a social species. Tradition (in most instances of hunter-gatherer tribes) guaranteed the well-being of those members who contributed the most to the survival of the collective i.e. men. Modern society has given women power they had never had before. Technique demands equality because it benefits from having human power wether it comes from a man or a woman. Technology is devoid of morals and traditions, it simply seeks its own advancement.
Last but not least, there's the matter of suffering. Despite what most technicians, scientists and technology aficionados would tell you, primitive man had a pretty good life. Sure there was a lot of infanticide. Danger lurked at every corner. But isn't risk and emotion what makes life worth living. Think about it. Even if a certain member of the species wasn't up to the standards of the environment he would not live long enough to live a miserable and resentful existence. If he did survive the most likely outcome was a fulfilling life. The most attractive trait for a lot of species is not height, nor symmetry it's all about success in survival. If a short man proves to be a better hunter than a tall one, either because of a better sight , a greater intelligence or some other beneficial mutation then the odds were the short man would live to spread his genes. Modern society however deprives the species of its default process of natural selection.
What then should we do?
We've got two choices as far as I can tell. We can either go back by creating a revolution capable of dismantling the infrastructure of modern society (the complete destruction of power plants, libraries and oil extraction facilities) or we can just get it over with and die while we still have some humanity left.
Back then, men were psychologically satisfied by going through the power process. The power process implied exerting effort towards survival, nothing more and nothing less. One might argue that we do the same in modern society, but we certainly don't. While white collar jobs do in fact contribute to our survival the process is indirect. The emotion and the gratification of the hunt isn't there. Our brains aren't wired to understand the dynamics of modern work. We are not the heroes of our own stories. We are mere cogs in the social machine.
As to tradition I can say that it played a role of utmost importance for primitive man. Without tradition there was no unity within the tribe and this had terrible consequences in a social species. Tradition (in most instances of hunter-gatherer tribes) guaranteed the well-being of those members who contributed the most to the survival of the collective i.e. men. Modern society has given women power they had never had before. Technique demands equality because it benefits from having human power wether it comes from a man or a woman. Technology is devoid of morals and traditions, it simply seeks its own advancement.
Last but not least, there's the matter of suffering. Despite what most technicians, scientists and technology aficionados would tell you, primitive man had a pretty good life. Sure there was a lot of infanticide. Danger lurked at every corner. But isn't risk and emotion what makes life worth living. Think about it. Even if a certain member of the species wasn't up to the standards of the environment he would not live long enough to live a miserable and resentful existence. If he did survive the most likely outcome was a fulfilling life. The most attractive trait for a lot of species is not height, nor symmetry it's all about success in survival. If a short man proves to be a better hunter than a tall one, either because of a better sight , a greater intelligence or some other beneficial mutation then the odds were the short man would live to spread his genes. Modern society however deprives the species of its default process of natural selection.
What then should we do?
We've got two choices as far as I can tell. We can either go back by creating a revolution capable of dismantling the infrastructure of modern society (the complete destruction of power plants, libraries and oil extraction facilities) or we can just get it over with and die while we still have some humanity left.
Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
