Тег: Technology

People are enslaved by violence, not by technology

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Luddite and anti-progressive positions that oppose scientific and technological progress, while quite unpopular, still exist, creating a myth about the enslavement of people by technology. These positions blame technology specifically for the fact that people are rapidly losing their freedom and happy lives. For example, with its help, governments gain more power and the ability to manipulate people, meaning that scientific and technological progress, starting from the moment of the industrialization of society, is an evil that must be eradicated. Of course, many would consider such argumentation extremely absurd without further explanation, but let us nevertheless look at what is wrong with it.

The point is that technologies themselves do not lead to any enslavement of humans. This is primarily caused by violence as a method of solving problems and achieving certain goals, including when used by those same governments. All of them rely on the threat of applying certain “legitimate” and “legal” force measures against any ordinary person if they do not follow a specific order. Technologies in this case only make such a threat more effective in its execution and help strengthen the power of already existing governments.

But think about it—even with the simplest tool, such as a hammer, it is much easier to intimidate, subdue, or even maim a person than with bare fists. However, a hammer is created to drive nails, and the problem lies within the person who is capable of committing violence using any available tools, not in the hammer itself. The exact same situation applies to weapons—the problem is not with the weapon, but with the tiny percentage of people willing to use it to commit violent attacks.

It is the problem of violence and the fact that some people strive for the forceful subjugation of others that needs a solution. As soon as this problem is solved and violent hierarchies of dominance disappear from society, technologies will cease to contribute to the enslavement of people in any way. It is necessary to fight violence and the tiny percentage of violent offenders in society, not technologies, which, by the way, are the only thing that could save people from endless hunger, disease, child mortality, and other terrible phenomena of the past, and will also allow humanity to survive and continue its existence in the long term.

Musk and the alarmists

I read in a left-anarchist channel reflections that our very own Elon Musk has completely dropped his mask and is now collaborating not just with the state, but with the military establishment itself; shame on him, and shame on everyone who speaks of him approvingly.

This reminded me of the words of another liberal idol, Ludwig von Mises, who said that the entrepreneur’s task is to vigilantly seek ever-new ways of satisfying customer demand, and if guns find more demand than butter, there is no sense in blaming the entrepreneur for producing guns.

But with Musk, it is much simpler; he is not choosing between guns and butter, but is steadily moving toward the future he considers desirable. In the brave new world that Musk is building, there is no problem with delivering eighty tons of cargo to the other side of the planet by rocket in an hour. And it makes no difference what cargo one starts with. A customer was found for the development of cargo suborbital transport—so we will build it. And once the technology is mastered using military budgets, it can be brought to the private market to send cargo cheaply. And then, with a bit more polishing, send people.

In reality, for most military tasks, sending dozens of tons twenty thousand kilometers in an hour is overkill. However, for emergency response, this option will be very useful. Thus, I foresee a predominantly peaceful use of this technology being developed with military funds.

If taxes have already been collected and the question is how to spend them, then let them at least be spent by a private actor on dual-use technologies with prospects for wide civilian application.

On the idea of universal civilian armament

Due to the incident near Krasnoyarsk, Bitarch has resumed his reflections on balancing the potential for violence and published an article BitTorrent for Weapons, where he states that one of the most obvious ways to achieve almost complete armament is to make the cost of weapons zero. Since this is unrealizable at today’s level of technology, it should at least be as low as possible, so that volunteers could literally distribute weapons to anyone who wants them without spending too much.

He considers the following technological families:

  1. Compact projectile weapons, where weak shot energy is compensated for by chemistry. Exactly how to deliver the toxin-charged striking element is a matter of taste and technological fantasy.
  2. Dazzling lasers
  3. Neutralizing the opponent with a jet of liquid or a spray (gas canisters, water pistols, etc.)

In a subsequent note, he provides a simple schematic for a flamethrower based on a water pistol, although he does not specify how functional, long-range, accurate, or safe the design is. A video showing the assembly and testing of such a device would be much more effective, and I hope such videos will also be found.

What can I say regarding the proposed mechanism for balancing the PV (Potential for Violence)?

  1. Non-lethal self-defense weapons are a sufficiently developed industry where solutions can be found for every taste, budget, and legal framework. In particular, for Russia, gas canisters are almost without alternative as the optimal choice in terms of safety and price. They combine the advantages of compactness and cost—but most importantly, their use does not carry any serious state sanctions.
  2. Bitarch’s fantasies are geared more toward non-lethal offensive weapons, such as the aforementioned dazzling lasers. It makes sense to use them from a distance against a crowded opponent, which is why they are used during street protests. Similarly, huge gas cylinders from fire extinguishers, various homemade flamethrowers, and so on are needed specifically for street protests. All sorts of ballistae and catapults would also fit here, though they are more of a way to amuse the imagination than to win a street skirmish.
  3. In the Krasnoyarsk incident, the attackers’ main ally was the suddenness of the attack. Weapons would not have helped. Had the victims possessed a serious numerical advantage, or had they a couple of trauma pistols at hand, the opponent could have simply waited for them to fall asleep and then set fire to the tents. So, if such clashes occur in some remote taiga corner, protection lies either in publicity or in identifying the client and intimidating them instead.
  4. The idea of distributing weapons for free via volunteers is an attempt to start from the wrong place. Weapons are already cheap, and practically anyone can afford them. It is a matter of priorities. What is needed instead are inspiring examples of weapon usage—and only then, on a wave of hype, should the idea of arming oneself be pushed to the masses. People do not value what they get for free.