Lots to think about here... I am reminded of the line from Dune: "Most believe that a satisfactory future requires a return to an idealized past, a past which never in fact existed."
Well put, Andrew. Of course, in the 1970s, the 'modernity' problem which was going to end everything was television. Before that, radio. In the 19th century, it was the railways, and women working. In the 18th century, it was women reading novels. So yeah, does Kingsnorth want to go back pre-Industrial Revolution? or, like Alasdair MacIntyre, back to ancient monasticism (thus avoiding the whole women, as well as the whole tech, thing)? He's gone into Eastern Orthodoxy, so maybe the cloister is next. That's not, though, to put it mildly, for everyone.
Also, there's a vast history investigating the nature/human/tech nexus, which is very old and complex: to take just one example, one of the oldest 'tech's (technai in the Socratic tradition) is medicine, which deploys the resources of nature (e.g. plant-based drugs) in order to help heal humans. Nobody would think of abandoning that kind of tech. Has Kingsnorth gone into this work in depth? He may have - I haven't read the book, just some of his blog posts.
I was enamored with the Dark Mountain a bit over a decade ago, but this has always been the problem with Kingsnorth: everything is bad, he can’t be specific, there are no solutions. Some of his points are valid, but that only leads to frustration because you have no idea what you’re supposed to do with this information, you can’t act on anything he says.
Good review. Have the book, haven’t read yet, but I got the impression of imprecision on his definition of machine during his recent discussion at Harvard.
Lots to think about here... I am reminded of the line from Dune: "Most believe that a satisfactory future requires a return to an idealized past, a past which never in fact existed."
Ya. Exactly.
Well put, Andrew. Of course, in the 1970s, the 'modernity' problem which was going to end everything was television. Before that, radio. In the 19th century, it was the railways, and women working. In the 18th century, it was women reading novels. So yeah, does Kingsnorth want to go back pre-Industrial Revolution? or, like Alasdair MacIntyre, back to ancient monasticism (thus avoiding the whole women, as well as the whole tech, thing)? He's gone into Eastern Orthodoxy, so maybe the cloister is next. That's not, though, to put it mildly, for everyone.
Also, there's a vast history investigating the nature/human/tech nexus, which is very old and complex: to take just one example, one of the oldest 'tech's (technai in the Socratic tradition) is medicine, which deploys the resources of nature (e.g. plant-based drugs) in order to help heal humans. Nobody would think of abandoning that kind of tech. Has Kingsnorth gone into this work in depth? He may have - I haven't read the book, just some of his blog posts.
I haven't read a work of his where he covers that line of thinking, but I haven't read everything.
I haven't read this book, but your description reminds me of how I fell out of love with Theodore Roszak way back when.
Well reviewed!
I was enamored with the Dark Mountain a bit over a decade ago, but this has always been the problem with Kingsnorth: everything is bad, he can’t be specific, there are no solutions. Some of his points are valid, but that only leads to frustration because you have no idea what you’re supposed to do with this information, you can’t act on anything he says.
Ya, and I'm increasingly convinced he's unsure what to do with his information.
Good review. Have the book, haven’t read yet, but I got the impression of imprecision on his definition of machine during his recent discussion at Harvard.
I thought this book would just be a bs anti AI rant. Looks like it's basically the same thing. Glad I didn't waste time reading it.