Just a lonely, frustrated thought. I have come up with a name for this trend we are seeing that may be a bit more palatable for the normie/normie adjacent than "Luciferianism", maybe precisely because it evokes less of the occult flavor of that term (losing something in the process, but such is the necessity for making things digestible for those who aren't "there yet").
It's Technocratic Maximalism.
The idea is this--the more elaborate and invasive the technology brought to bear on a given problem, the better. I think that this gives some perspective of what is guiding many of the people who go along with the madness we all are seeing, especially in cases where outright or classic conspiracy isn't present or under-determines what we are seeing.
Why did so many feel we should respond to covid, not with sunshine, exercise, vitamin D and perhaps some targeted policies towards the vulnerable and in healthcare settings? Nefarious plots? Corporate greed? Evil?
We'll yes, I believe there certainly are nefarious plots, corporate greed, and evil behind it, but those don't explain everything (under-determine). There is also this viewpoint, this brainworm, that has infested the worldview and thinking of many of our fellow citizens--and that is technocratic maximalism.
The obvious solutions--- the aforementioned sunshine, exercise, vitamin D and targeted policies towards the vulnerable and healthcare systems---doesn't bring the maximum amount of technology to bear on the problem, and so those possessed by the Technocratic Maximalist brainworm (here after TMBs) see such options as inherently unsatisfactory if not outright repulsive---regardless of outcomes and with no respect to other sources of value or principles.
So elaborate testing, tracking, vaccination, lockdowns and other social control mechanisms---to the TMBs these are seen as good in themselves, regardless of the human rights they violate or whether or not they even lead to better outcomes at all.
You wear a mask not to protect yourself, and not to protect your neighbors, but because to go unmasked is to forgo a technological intervention.
Holistic preventive treatments, general health--these are not satisfactory, because they do not imply the maximum application of technology. Neither are simple established treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, etc. No matter how effective they may or may not be, they must be rejected because they are not the most advanced technologies, and on top of that they only treat the ill--narrowing the application of technology. No, we must have a vaccine of the latest and most advanced technology (WARP SPEED!), given to all, regardless of their vulnerability; that is the way of Technocratic Maximalism. The broadest and most invasive application of the most elaborate technology is the goal.
More tech and violate human rights > less tech and human rights respected
More tech and worse outcomes > less tech and better outcomes
This is the position of the TMBs
Does Technocratic Maximalism explain everything. No, I think this listenership is probably well aware that, as stated above, there are conspiracies, there is malfesience and evil. But those don't explain everything either, and they don't explain the general tendencies of people not in on the conspiracy to play into the conspirators' hands, or even to more zealously pursue the goals of the conspirators than the conspirators themselves.
While the occult implications of the term Luciferiansism are appropriate, that way of presenting it turns off many normies, as does a focus on conspiracy itself--which is often only suggested by data that the normies agree to admit to, not proven. Technocratic Maximalism is a framework that may help give some perspective on what's going on in a way that is more useful for talking to people not "woke" (in the old, pre-2014 meaning) yet.
I like this concept. It's similar to ideas I've heard on our relentless pursuit of novelty. The idea that we are constantly seeking out whatever is new with little regard to the function or cost/benefit. It's the opposite of 'if it aint broke don't fix it'. The pursuit of novelty then devalues itself, when everything is new and transitory it fails to stand out as anything of impact, it's just whatever is newest, waiting to be replaced by something even newer. It's a dangerous path to find yourself on, to always be looking forward, but only to the next novel experience, and to fail to see both where you're going and where you came from.
I think a big part of what you're talking about is an obsession with data driven decision making, which itself is generally a good practice, but has been taken to an extreme. This has long been a practice in business where decisions are shaped by huge bodies of consumer data. When that data is knowingly and willingly given this again, is a useful practice. That's not happening though, and the drive to collect and aggregate data is insatiable. They can't get the data they want without infringing on rights. It starts with small incursions but drives itself towards, as you put it, maximalism.
In the end, this pursuit of novel and data driven solutions ends up forgoing common sense and injecting an often unnecessary level of complexity. I think it's safe to say this is intentional and driven by grander machinations, but I can't help but marvel at the inefficacy and madness of it all.
I vibe with this. I’m in Manufacturing. My former jefe wouldn’t think twice to spend 70k on an overly elaborate, embarrassingly ineffective, quality device to replace our traditional inspection processes. The problem was that these machines he would buy never worked as advertised and even if you could get the damn things to act accordingly it was turning a 10 second physical inspection into a 3 minute ordeal.
Once the purchase was made, regardless of how unnecessary and inefficient the technology was, we were forced to use it.
He was always so comfortably distanced from the process and confident in his purchase that no matter how we were able to prove to him that his technology wasn’t useful it was always pushed upon us. Because, obviously, we didn’t know how to use the device that he spent so much money on. Why would they charge him so much for a piece of technology that wasn’t relevant?
That being said, there are plenty of technological innovations to manufacturing that have done wonders to reduce the time and overall skill level of the employees and have ultimately increased efficiency and quality. Sure, if something goes wrong, 3/4’s of your shop doesn’t know how to function, but that’s what makes a guy like me so valuable to the company.
herodotusbossk wrote:
I like this concept. It's similar to ideas I've heard on our relentless pursuit of novelty. The idea that we are constantly seeking out whatever is new with little regard to the function or cost/benefit. It's the opposite of 'if it aint broke don't fix it'. The pursuit of novelty then devalues itself, when everything is new and transitory it fails to stand out as anything of impact, it's just whatever is newest, waiting to be replaced by something even newer. It's a dangerous path to find yourself on, to always be looking forward, but only to the next novel experience, and to fail to see both where you're going and where you came from.I think a big part of what you're talking about is an obsession with data driven decision making, which itself is generally a good practice, but has been taken to an extreme. This has long been a practice in business where decisions are shaped by huge bodies of consumer data. When that data is knowingly and willingly given this again, is a useful practice. That's not happening though, and the drive to collect and aggregate data is insatiable. They can't get the data they want without infringing on rights. It starts with small incursions but drives itself towards, as you put it, maximalism.
In the end, this pursuit of novel and data driven solutions ends up forgoing common sense and injecting an often unnecessary level of complexity. I think it's safe to say this is intentional and driven by grander machinations, but I can't help but marvel at the inefficacy and madness of it all.
"It's the opposite of 'if it aint broke don't fix it'." Exactly, i used that phrase when explaining this idea to my father.
I also think this is heavily interwoven with the current obsession with data, tracking, "digital twins", and general attempts at social engineering.
Your thoughts on how this relates to "relentless pursuit of novelty" are interesting to me. When I hear that phrase, I think of Terrence Mckenna, who was quite intelligent and seemed to welcome and embrace novelty, maybe this is the dark side of that concept he didn't live to see. He thought that 2012 would be the singularity of novelty...maybe he was more correct than we have thought in the last 9 years.
jack_daft wrote:
...That being said, there are plenty of technological innovations to manufacturing that have done wonders to reduce the time and overall skill level of the employees and have ultimately increased efficiency and quality.
Yes, I absolutely agree. That's why I think the emphasis should not be that technology is bad in itself, but the unconscious and unreflexive pursuit of the maximum amount of technological intervention, disregarding the broader context of values and outcomes, is bad. I hope that "technolgocial maximalism" is a good short hand for people to be able to make this distinction --or that someone else can come up with a better one!
