> What you are supporting is local sustainability. The world would be better off with less global trade and more local productions. Local productions means a stronger community and more visibility for business practices, because it's more sustainable.
This is true for the extreme minority of products that ARE produced locally.
If you buy a screwdriver from the privately-owned DYI shop around the corner it will have been produced in the same Chinese factory and shipped by the same boats and trucks as the one you'll buy from Amazon.
You're not at all supporting local sustainability, you're just paying more to add one more middleman.
Well, also, if you don't support Amazon, then you don't support the growth of a large company like Amazon which is one more component of the collection of big corporations that are exactly those responsible for globalization in the first place.
Globalization is one of the best things that has ever happened to humanity.
It allows whoever is willing to understand the peoples of the world share way more than what makes them different. Globalization, specially through the internet, but trade as whole, is my personal bet on what could "end all wars". In fact it is the first necessary step for the philosophical parts of the communist manifesto that are salvageable, the parts about the global coalition of common peoples working on shared goals and with similar baseline prosperity.
It is only good if you take a short-term, human-supremacist view of the world. If you consider all life to have worth independent of its value to humanity, then globalization is a horror. And then globalization and the industrial society is the cause of climate change, so it's only good in the short-term.
If by "short-term" you mean "until we stop killing each other in massive wars" (I doubt we can eliminate individual murder), I guess I agree, but by my estimation that will take several centuries at least. If by short term you mean before that, I doubt that we can agree. I'm talking about something that to me is already so far in the future that it was strange to hear "short-term" as a response to that argument!
Regarding human-supremacist view, I hadn't seen that expression before but if I interpret it correctly, I would say that describes a great big majority of the world population and I believe anyone would have a really hard time making this case to anyone on the street. I respect the moral purity in a way, but I think it's wildly impractical to call people around you human-supremacists, when like I said we are still not totally in agreement that things like wars should not happen. We say we do but there's never not been wars in our history. I don't know man, I feel like you're too deep in this rabbithole of morality to be able to have a normal discussion about getting a lightbulb at the local store when you start calling other people human-supremacists. But I do enjoy the banter!
Well, when I see people dump their shit into the homes of animals, then I think that comes from an attitude of human supremacy. When I see pristine forests cut down for profit but laws protecting the homes of people, that's human supremacy.
My goal is not to get most people to like me, or agree with my views. I fully acknowledge that I am a fundamentalist in the sense that I have a few axioms (all life is equal and technology must be regressed) and I have a zero compromise policy on that. Of course, unfortunately, to make a living I must participate in some of our atrocities.
I don't think it's necessary either, that I conform and discuss as others. There is no shortage of conformists. Either our destructive ways will stop, in which case I am working to bring them down through my writing, or I will fail. It's something I believe in and nothing will change that.
You have probably never in your whole life been to a forest that's more than a few hundred years old. Even the Amazon was largely managed by humans with fire prior to about the 15th-16th century.
> technology must be regressed
This is a morally deranged axiom. The life-giving benefits of so many technologies can't be overstated.
It is a bad thing. And you say it like it's a dichotomy.
And I could certainly get most of the comforts of modern life with 5% of the force of globalization. House, food, bed, some reading material, etc. I don't really care for technology, and I use it because it's part of my work and livelihood. BUT, I could easily be just as happy living a simpler life.
Believe me, I've already thought about it. I could be pretty much as comfortable with WAY less global trade. Most people buy way too much clothes, use way too much technology, none of which makes life more comfortable.
> Hell, without globalization you wouldn't even be able to do your job, where do you think your Nikon's, Canon's and Sony's come from?
(A) My point is that if there were other forms of labor, I wouldn't be less comfortable.
(B) Again, I'm arguing for a reduction in global trade, not an outright ban. My point is that it needs to be reduced.
Is it hypocritical to complain about your government even though they make the country that you live in? Of course, I'm using the resources I have, but I could be equally comfortable in a different world. My argument is that our current world is not necessary and not optimal.
Please get off the internet then, destroy your computer and go live on a farm. I don't say this to be an antagonist but it is what you yourself is suggesting others do.
I am not advocating for a simpler life off grid. If I were, I would disconnect now. I am advocating for the destruction of technology because it destroys nature. And sometimes, you need to use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house.
> BUT, I could easily be just as happy living a simpler life
Put your money or your comfort where your mouth is.
> if there were other forms of labor, I wouldn't be less comfortable.
Yes you would be. My grand parents all farmed and my grandfather was born in a cabin with a dirt floor and no electricity. His mother died in child birth, which was common at the time. He lost siblings to disease. His life was brutally difficult.
Let's face it, you're a math PHD and a photographer, you aren't made of the same stuff as people who clawed potatoes from the ground to avoid starvation. You have no clue what that actually means and you come here to lecture us about the comforts you yourself cling to. It's disgusting.
More false dichotomies. Technophiles love them. The choice isn't just between modern global capitalism and a dirt floor. It's just that you have a strong emotional attachment to technology and can't see a way out.
It isn't an emotional attachment, I just clearly see that lots of technologies lean on one another and you can't easily pick an choose which ones to abandon and the clock simply does not roll backwards. Every material good that isn't made of material near at hand relies on trade and specialized skills. The humble pencil is shockingly complicated to produce, as you can see in the 1958 essay "I, Pencil". If you want something truly useful to a life above meager dirt-bound poverty like say antibiotics you need big supply chains, complicated machinery, and packaging that in and of itself requires its own inputs and machinery. It's all related.
Your anti-humanist rants are frankly disgusting and morally revolting. Also, who goes around calling themselves doctor? Skimming you substack, I'm really impressed by the inability of a mathematician to string together logical arguments, "Five myths about technology" might be the most sophomoric and poorly argued blog post I've ever read arguing against technology.
For example, your claims that "Technology, in other words, grows and feeds on the medium of global humanity" is totally unsupported by your argument and fails in its basic understanding of peoples' revealed preferences. You argue by simple example, but fail to come up with anything more convincing than whatsapp usage in Brazil or cars in general. It's lazy writing and lazy thinking. Waving away cures and treatments for rare diseases by saying "such people are in difficult situations due to modern technology" is beyond foolish. You could name dozens of genetic hereditary diseases that have laways existed that were a death sentence two generations ago. Type 1 diabetes comes to mind.
Thank you for your input. You're right, and one day I hope to be elevated to your level of rationality and logical thinking. It's an honour to receive input from someone like you.
This is true for the extreme minority of products that ARE produced locally.
If you buy a screwdriver from the privately-owned DYI shop around the corner it will have been produced in the same Chinese factory and shipped by the same boats and trucks as the one you'll buy from Amazon.
You're not at all supporting local sustainability, you're just paying more to add one more middleman.