5 ms·

I have. And I think it is definitely worth it to read it, because he brings a lot of clarity to a lot of things. Buuuuuut. In the end, I think Illich fail his

by di4na 3y ago

I have. And I think it is definitely worth it to read it, because he brings a lot of clarity to a lot of things. Buuuuuut. In the end, I think Illich fail his own test. He claims to analyze systemic impacts, but fail to recognize the systemic impacts of his own solutions. I always use the "speed" example for this. Illich basically advocate for more or less banning the use of any mean of transportation faster than a bicycle. The arguments do make sense actually, in a lot of ways, and it is important to keep these in mind. But he acknowledge that there are real use case for engine driven vehicules and fast speed, for things like medical or emergency needs. Make sense right? So from his pov, noone should have engine car, except for ambulance, medical transportation (like transplant), fire engine, etc. Where it becomes a net good. What he utterly fail to realise is that without the fast transportation and the whole system built to ... actually build and distribute these cars to everyone, then building these emergency vehicules and developing the engineering for them cannot happen. Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Engineering need practical use of the tool to be able to learn about the use to make it more efficient and better to the point that it benefits everyone. That of course does not negate the point that these technologies do have negative impact on society. But thinking that you can wholly separate the positive from the negative, banning the later but getting the former, is not as simple as calling it out. You need to consider the systemic effects and really think through the long term and systemic impact of your action. Something that Illich seems to only apply to other people actions, but not to his own remedy or analysis.

palata 3y ago
> Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already have? It's not like an ambulance fundamentally changes every year. Would each unit be more expensive without mass production? Most likely, but... it's not like firefighter trucks are mass-produced for people who use them to go to work, and some of them are adapted for firefighters, right? Still it seems like it's not cost-prohibitive. Another example is military equipment, where I believe countries try to produce more locally (for obvious security reasons). Military equipment is typically much more expensive than consumer products, but still... it's there. So it seems like it's not completely impossible, right?
- paganel 3y ago
  It's not only emergency vehicles, it's also stuff like mini-vans and lorries that keep us well-fed. It's about who's going to pay for those highways once the personal cars are gone? How are you going to keep a Western logistics network in place without those highways and roads? No, extending the railway network to its past glory days (like the left-hand map in this photo [1]) won't work and will definitely not happen anymore. Do we really want to go back to stuff like this [2]? [1] https://64.media.tumblr.com/81242bedb09cc3087fc0855deb381f50/tumblr_n2a5v7rndz1rasnq9o1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/81242bedb09cc3087fc0855deb381f50... [2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e02ilyAatbM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e02ilyAatbM
  - palata 3y ago
    > It's about who's going to pay for those highways Those who are paying now. And if it's only for emergency vehicles and trucks that bring food to cities (because you are right, cities need them to survive), then don't you think you need less infrastructure? Doesn't seem to me that 6-lanes highways are fully used by emergency vehicles and trucks. > won't work and will definitely not happen anymore. It's not black and white, it's a gradient: you can definitely try to move from the right-hand map towards the left-hand one.
    - di4na 3y ago
      Note that illich is against cities. In his mind, a more atomised world would emerge from such a ban, more localised and focused on communities in neighborhood, with less dependencies outside. So the only thing using roads would be emergency. Food would need to be local too or transported slowly by speed of walk or bicycle. Which means that we would all be taxed pretty high for something rarely used.
      - paganel 3y ago
        > Food would need to be local too or transported slowly by speed of walk or bicycle. I'm sure he knew that, and I'm a genuine fan of Illich (with all his pluses and minuses), but what he proposes will certainly lead to future famines.

by di4na 3y ago

palata 3y ago

> Not only it is cost prohibitive (because of reuse of means of production, mass production impact on cost, etc) but also it is really hard to actually engineer this stuff without a lot of experiments and needs for it, which do not happen if you restrict the use of these stuff to a limited niche. Couldn't one argue that there is not that much engineering needed to keep producing emergency vehicles that we already have? It's not like an ambulance fundamentally changes every year. Would each unit be more expensive without mass production? Most likely, but... it's not like firefighter trucks are mass-produced for people who use them to go to work, and some of them are adapted for firefighters, right? Still it seems like it's not cost-prohibitive. Another example is military equipment, where I believe countries try to produce more locally (for obvious security reasons). Military equipment is typically much more expensive than consumer products, but still... it's there. So it seems like it's not completely impossible, right?

paganel 3y ago
It's not only emergency vehicles, it's also stuff like mini-vans and lorries that keep us well-fed. It's about who's going to pay for those highways once the personal cars are gone? How are you going to keep a Western logistics network in place without those highways and roads? No, extending the railway network to its past glory days (like the left-hand map in this photo [1]) won't work and will definitely not happen anymore. Do we really want to go back to stuff like this [2]? [1] https://64.media.tumblr.com/81242bedb09cc3087fc0855deb381f50/tumblr_n2a5v7rndz1rasnq9o1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/81242bedb09cc3087fc0855deb381f50... [2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e02ilyAatbM https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e02ilyAatbM
- palata 3y ago
  > It's about who's going to pay for those highways Those who are paying now. And if it's only for emergency vehicles and trucks that bring food to cities (because you are right, cities need them to survive), then don't you think you need less infrastructure? Doesn't seem to me that 6-lanes highways are fully used by emergency vehicles and trucks. > won't work and will definitely not happen anymore. It's not black and white, it's a gradient: you can definitely try to move from the right-hand map towards the left-hand one.
  - di4na 3y ago
    Note that illich is against cities. In his mind, a more atomised world would emerge from such a ban, more localised and focused on communities in neighborhood, with less dependencies outside. So the only thing using roads would be emergency. Food would need to be local too or transported slowly by speed of walk or bicycle. Which means that we would all be taxed pretty high for something rarely used.
    - paganel 3y ago
      > Food would need to be local too or transported slowly by speed of walk or bicycle. I'm sure he knew that, and I'm a genuine fan of Illich (with all his pluses and minuses), but what he proposes will certainly lead to future famines.