- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Okay, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about everyone else I've personally heard saying the same thing.
Of course I'm part of the problem. My choice to use this toxic, fossil fuel burning computer is proof.
All I can say, is, Ted Kaczynski came to pretty much the same conclusion. So he took the next logical step, jettisoning modern technology completely, or nearly so. If he hadn't gotten into terror bombing, that integrity might have counted for something positive. It might even have prompted me to change my opinion about that approach being misguided. He had real moral force behind that particular decision.
Where's yours? It being the case that you share the same uncompromised loathing of synthetic modernity, and all...
because what I find most problematic about your stance is that it's emblematic of people who don't know what real trouble is, or how to face it. In an authentic crisis, people who start muttering "we're all doomed" get a rag stuffed in their mouth, because the people actually pitching in can't afford to hear it.
You have harvestable food in your back yard, an artifact of technology with nearly mythic capabilities in front of you, who knows what other sort of advantages...and you insist we're all doomed. Your human consciousness is a miracle, and you'd rather indulge in the idea that it's a mistake, part of a terrible joke played by a sadistic and insane supreme being that doesn't exist.
That doesn't get anything for anybody, and it shallows the deep.
Buckminster Fuller said it: it's not much of a challenge to be brilliantly negative.
No one who breezily forecasts certain apocalypse for someone else's offspring is in much of a position to make observations about someone else's supposed "smugness"- unless, perhaps, they think smugness is a good thing, and intend it as a compliment. Nor, for that matter, do they have any logical grounds for deriding the folly of another persons dire prophecies of doom. The only difference I find between eco-catastrophist apocalptics and Hal Lindsey apocalyptics is their argument over whose disaster is more inevitable. The premature certainty is pretty much identical.
