the decline of civilisation.

more often than not, words like 'technology' and 'progress' tend to convince us that we are headed in the right direction, striving toward the goal with blazing speed, on our way, guided by providence and ultimately that things are getting better each day. this type of thinking, when glanced at under the microscope of historical reflection is rendered illusory and false. of course, we already want to believe that this time in history is better than that time which came before, that things are improving and we are contributing to the eventual success of mankind in creating his own heaven here upon the earth. it would be a great despair were one to realise that human civilisation, on the whole, is, at lightning speed, spiraling downward in degeneration, so we turn our eyes away to look only at the small helping of good that is being done. on one hand, this is noble, to focus on the good and general hope of mankind for positive change, however, like all things, when the balance is tipped and the individual turns a blind eye to the suffering and evil which rules this planet, they become stagnant and instead of contributing towards a greater good, halt the process altogether.

yet, i can hear them already, shouting words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' as the cries of proof which make evident the improvements to society. using the american first amendment of free speech as the illustration to justify the progress of mankind as one of positive and not decline. despite the beautiful intoxication we have with such ideals, a healthy dose of pragmatism is always the much-needed shot in the arm. a word like 'technology' needs a definition before it can be more closely examined within the context of our subject, the decline of civilisation.


here are two definitions of the word 'technology'

the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.

the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.


it is my argument that technology, though often hailed as the great achievements of mankind in allowing him to perform more tasks with greater ease and comfort, is actually his greatest established self-restriction. the history of technology includes devices from the first arrowheads and the wheel to the automobile and computer. with each new day new 'technologies' are being created and implemented in society with the purpose of providing mankind the material objects he longs after. ironically, man is clever enough to create these technologies with their benefits in mind, yet he rarely perceives their potential for harm until it is too late. starting with the earliest weapons, manufactured with the intent to kill those beasts which provided the much-needed meat for his diet, man had also created a way in which to kill his fellow man, and also be killed by other men, with greater ease and lesser effort. the invention of the arrowhead gave him the ability to keep greater distance between his target, never risking himself to attack, that is, until other men used arrows against him. following the path of weaponry, we find that it does not improve in that man learns how to protect himself, instead he creates the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, each new 'technological' device affords him the ability to exponentially increase the potential for destruction while at the same time he is made more and more vulnerable to attack from the very same weapons. in this aspect, i do believe it is our early ancestors who we should be jealous of, who gathered food and were sustained from the natural growth of the planet. the 'technology' of fast-food illustrates this point all too easily.and what of non-violent 'technologies' such as the automobile or the computer? we can travel greater distances with greater speed. we can perform a multiplicity of tasks within seconds, we are digitally 'connected' with the better part of the entire world. and what of the negative side-effects these 'technologies' produce which contribute to our decline? one might make the argument that we should take the good with the bad, that the negative effects are worth the positive attributes these technologies afford us. and yet, i disagree. when one sits down at an empty desk, with only a computer, a keyboard and a mouse, one is dependent upon that 'technology' to achieve any kind of productivity. the user himself is now, no longer doing anything, but taking up the meaningless task of 'supervisor' to the computer as it hurries itself to perform the desired functions. the man himself may manipulate the 'technology' to the extent that it appears to be 'bent to his will,' but in all honesty the man is in more need of the computer, than the computer in need of the man. with such 'technology' the inevitable by-product is the intellectual decline in man, given that he no longer needs to know actual mathematics, the computer will produce the solution for him. he no longer needs to visit his neighbour, the internet will give him the experience of connection. however anthropomorphic the 'technology' is made to appear the truth remains that it is actually producing less humane 'users.' even this blog entry is dependent upon not only this computer, keyboard and mouse with which it is being created, but also the computer system of the 'user' who is reading it right now. the computer had to be created, with it's great amount of tiny singular parts created by men utilising 'technologies' to produce them, the keyboard had to have been manufactured, likewise with the mouse. but it does not stop there, for we both require electrical power in order to sustain these machines. we require miles and miles of cable in order to 'connect' us to one another and to the greater collective. but it does not stop there either, men must supervise the 'technologies' employed to produce that power, or as i should say to manipulate the products of the 'technologies' which truly produce. men must establish and maintain the 'connecting' cables and systems and networks, so on and so forth. in order for me to 'communicate' even a single idea we are now at a point in human history where it demands and depends upon the numerous 'technologies' involved. and what of the word without this 'technology?' well we should be forced to have conversation in person, that is face to face, or as what is known in this digital world as the world 'in real life.'

that the automobile replaces the exercise of walking once demanded of men is but one of this 'technologies' detriments. one may also consider the impact upon the planet itself when millions and millions of these vehicles burning oil and gasoline are in use everyday. however, it is in this part of my argument where the decline is illustrated as moving with such great pace that it is now demanding harsh and abrasive action to be stemmed, even in the least. that is the practice of combining 'technologies' to produce 'new technologies.' given the concept of natural selection, one might call this the 'technological regression' in that it is not the most beneficial devices which are produced but the most harmful. an automobile which utilises weaponry in order to maximise the efficiency of it's potential for destruction. an airplane with the capability of dropping such an explosive device as to incinerate 70,000 humans within minutes and eventually cause harmful enough effects so as to kill over 100,000 living, breathing people.

sometimes the devastation is not so physically apparent. in some cases the internet as a distribution device for pornography which contaminates the soul and plagues the mind causes damage to millions. that children utilising the 'technologies' of television and video gaming systems prefer to spend hours inside air-conditioned houses instead of running around outside under the sun breathing unadulterated oxygen is a harm that is not truly considered until one views a generation of americans viewed as 'obese,' most of which from no medical illness. that entire economies' are built upon the foundation of immaterial 'goods' produced by 'technologies' is a sign that we are horribly out of 'sync' with the world around us, and each other.

civilisation being the community of interconnected human members cannot be said to be flourishing in such an age of disconnected technological addicts. the basic problems of humanity have yet to be solved because we have busied ourselves in the hurry to attain each new device of self-enslavement. debt, loans, credit cards. civilisation has deteriorated to such a point that it does not even recognise it's own inhumanity anymore, save for those acts of such dramatic shock which litter the evening news. when children are kept inside an academic system which fails it's goal of educating them, the only effects produced are new addicts to the 'kingdom of this world' and its 'technological' vices.

how truly great the despair is that we cannot imagine a world without technology.
yet, even greater the despair when we realise that we are trapped within the matrix of our own creation.


will there ever emerge a community of true connection, beyond the digital age of technology?
will we ever truly progress in producing positive changes to society?

i hope so.