ilmdge posted:

if someone is already arguing that beavers have tecnology, then so do crows

i didn't read the thread but if this is happening then lmao

Goethestein posted:

you can't make medicine with a 3d printer, unless your medicine is made out of plastic

the wendy's frosty is, and that'll cure what ails ya

NoFreeWill posted:

according to Heidegger in Question Concerning Technology technology is a way of enframing, a view of the world that reduces it to an instrumental relation with humanity. so basically technology and tool use would go hand in hand, but the amount that technology determines our worldview has drastically increased.

dis is a good essay yall should read it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihvIa6OPnJo

littlegreenpills posted:

if you could make a decent gun out of abs plastic wouldn't gun companies be manufacturing them

No

stegosaurus posted:

How do you self identify as crypto-something.

Let me preface it by saying that as an An-Cap, I hold that the problem on both sides of the equation is the existence of the state...

That being said, the state exists... what might be some positive movements to be taken by one state in order to quell such atrocities by another?

First and foremost would be the most free market of solutions which would be to say that any peoples willing to relocate from a 'bad' country to another should be given the free ability to do so. Take away the lifeblood of a state, the people they leech off of, and you take away much of their power. Unfortunately, with the way that global terrorism has stained the ability of free immigration, this may no longer be a viable, tenable position to hold.

Another option which would work would be a sort of state-based marketing campaign against the other state which lifted the shroud which every state needs in order to continue... the veil of legitimacy. Take steps toward proving that the leaders are detriment to the people and let the problem sort itself out by demonstrating to the populace of the country that their leader is either there illegitimately or is detrimental to the success of the country and to implant the idea, specifically within it's military infrastructure, that a coup would be backed by outside nations--though not necessarily by ground troops.

If one looks at the Arab-Spring, this tactic proved immensely fruitful.... though again, while I do not agree at all with any of it, I can appreciate its tact from a strategic standpoint.

Another option would be to make an anti-war embargo which to my knowledge, has pretty much never been tried. This would be something along the lines of an embargo or trade limit, but with the difference being that you have one or several options out. As an example, a group of nations could meet diplomatically and say to an oppressive regime, we will not give aid and will not trade with you unless you do X... X being some sort of limit abdication of the current regime/leader. I knocked doing something along these lines in my initial post because the problem with the way that current and past embargos is that they have been absolute and without any condition... case and point, Cuba. It's a strategy that can work, but not when you present the country with the option of just telling their people that they are being targeted because they are them and we are us... case and point, North Korea.

You need to keep trade open or at least as a viable option should certain terms be met. There is no country in history that has cut off all option of trade or placed untenable tariffs where it wasn't a preemptive act of aggression and trying to antagonize another, weaker state into a war.

innsmouthful posted:

Superabound posted:

it would be impossible to eschew the use of technology in ANY age. We literally define entire prehistoric cultures by the level of technology they achieved. Unless you are an illiterate mute living naked and shoeless in the open air, killing animals with your bare hands and feasting on their uncooked meat, you are using human technology. These subdivisions between "modern" and preindustrial technologies are almost entirely arbitrary. The Amish are using fucking cutting-edge technologies compared to the vast majority of all previously existing human society.

saying that the human usage of tools is and always has been a form of "technology" is just as much an arbitrary distinction that subdividing between modern and preindustrial technology is. the view itself is quite technocentric and thus symptomatic of the time we live in, rather than an accurate representation of how people in those times viewed the tools they were using.

tool usage is different than technology, because the very concept of technology is a product of modernity. tool usage may be universal of humanity, but the view of tools as technology is very much an artificial construct. other species, such as the crow, have been known to use tools, but surely nobody would say that crows have technology?

of course crows use technology. in fact one posts on this very message board


but my conception of "technology" is not arbitrary, its the literal definition. there is not one point in human history where you can say "ok, all technology before this point is ok, but everything after it is going to thrust our souls inevitably into the abyss" without it being entirely arbitrary and based on your irrational fear of the loss of control. or even worse, some ridiculously naive concept of the pastoral ideal, usually the province of bearded cult leaders and childbride rapists

so if when you say "technology" you actually just mean "computers", then by all means, say computers