Video: The Technocratic Dictatorship: Sacrifice
or Revolt? Why the ”Why-question” Is Not Asked
Every child asks questions. Questions on the why of things, the when, the who, the where and the how.
Adults do not so often ask such questions. Especially not, when these are of utmost significance and urgency – such as in today’s comprehensive crisis pertaining to nature, society, civilization and life itself.
One example of this lack of questioing can be seen in the movie ”Technocratic Dictatorship”. This too seems true when it comes to deep reflection and highly critical analysis, offering, one would hope, more than just scepticism on the current situation, but also outrage.
Those interviewed in this movie, myself among them, describe in various ways the dilemma of our times, which is the undisputable progressive destruction of the environment, nature and life on earth.
Primarily, the interviewees analyse modern natural sciences and technology as the main contributors to this destruction. The mechanistic world view of the modern era and its subsequent technology are seen as the major cause of this destruction, its technology being broadly conceptualized in terms of machine-technology.
They agree: contrary to all predictions and promises, so-called progress has not resulted in the improvement for humankind, for life itself, nature and the environment. Quite the contrary, it has instead led to a situation which threatens to become a technocratic dictatorship, as the movie’s title aptly indicates.
From destruction of nature to the destruction of the human being?
Alongside the destruction of nature, the possible destruction of the human being itself seems to be the agenda.
For the last half of a century, the process of ”depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in numbers of humans living on the Planet, is repeatedly mentioned in corresponding publications, especially among ”techno-fetishists”, as a declared necessity. Is this a ”logical” continuation of the hitherto existing destruction of nature and life itself since the beginning of the modern era?
Is the often discussed project of so-called ”transhumanism” a continuation of the technological progress ”beyond” nature and humans?
Is it part of the agenda to abolish humans as a natural occurance and species? To unhinge and transform them via technological inventions so that man may be adapted and custom-made to fit into the ”mega-machine“?
One has to ask oneself: Is this achievable? Can it be possible anyone desiring such an experiment? Is it even possible anyone could have this as an aim? It seems the technological progress of today has led to an altered perspective on life and even human beings that most people are not yet aware of.
What would such a development toward ”beyond human” look like in reality? The current propaganda advertising of such continued progress promises the improvement and higher development of humankind, to become even ”god-like”- a homo deus (Harari). And in continuation of this sort of thinking, the „merging“ of human beings with the machine (Kurzweil) is considered an advanced development, allegedly leading to a new level of ”evolution”.
How is one to imagine this? Or: what does the logic of invention of a ”post” -human ”machine-being” or a ”human machine”, have to do with the sacrifices demanded for centuries from nature and all other life forms in the name of progress?
Are we not experiencing the creation of the promised ”brave new world”, with an equally ”brave new human being” afterall (Sorgner), but rather an actual human sacrifice, being started under the disguise of technological progress by the big players of our civilization themselves, possibly already on a global scale?
What monstrosity! Where have we got to, if we have to ask such a question?
But, no one seems to be asking!
Watch the full movie below or click here.
Why no one is asking ”why”
Our movie shows that so far there is no reaction to the planned politics of implementing these depopulation-fantasies and the intended de-, trans- and posthumanisation of the human being.
Are people willing to put up with this? Do they believe – as it is often the case – the promises made from above and / or do they not (yet) understand what is really approaching them?
The movie asks no further questions. It ends with a prospect of a different, more environmentally friendly civilization and world, without having explained or explored WHY we have arrived at exactly the opposite, with or without science.
Furthermore, the question of if and how we can get out of the current state and arrive at an alternative civilization remains unexplored – and that is, still as human beings in the true sense, i.e. as living, creative and self-empowered creatures.
Given the discrepancy between everyday consciousness of ”regular” people and the completely different dimensions in which the latest projects of technological progress are embedded, such a transition with a desired Happy End is obsolete.
Such a Happy End would somehow have required a discussion between the inventors and the objects, i.e. the victims of such progress, a requisite debate in which a solution would have been reached resulting in the ”rejection” of such kind of progress.
First of all, the existing gap needs to be defined as one between the ”wrong” consciousness of the people who are not the least aware of the existential threat they are subjected to, and the consciousness of those who, according to their own ideas have already begun, with supporting propaganda, to implement this threat.
The fundamental ”why”- question is not posed: Why does hostility towards nature and human beings exist in modern civilization? This question is not asked in the movie, nor in the remaining fields of life. It seems no one is even noticing the abscence of this key question.
The impression is given that it is not necessary to ask such a question: the movie states if natural science is oriented towards the dead instead of towards life, then this obviously becomes the reason why no attention is paid to the fact of life, nor to an (ethically) appropriate appreciation of the living world – the animate life.
However, such an argument is a circular one. It is tautologic.
You can read the rest of this excellent article in the below link: