I could sit and consider a reasoned argument for replacing firearms with bows and arrows in civil society, but this article is arguing for "low-tech warfare" as

I could sit and consider a reasoned argument for replacing firearms with bows and arrows in civil society, but this article is arguing for "low-tech warfare" as a sustainability initiative, and compares this to replacing cars with bicycles. The major difference between car vs bicycle and bow vs gun is that, with the right infrastructure and lifestyle, riding a bicycle really is a major life improvement over driving a car. When I live two miles from work and there are protected bike lanes, I would much rather ride my bike than drive, even in a cold northern city. Driving two miles in a dense city is way more miserable than biking in a protected lane, even in the cold, and the savings from even one of the two parking spot pays for a lot of additional luxuries (or entire years off of my working life). There is literally no situation where an army with bows and arrows will defeat an army with modern weaponry. The author concludes: > If we cannot imagine low-tech warfare, we cannot imagine a low-tech, sustainable, and fair society. Bad news: war isn't fair. We can't even prevent nuclear proliferation, which really does post an immanent and existential threat to human civilization (if not the species itself). Let's at least focus on that first...