Techno-Nationalism Part 2: Good vs Bad Technology
In this series we explore Techno-Nationalism - an ideology that could underpin the next stage of Western Civilisation.
In Part 1 of this series we asked and answered the following question: Can a society be both culturally traditional and technologically advanced?
We now proceed to our second question: What are examples of good and bad technologies?
To begin with it’s important to reiterate that technology as a concept is neutral - that is it isn’t good or bad until it is developed or adapted towards a particular end; once this happens it stops being neutral. Therefore it is this end, or final application of a technology, that we are most interested in. It’s this we must assess as being either good or bad (or perhaps a mix of the two).
To carry out our assessment we will need a framework. I will present a draft one here, but am open to it being improved upon through time. The framework will of course carry a bias, because this is unavoidable, but what matters isn’t that there is one, but rather that it is a good one (aka one that’s based on the values and outcomes we want the West to embrace and pursue).
The framework is as follows:
1- Does the technology solve a problem worth solving?
2- Does it solve it without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
3- If it doesn’t, then do the benefits of the technology outweigh the downsides?
That’s it.
Now you’ll notice that we’re making explicit value judgements here. We’re tying the technology to its impact on people and society. This isn’t a libertarian framework where anything goes, where if you think up an idea you should execute it regardless of how detrimental it might be to society or to individuals, who may willingly (and some might say stupidly) embrace it even if it leads to their own decline, misfortune, or demise.
In other words, we are applying a moral framework to innovation, which is something that is sorely lacking in profit-driven, socially liberal or libertarian influenced technological development today. Without such a framework we have an accelerating race to the bottom: where any kind of degeneracy, lunacy, and evil becomes possible so long as you can make a buck off it - or so long as you can grow your power and status through it.
Let’s now apply this framework to assess 6 very different technologies.
Toasters
Does the technology solve a problem worth solving?
Well, we know bread can become stale quickly. This can make the bread harder and less appealing to eat. Toasting solves this to some degree. It can also make the bread taste nicer, especially when paired with a spread of one’s choosing.
Does it solve the problem of stale bread without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
Yes it does. People have been toasting bread for thousands of years. Modern toasters are just a more effective and convenient method of toasting. You could of course argue that people are buying highly processed bread from supermarkets in order to toast it, but people could just as easily buy local, natural bread and toast it too or bake bread and later toast it, so the toaster itself is fine.
As for question 3, regarding the benefits of a toaster outweighing the downsides, it doesn’t apply here as a toaster doesn’t adversely impact society (we can extend this to most other home appliances too, like vacuum cleaners, ovens, washing machines, and the list goes on).
So that’s a simple example to help us better understand the framework. Let’s move on to more complex technologies now.
Guns
People have been fighting each other since the dawn of time. Whether it’s with fists or rocks, spears or swords, catapults or bow and arrows, guns or bombs, and so on, we will use whatever tool we have available at the time to fight, defend, attack, punish, injure or kill other people. This is human nature at work. It is the struggle for survival and dominance in a world with limited resources.
So do guns solve a problem worth solving? You could say, yes they do, because it’s a problem we’ve always had, and likely always will. We need weapons, and guns are just an upgrade of our previous ones.
Do guns adversely alter the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
Perhaps they do. But it may also be a case of the chicken and the egg. For example those countries where gun violence is a problem would likely be violent even if they didn’t have guns - they’d just be using other means to rob, assault, and kill each other, etc.
But don’t guns make it easier for people to unlawfully kill others or commit crime? And mightn’t this ease lead to escalations that otherwise might not occur with a less efficient weapon?
Quite possibly, and for these reasons we move onto question 3. Do the benefits of guns outweigh the downsides?
The benefits of guns, quite simply, are:
a) Defence of one’s nation from external enemies - namely through the armed forces.
b) Defence of citizenry from internal criminals - aka by arming the police or law abiding citizens.
c) Helping with maintaining general law and order within a nation.
The downsides are:
a) When the government itself has all the guns, and the people running the government are the bad guys and criminals.
b) When criminals, fanatics, evil, or crazy people use guns to commit crime.
In short, the benefits guns bestow are important, and the downsides, whilst unfortunate, can be mitigated through ensuring only law abiding, mentally stable citizens above a certain age can acquire guns lawfully, and by enacting severe punishments for criminals who have guns or distribute them - up to and including corporal and capital punishment.
Also, there are countries where gun ownership isn’t a thing. I was born and grew up in one, Australia, and live in another, the UK, and for my part I have no issue with the lack of guns. I acknowledge though that there may come a day (perhaps sooner than we think) when our governments’ monopoly on guns becomes a big problem.
That aside, considering our nature and the world we live in, the benefits of guns beat the downsides here.
Let’s move onto a different kind of technology now.
Social Media
Social media has gone from zero to 100 over the past 20 years. It is all pervasive today - embedded in the lives of billions worldwide. In the West it is rare to find a young person who doesn’t use social media: be it TikTok, Instagram, X, Snapchat, and more.
Does social media solve a problem worth solving?
You could argue that it helps bridge the distance between people, say between family, friends, or acquaintances residing in other towns, cities, or countries. You can keep up to date with what’s going on in their lives despite the distance, but this is nothing that can’t be done through a phone or video call, email, message, or an in-person visit. Though this of course requires being more proactive about it.
You could state that you get to learn from or be entertained by people you’ve never met before. They can offer you tips and insights on life, business, health, politics, and more. They can also share interesting stories, or challenge or confirm your way of thinking. However you might achieve the same by reading a book, or attending an event or conference or a social or community gathering.
You could put forth that you get to hear the unfiltered truth about the world and bypass the fake propaganda riven mainstream media, but you might also argue that this is a means to an end, i.e. on social media we get to spread ideas that run counter to those propagated by the corrupt establishment, as well as expose their destructive and evil ways, but once they’re gone why allow our enemies the same privileges so that they can disrupt a well run society.
The fact is that humans existed before the last 20 years, and they did fine without social media. As dopamine satisfying as it is then, it’s not clear what problem social media is really solving - though it does generate huge amounts of ad revenue for social media companies, as well as valuable behavioural and psychological data which they can use to keep you hooked on their platforms, thus generating even more ad revenue. Perhaps it’s social media company founders and investors whose problem of how to make a lot of money is what’s being solved.
Does it solve this without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
It most certainly does not. Today, thanks in good part to social media: narcissism is booming; social isolation is growing, mental illness is rising, attention spans are shrinking, hideous ideologies and ideas are spreading, conflict and division are increasing, and the list goes on. Perhaps giving humans a digital, global, 24/7 unfiltered speakerphone wasn’t the best idea after all - our 300,000 year old brains just can’t handle it.
Again, we have a before and after here, because for 99.99% of human history we lived without social media. During this time Westerners built awe inspiring buildings, made all the major technological and scientific discoveries that we benefit from today, created works of art unrivalled by anything produced by 21st century artists, spread our religion around the world, sent rockets into space, and the list is truly endless. We did all this without social media.
In summary then, whilst social media has its benefits, entertainment being one of them, the downsides outweigh these, simply put, because we are humans and are prone to believing, spreading, and doing stupid and destructive things, which social media exacerbates.
Furthermore there is little evidence that we have gotten smarter, stronger, wiser, healthier, or nobler, etc as a result of it. It’s key redeeming quality today lies in us being able to spread our ideas, overtly or stealthily to people who may one day join us in ending the reign of the current rotten political, economic, and cultural establishment. It is a means to an end.
Rockets
Next up are Rockets. These are a truly revolutionary technology. For eons man gazed at the faraway Moon, planets, and stars, but never fathomed that we might physically get there one day. Yet we have. We’ve sent humans, animals, probes, satellites, and telescopes into space, all thanks to rockets. It’s hard to describe what this feat means in the grand scheme of things, because the story here has only just started being written, but it’s possible that in thousands or even millions of years from now, our first rockets will be seen as the initial phase of turning us from being an isolated single planet species into a multi-planetary, multi solar-system species. The gravity of this cannot be overstated.
Do rockets solve a problem worth solving?
Yes. There have been multiple mass extinction events over the past 500 million years. The dinosaurs who ruled the Earth for far longer than we have remind us of this, for they are no longer here. If we’re restricting ourselves to one planet, we’re increasing the chances that someday we go extinct too - either due to natural forces, manmade causes, or external third-party causes. It makes more sense to diversify to other worlds.
Does it solve this without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
It of course may alter these, but not adversely. So the answer is yes. There is no negative impact from seeing your civilisation and its people being bold, and achieving great and noble things. If anything it may expand people’s consciousness and give them a greater sense of the grand, mysterious, and awe inspiring universe we live in. New vocations, industries, stories, and more will be born. The next stage of civilisation will be unlocked.
Question 3 doesn’t apply here, however one potential risk is that whilst we’re expanding through space we may attract the attention of non-human entities, who aren’t as enthusiastic about our plans as we are. I think however that any species with sufficient intelligence and technological capability, already knows we’re here. Moreover the same argument still applies - if we stay on one planet we increase the chances of falling victims to a mass extinction event.
Anti-Depressants
The next technology we’ll explore is anti-depressants (also known as SSRIs). This is a medical technology that you swallow, which triggers a chemical reaction in the brain that alters your mood, emotions, and behaviour. Originally the pharmaceutical industry showed little interest in developing anti-depressants as their research found the market for them would be too small (numbering in the tens of thousands in the US), however they later realised that through aggressive marketing, and partnerships with healthcare providers, they could turn this into a mass market product and thus create a lucrative source of high and recurring revenue. They succeeded. Today tens of millions of people in America, and tens of millions throughout the UK & Europe take anti-depressants each year
Do anti-depressants solve a problem worth solving?
If someone is genuinely depressed, then they’ll probably want to resolve it. They can do so by accepting that just like happiness or joy, or fear or anger, sadness, hopelessness, and regret (aka depression) are also normal human emotions. Rather than drugging themselves beyond recognition then, and altering the functioning of their brains (plus experiencing harmful and unnecessary physical side effects too), they’d be better off just putting things into perspective and moving on with life. Failing that they could find a healthier vehicle for dealing with their issues like faith, work, physical activity, discussion, volunteering, etc. This isn’t too much of a stretch either, because humanity got by for most of its history - in far more difficult circumstances - without anti-depressants. They may have felt sad at times, but just cracked on with it.
So again do anti-depressants solve a problem worth solving? No, because solving or fixing so called depression isn’t their function. Their function is to generate profit, and two of the golden rules of business are: a) to get more customers and b) to get them to buy more often. Pharmaceutical companies, in short, want more and more people to be hooked on their product for life, because that’s how they make their money.
Do anti-depressants solve depression without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
This second question isn’t applicable, as anti-depressants don’t fulfil the requirement of the first question, however it’s worth stating that not only do they they not solve a problem worth solving, they adversely impact our society by normalising and promoting mental illness, encouraging emotional weakness and fragility, and by creating drug addicted half-zombies. Meanwhile, the market continues to grow every year, and now even children are taking anti-depressants.
Artificial Intelligence
The last technology we will look at is Artificial Intelligence. This is the buzz word today in the tech and business world. Billions of dollars are being invested in it, and it’s predicted that eventually trillions of dollars will be. What is the point of it all? What are investors and tech companies hoping to get out of it?
Amongst other things, they’re hoping or rather aiming for AI to replace white collar functions. So if you’re a lawyer, accountant, developer, researcher, analyst, marketeer, and the list goes on and on, they want to do your job quicker, better, and cheaper - with no human required. AI is to the professional class, what robots and autonomous machines are to blue collar and low income workers; no one will be immune to what’s coming. Perhaps some professions will hold out longer, like AI engineers and robotics engineers, but eventually their creations may come to replace them too.
Does AI solve a problem worth solving?
If you hate or are distrustful of humans, then yes it will. It will remove what the techno-utopians see as the weakest link: us.
Now, on a limited or restricted basis, AI could be used in scientific and advanced engineering contexts, areas where it could supplement rather than replace the work of humans. But as it stands, the tech elite are giddy at all they can conquer and replace with AI. It seems that as Westerners we’re getting it from two sides: the globalists and the woke want to replace us with third worlders, and the techno-utopians want to replace us with artificial life.
I say all this as someone who is pro-technology. Indeed part of me would like to see what would happen if we fully accelerated and developed AI to its full capability, but unlike the techno-utopians my curiosity is tempered by a desire to do what is right.
But let’s be generous, and assume that having AI do our jobs is a good thing. Let’s say that the problem it solves is that of humans having to work for a living. We will be liberated to do more meaningful things like paint landscapes, travel, learn to play the guitar, plant trees and so on.
Does it solve the problem of work without adversely altering the character, values, and behaviours of a people and nation?
If we’re set free from the toil of labour, if AI and robots do the work for us, do our thinking for us, solve our problems for us, create a future of pure abundance for us (as the techno-utopians claim), then how will that impact us? I think we will become idle, complacent, weak, stupid, lost, and probably (and ironically) lose the will to go on. Without something to strive towards, to challenge us, to test us and keep us honest, we will descend into the depths of depravity, nihilism, and despair. Man without a purpose is no man at all.
It isn’t for nothing that establishment intellectual Yuval Noah Harari said that in the future the biggest question in economics and politics will be what to do with what, what he calls, all the ‘useless people’ displaced by AI. How will they find meaning in life? He suggests the solution will be a mix of drugs and video games, or that it may not even come to that because self-directed AI may try to exterminate us. (In my view this could even be an act of mercy.)
In this we answer question 3 too. The benefits of AI fail to overcome the downsides. The best use of AI then (if any) is for restricted and narrow use cases. It should be tightly controlled and supplement the work of humans, rather than replace it.
So that’s six technologies we’ve assessed via this framework. Is there an element of subjectivity to it? Of course. Every civilisation is at its core, subjective. Every ruler or ruling class views things subjectively. If you’re watching or reading this, you also have a subjective view of what society should be. Yes, our side can argue our views and ideas are better aligned with god, nature, history, tradition, and ultimately reality, but in the end it’s our beliefs versus those of others.
In the context of technology some believe in anything goes, others believe in profit at any cost, some believe in regulations, others in restrictions, still others in zero or limited technology, and so on. An ideology will need to rule and set the laws and standards for the future, so it may as well be ours - not least because it’ll lead to what we believe are better outcomes.
Concerns
Here I will address concerns some may have about what we’ve covered.
1- Isn’t it better to have a marketplace of ideas and technologies and let the best ones win?
We have that today to some extent, and it operates under the guise of ‘freedom’ and ‘progress.’ Yet when you look at the developments in our society in most spheres, would you say we are making positive progress? That we are moving towards a glorious future? Are the technologies we are developing designed to empower and elevate humans or is it the opposite?
No one is saying we need to stop producing cars, refrigerators, airplanes, or toasters, but rather that we need to be able to say no to certain technologies, because morally, culturally, and spiritually speaking they are a net negative.
Moreover, if we were to have an ‘anything goes’ approach to technological development, then why not have it in social affairs too? Why have any restrictions on human behaviour at all? Let’s apply the same value free anarchical mindset to our lives that we do to technological development. Does that sound wise to you? Or does it sound like a recipe for mayhem and disaster?
2- Another concern might be: how do you know your analysis of a technology and its potential is foolproof? It’s hard to grasp these things, and might you dismiss something that could prove genuinely useful in the future?
This is a valid concern. There will be some cases that are perhaps more obvious than others. Where the answer isn’t definitive, we can develop the technology, trial it, and then decide afterwards. Many of the examples I’ve given are ones we can evaluate in hindsight, so it’s best to err on the side of allowing technological innovation to go ahead when the answer isn’t clear. But this is also theoretical talk, for in practice technology pioneers have visions, they have plans, and these are expressed clearly, not least because they usually need funding and teams - and an unclear vision will fail to convince people to invest or join in the venture. The reason, for example, we can assess AI today is because those working on it are explicit in wanting to replace our jobs. We don’t need to imagine it, it’s their plan.
3- Another question might be, what kinds of technologies would be allowed and what wouldn’t?
Nuclear energy, technologies to terraform planets like Mars, and flying cars (assuming they’re feasible) would get the ok. VR Porn, AI girlfriends, and AI or robot workforces would not - unless it is a highly specialised use case (like asteroid mining) where humans are unable or unwilling to do the job.
Summary
In an age where disruptive, exponential technological development is occurring, we need to recognise that technologies can be both good and bad, and we need to apply a moral framework to them.
This framework will be decided by one group or another, so I argue it should be us, not because we’re power hungry or opportunistic, but because I believe we offer the best way forward for our civilisation.
We cannot embark on this next stage of our journey with the current mindset that all innovation is good innovation and a sign of unlimited ‘progress.’ We’ve all seen how that slippery slope plays out in many other areas of our society, like immigration, the economy, LGBT+, health, and more.
Our technological future can be great if we don’t lose sight of what it’s all about; if we remember that no matter how much we choose to ignore or deny it, we live in a moral universe - one where good and evil are just as real as gravity or the atom. Technology isn’t immune to this reality.
With that, it’s time now to move onto our third key question. It will address one of the most pernicious forces of all. It isn’t a flashy or headline grabbing one, it’s rarely discussed by name in our politics or culture, and it has been diligently plugging away for over a century - and shows no signs of stopping. It is the drive for efficiency.
And so in Part 3 we will answer the question: to what end greater efficiency?
Written by Arcadius Strauss.
All my links here