The Journey

Interview with Joshua Bond

Mar 30, 2024

“One day you finally knew / what you had to do, and began, …” – Mary Oliver

1. Can you delve into your transition from engineering to philosophy, and how this pivot has influenced your projects, particularly in building geodesic greenhouses?

I graduated in Mining Engineering in 1977, believing my contribution to make the world a better place was in Primary Industry, ie: to dig out raw materials so others could make socially useful products.

I then switched to Secondary Industry, production engineering in textiles, to experience making basic products such as sheets, blankets and curtains. By the mid 1980s, engineering had changed due to the arrival of the computer and I upskilled myself with an M.Sc in Robotics and Automation. During this time I took an optional module on the social impact of technology - and it was that that sparked deep questions about Technology and its relationship to human action, and Nature.

I was aware that the promise of technology (under the banner of ‘progress’, even inevitable progress in relation to which one had to “adapt or die”) had been sold to us for over 150 years as a means to give us more leisure time. And surely by the late 1980s, we should have all been on a 3 day working week with 4-day weekends. And yet lives were speeding up, with people were working harder than ever. (In 2024 this has reached a hyper-state with the added constant answering the call of technologies). Why was it, I wondered, humans end up serving their own techno-creations? My immediate thought (economics aside) was that we must have something in our minds about Technology which was not the case, but we were living as if it were the case.

I was lucky enough to be able to follow up this interest with a Ph.D in Philosophy of Technology. From there a different world of perception and investigation opened up for me — which 25 years later led to me building my first geodesic greenhouse.

2. You mentioned a life-long burning question about what it means to be human in the context of technology. How have geodesic greenhouses become a part of this exploration for you?

Though we are Homo Sapiens, we are also Homo Faber, Man the animal who makes things. Nothing new here: beavers build dams, birds build nests, insects make amazing habitats for themselves. They know what to do with their technology skills. But humans don’t; not really. Two points.

The fundamental remit of Science is to “subdue Nature and make her our slave”, (Francis Bacon, 1561-1626), and Technology when viewed as ‘applied science’ takes on a similar mission. It’s all about control and domination, the Anthropocentric mindset that 500 years on has got us to where we are now.
Technology is an amplifier of human intent and its power has far outstripped the spiritual and institutional maturity of humans to handle such power wisely both individually, and for the common good.

This led me to the question of what it means to be human that technology might somehow deprive me of?

I see this ‘deprivation’ as being in two areas.

Within ourselves. We have to define the non-negotiables of our humanity first, and then develop technologies in accordance with that. If we never say “no” to certain technologies, we are left with the destructive amplification of technical means to try and control Nature (including humans, who are part of Nature). We end up serving technology, a role reversal; it should serve us.
Acts of collaboration. Geodesic greenhouses and sculptures explore ‘doing technology’ with a symbiocentric mindset; ie: to collaborate with Nature for mutual benefit. It is not about biomimicry or valuing Nature because it has utility value (eg: we mustn’t destroy the rain-forests because they are the lungs of the earth, and therefore we need them). No, it goes far beyond that. We collaborate with Nature because we need each other in order to both evolve in consciousness. Humans are not the king-pins ruling the universe; but we do have a vital role to play. We need to discover it, and stick to that.

3. Your work with hand-weaving tools suggests a deep engagement with the concept of 'good technology'. How do you define 'good technology', and how has this definition guided your creations?

I define ‘good technology’ as to make things in which spirit is pleased to dwell.

Means and ends are ‘one-thing’. As Gandhi noted “a violent war begets a violent peace”. The end justifying the means is a logical fallacy. (ref: Aldous Huxley’s 1937 book “Ends and Means”). This implies the energy in the process by which something is made, will also inhabit the finished product.

Making and using hand-weaving tools is a meditative process and practice, and an exploration in bringing forth some artefact into the world where means and ends are one. It has a different feel to it than the outputs of machine-paced production, or products made with slave labour; the commercialisation of life. It is also increasingly empowering to make one’s own tools in a world where technology disempowers humans by making them dependent on technologies which are neither understandable, nor DIY fixable. Cultivating basic survival skills with simple technologies has significant relevance these days.

4. The blending of your skills in engineering and your passion for philosophy is unique. How do these two fields intersect in your daily life and work?

I always try and see daily work as ritual, as adding beauty in an uglified and increasingly toxic world. I’m reminded of that old saying “Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water”. A lot of what I do is mundane and repetitive. To make the last dome I cut up 450m of T-bar metal into 375 pieces of nine varying lengths, angle-grinded, drilled over 1,000 holes, carefully bent the ends of each strut, and colour-coded them — cut and drilled 240 joiner hub-discs from 3mm galvanised metal — and that’s just the metal. Never mind the 45 planks and 3,000 screws for the windows, and 150 square metres of carefully cut polycarbonate windows fitted in to them.

I adopt the mindset of a temple-builder, I become a channel through which something comes into form in the 3D world. I see life as an unfoldment, rather than a series of goals to be achieved. My hope is that when people walk into a dome, there is an aura of peace, a sense of otherness, a feeling of calm in a frenetic world — of course greatly contributed to by the plants themselves.

5. You’ve built geodesic greenhouses on your own small-holdings in Portugal. What inspired you to choose geodesic designs for your personal projects?

For 12+ years my wife and I lived by the sea in St Ives, Cornwall, U.K. During this time The Eden Project (as a millennium project) was built near St Austell, about an hour’s drive away. They are massive intersecting geodesic biomes (see edenproject.com). We found it a very inspirational place. I liked the mindset behind geodesics (Buckminster Fuller). I liked the fact that they were an open space, and that the stresses were shared more-or-less equally across the structure, making them very strong and resilient — a kind of community of bits of metal each helping each other out, rather than relying on a few strong foundations to carry all the weight.

At the time I was interested in woven spaces, and the geodesic was an appropriate structure, weaving triangles, pentagons and hexagons. One day after a visit to The Eden Project my wife said “I’d like one of those in our garden” … and well, 20 years later here we are.

6. Reflecting on your journey, how do you think your background in engineering ethics and teaching has influenced your approach to building and design?

What I learned from teaching Business, Professional & Engineering Ethics is that “bolt-on ethics” doesn’t work. Neither do ethics committees. The whole legal framework of corporations undermines the concept of businesses acting for the common good. Profits, and keeping shareholders happy, trump all else. The Gig economy is a direct outcome of deregulation which has starkly revealed the truth of deeply embedded business values. This will remain so until the legal framework of corporations is changed.

Given that, my own approach to building has been to experience it as much as possible as an act of empowerment and self-reliance. This means restricting myself to buying as much as possible locally, using only basic wood- and metal-working tools, and making things in such a way I can deconstruct them and put them up somewhere else. Essentially it is a hands-on crafting, an engaging in the process — not simply goal driven. Ethics is built in to the whole process.

7. Could you share more about the sculptures and structures you create for plants to grow over? What is their significance to you, both artistically and philosophically?

Everything in the built environment, every house, car, knife-fork-spoon, book, computer, knitting-needle, electric cable … every artefact you can imagine, comes from Mother Earth. She offers the gifts of raw material that humans, as Homo Faber using their ingenuity, then fashion into something else.

I see this as one continuous stream of action and energy-transformation. For example, from iron ore through steel-mill to metal lengths to a structure which over a few years gets covered in kiwis, climbing roses, jasmine, wisteria … and my job is to honour my part in the process of a greater picture, a full cycle of ‘becoming’. It starts with Mother Earth’s raw material provision, and completes with her plants taking over the structure.

For sculptures, I tend to see them as lithopuncture (acupuncture for the earth’s energy lines), possibly in the manner why ancient standing-stones were erected. Prehistoric places of worship were significantly placed on node-points of the earth’s energies. The rituals conducted around them were to keep the energy flowing well, which then translated into healthy harvests. I believe Panpsychism is a point of view worthy of consideration, and a whole other paradigm contrasting with the anthropocentric way of relating to Nature.

8. In your view, how does the act of creating spaces for nature, such as your greenhouses and plant structures, contribute to understanding what it means to be human?

Being human means to be creative; it’s what we are. I think many artists would say the creative endeavour is a process of self-realisation because it is an interactive experience. You start with some raw material, a blank sheet of paper, a pile of wood and metal, a fleece … and begin to do something. You hold an idea, and maybe a detailed plan too — and undoubtably surprises will happen along the way.

Self-discipline is part of being human too — ‘Inspiration comes when it finds you at your easel’ as Picasso is purported to have said. It is those special intuitive and inspirational moments that somehow inculcate deep down in your soul what it means to be human. It is a visceral process. You feel part of something greater.

And failures and having to start all over again, writing off a day’s work, or even a week’s work, are all part of it. Accepting such things changes you too. Such notions are not abstract theory of ‘how to grow in consciousness through the creative process’. The only way is to launch forth, to do it, and to experience being human in a greater understanding. One plays the role of midwife as something unique is born.

9. You've mentioned a personal journey grappling with questions concerning technology. Can you share a pivotal moment or project that epitomized this grappling for you?

Good question. I am a boarding-school survivor from the 1960s. I was brought up in the shadow of huge sacrifices made in two world wars; my duty was to honour the war-dead by rebuilding the economy for the good of all — “we all rise together”. On finishing my M.Sc in Robotics in 1986, I assumed I would go back into manufacturing as a robotics engineer; duty called. But my heart was interested deeper questions about being human in an increasingly technological world, and its impact on Nature. It was a deep inner conflict — “if everyone just does want they want, there’ll be chaos, again”. On a visit to the Taizé community in France that year, I had a sense of ‘higher calling’, the conflict dissolved, and suddenly a door opened to do a Ph.D in Philosophy of Technology.

After over a decade in academia, I was by then beginning to question its value. To gain clarity I went on a vision-quest in 1999 with people who had indigenous American-Indian roots in the Santa Cruz mountains of California. Spontaneously (without any plant brews) I found myself on shamanic journeys to all sorts of other realms, and I felt totally comfortable with those experiences. Thereafter, questions concerning Technology required a different approach, leading to …

… a third pivotal moment in 2001. I went on a wood-working course in Truro, Cornwall to learn practical skills. But the interesting thing is I felt guilty at ‘allowing’ myself to leave behind a very well placed academic career (with its nice pension), and to do something more engaging and fun. Why feel guilty? It showed me how deeply our upbringing embeds false (or at least unhelpful) beliefs into our psyche. Shifting them can be a long and tedious process, but a necessary one.

10. How do you see the relationship between human creativity and technology evolving, especially in the context of sustainable living and agriculture?

(NB: At this point I would refer the reader to the addendum; both parts).

Western culture is deeply influenced by the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and thereby riddled with the notion of failure, obedience to an external rule-set, punishment and need for redemption. Humans, having been booted out of the Garden of Eden, needed some help with survival, and with lessening the sweat required for survival. Technology has long been seen as that answer, as ‘the new saviour’, a way of provision and protection in a fickle world.

With Big Pharma, Big Ag, Geo-engineering, AI, etc.., Technology has taken on a god-like status which cannot be held in check. The old-fashioned word for this is idolatry, a process which always involves a role-reversal and an increase in fear in the creations we have made. We end up serving that which we initially set up to serve us. It ties in with why good ideas become bad ideologies.

Creativity cultivates a respect for the marvel of ‘spirit’ which is present in the creative process; it brings new vitality into the world. And it’s small scale. It’s nearly 50 years since I read Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” - the opposite of globalist centralisation. I emphasise again, if we never say ‘no’ to certain technologies (or big scale thereof) we are by default enslaving ourselves to “what technology can do, it must do”. One of the purposes of the gift of Free Will is to set limits. Furthermore, a basic ethical premise is “can does not imply ought”, yet with new technologies (despite current debates concerning AI) this ethical stance seems to have been abandoned, and as far as I can see, has been so since at least 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated.

The future is local — local small-scale farming for food production, local markets, locally produced electricity, and political decentralisation. It’s the only way for sustainable living and agriculture. Large-scale centralised systems always require violence to uphold them, and also always eventually implode under their own inertia and unmanageability. If small-scale organic farming had had one tenth the subsidies that Big-Ag has had, we would have by now a far more sustainable, user-friendly, and healthy food supply.

11. Your life’s work seems to be a quest for balance between technology and nature. How do you find harmony in this balance, and how do you reflect this in your creations?

Finding balance is an iterative process; trial and error — it’s how we are programmed to learn. This is why small-scale and caution are two imperatives regarding the development of new technologies. I think if you talk to any artist or craftsperson, they will suggest that balance includes a significant element of when something ‘looks right’ and ‘feels right’. This is not something wishy-washy. If you were to say “I love such-and-such a person”, or “I always feel I can work with person A but not person B”, no-one would accuse you of being wishy-washy. At one level you can say subjective experience is all we have. We can also say that ultimately there is no true thing as objectivity; it’s a myth, as the sociology of science revealed decades ago.

Reiterating the importance of accepting means-and-ends are ‘one-thing’, I am mainly guided by the creative process, an emergent strategy. Like a painter who at regular intervals stands back and looks at progress so far on the easel, so with making 3-D objects. Whether a sculpture standing in Nature, or some framework for plants to grow over, harmony in the balance between Nature and technology involves all the faculties of the mind — from Soul to Inspiration to Intuition to Imagination to Instinct to body-actions carried out by the Will, and with a listening ear to the voice and suggestions of the Intellect.

It’s important not to let the Intellect take over, which is the normal default position in Western culture. The trio of Will + Intellect + Body-Action have ruled for 500 years, down-playing the other five faculties of the mind. And our current dysfunctional technological culture reflects this aberration. AI will never ‘save the world’. It is born of an anthropocentric (top-down, command & control) mindset. It’s a century since quantum physics revealed this old paradigm as redundant, and yet it still dominates. Balance will only be found through a symbiocentric understanding.

12. As someone who has explored 'what is good technology', what advice would you give to innovators and creators in today's rapidly advancing technological landscape?

Technology is a form of power and as such it’s good to ask oneself what type of power one wishes to serve. Of my class of ’86 in Robotics, over half went and worked for the MoD (Ministry of Defence) on missile guidance systems where robotics technology was a developing field at the time. To me, this was a betrayal of the vocation of being an engineer.

The first engineers were military engineers, concerned with logistics on the battle-field and improving weaponry. In the second half of the 18th century, engineers concerned with developing technologies as a proper vocation in service of humankind, wanted to distinguish themselves from the military. As a result the first ever professional engineering body was founded — The Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) in 1818. They were strongly against engineers squandering their engineering talent on technologies of direct violence.

To me, good technology promotes life rather than destroying it. Good technology collaborates with Nature and helps to restore the balance of Planet Earth. In this respect I would ask budding engineers and those working with developing and producing new technologies to consider carefully to what their work is contributing. It’s a complex world for sure, and it’s not black and white, but a heightened consciousness of the bigger picture should at least be part of the professional technologist’s mind-set. The recent film “Oppenheimer” would make a good class discussion on these matters.

13. Can you share insights into how living in Portugal and working on your quintas has influenced your philosophical views on technology and being human?

I live in an area where for hundreds of years people have cultivated their family quintas (small-holdings) and lived largely off the land. Many still do. That’s what attracted me to this area — their know-how, their resilience, their sense of pride and independence. I have the highest respect for these people who also always have time for human interaction amidst their long work lives.

The people here are still connected with their own heart. They have the skills to fix many of the tools and machines they need for their survival on the land. They are ingenious with repairing stuff, with ‘making do’. This is far more empowering than having access to the latest technology but total dependency on some ‘smart’ engineering system that needs specialised and expensive diagnostic equipment.

Working on the land also engenders an appreciative attitude towards the simpler things in life. If you have a roof over your head, food on the table, some land of your own — and friends you can call on in time of need — you have a rich life. Partly it’s a contrast between city life and country life. Possibly also a life that suits introverts more than extroverts. Although life is slower-paced, it’s still hard work, but of a different kind. In that sense the influence of living in Portugal has nudged me towards simpler technology, and cultivation of community.

14. The concept of self-reliance appears in both your geodesic greenhouse projects and philosophical musings. How do you reconcile self-reliance with our increasing dependence on technology?

The mission of many foreigners who come here is to live off-grid and grow their own food — perhaps inspired by Ralph Waldo Emerson’s book “Self-Reliance”. I find it a perfectly understandable and legitimate desire in today’s world. My approach though is not to retreat from the world, but to try and engage in it differently. And this means some serious boundary management when it comes to various technologies.

I don’t have a smart-phone but use my 20-year old Nokia. I don’t do social media apart from Substack and one poetry website. When I feel ill, diet-change is my first port of call (I also have the advantage of being married to someone trained as a homeopath).

We choose to keep our increasing dependency on technology at bay as much as possible, whilst investing in building community. We have monthly food-swops where people bring their surplus and anyone can take whatever they want; no money exchanges hands. There are lots of local markets, as well as an initiative with an alternative local currency (estrelas), which hasn’t really taken off but the mechanism for it is there. If the cash part of economic activity were to be replaced 100% by CBDCs (Centralised Banking Digital Currencies) then I think estrelas would be more used.

15. Looking forward, how do you hope your work and philosophical explorations will contribute to broader conversations about technology, humanity, and sustainability?

This last question leaves me with a sense of “The ceremony is over, and a new one is about to begin”. I no longer think in terms of trying to make the world a better place but in terms of how to live more truthfully.

In this regard I think of Mary Oliver’s 1986 poem “The Journey” which begins with the words “One day you finally knew / what you had to do, and began, …” and ends with the words “… and there was a new voice / which you slowly / recognised as your own, / that kept you company / as you strode deeper and deeper / into the world / determined to do / the only thing you could do — / determined to save / the only life you could save.”

The world is in desperate need of people living authentic lives, as examples and inspirations to others. My own inspiration comes from people as diverse as Friedensreich Hundertwasser (1928-2000), Brother Roger of Taizé (1915-2005), Jacques Ellul (1912-1994), and Tommy Emmanuel (b.1955). People are not generally persuaded by rational arguments but by creative impulses, and by epiphany moments, however they may come. If someone is moved by one of my creations, that’s good enough for me.

When it comes to more philosophical writings about Technology and Culture, here on substack I greatly admire L.M. Sacasas (theconvivialsociety.substack.com). In the end this more academic mode of exploration was ‘the road not taken’ for me — but I’m glad someone else is doing it so well.

ADDENDUM

Where I am coming from academically is that Technology is best understood in the context of (a).The ideology of Technology = Progress; and (b).Technology as an idol (a false god). All ideologies grow and gain hold through a similar process, linked with some form of idolatry. This theme can be found in Bob Goudzwaard’s 1984 book "Idols of our Time". Here is my summary of it.

ADDENDUM part-1: THE GROWTH OF AN IDEOLOGY

(i).A Goal of Huge Significance: The idea of progress has made its home deep within the western mind. It’s a vague idea; progress in what exactly? Never mind. This is perfect for an ideology since they are all based on ideas which sound good and at the same time are ill-defined and hence hard to refute. Who can argue with progress? Now let’s add in Technology: as in Technology = Progress. Technology is also not defined. Are we talking technical progress? Technological progress as in serving society? Ethical Progress? Or what? For an ideology it doesn’t matter; it still sounds good. Other examples are: Our goal is profit … All Men are Equal … National Security … War on Terror … America first … Globalisation … They are not even sentences any more. It’s hard to argue against them. And yet they retain powerful and emotive calls to action; goals subjectively experienced as so desirable that people will fight for them.

(ii).A Status of “at all costs”

The goal, or end, is elevated to an ultra high status of “at all costs”. The fight against covid was one such recent example. The current ‘debate’ about AI is another. The first ‘cost’ is sweeping aside all protests, all alternative points of view, all legal, cultural and religious values that would normally hold such actions in check by asking deeper questions. More and more, previously unacceptable actions slip into the category of ‘acceptable’. After all, tough problems require tough solutions; emergencies require drastic actions.

As the ideology grows, all means-to-the-end are subjected to one simple test: will this means help us to get to the goal? If so, it must be done. Emergency powers are invoked and often there is a frenzy of de/regulation. Nothing must stand in the way of developing technologies even if they raise huge privacy issues, have evidential ‘side-effects’, or stand in the way of business’s right to pursue profit.

(iii).Distortion and Redefinition of Norms and Values

Growing deeper roots, the ideology not only sweeps aside ‘nuisance’ laws and viewpoints but begins to use them in a distorted way, filling them with a different content. Common sense equality is filled with absurd notions of political correctness. Normal struggles with identity are labelled ‘gender dysphoria’. The inherent right to privacy is distorted into 'if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear’. Asking legitimate questions is distorted into the language of being ‘unpatriotic’, ‘anti-government’, or a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Real debate is stifled.

This redefinition of values is geared towards motivating people to pursue the goal with more vigour. One particular sign of a seriously growing ideology is when the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is ignored.

(iv).Adjusting to the means

As the ideology grows still further, it demands that people (and the environment) continually adjust to the new laws and means imposed in pursuit of the all-important goal. If people suffer or are relabelled ‘aliens’, if innocents are killed or some aspect of the environment is ruined … all this is labelled as ‘unfortunate’, ‘collateral damage’, ‘inevitable’, ‘necessary medicine’, ‘due sacrifice’ and similar phraseology … but it’s all of course o.k due to the ultimate good cause of achieving the goal. Whenever you hear such language, you can be sure an ideology is growing apace. The belief in the “Technology = Progress” ideology ties in with mantras such as ‘Science discovers, Technology applies, Man conforms’.

(v).False Enemies and Scapegoats

Finally the end-goal creates its own enemies. Always. The ideology, or rather its leading spokespersons, declare anyone a traitor who is seen for whatever reason to be an obstacle to the goal. Are you a whistleblower? No, you’re a traitor. Are you a revisionist historian questioning the deep narrative? No, you’re a traitor. Are you an investigative journalist? A poet? No, a traitor. Are you an ordinary concerned citizen protesting technological interference? No, I’m sorry, but you’re a traitor.

Many people all over the world lie in jails because they were seen as an obstacle to some ideological goal, which started off quite possibly as some noble goal.

At this stage in the growth of an ideology you will hear things like “if you are not for us, you are against us”; and “to question government action at this difficult time, is unpatriotic”; and “it’s outrageous that that the security services should be scrutinised in this manner — we’re at war”.

Naturally the ideology paints a false picture ‘the enemy’. Accuracy is not the issue, only the usefulness in relation to achieving the goal. The creation of scapegoats, a special category of ‘the enemy’, is particularly useful. Not only can they be blamed for not reaching the goal, but also for everything else that goes wrong as well.

Link to idolatry

As the ideology takes root, and the means to the ever-important goal increasingly work without restriction, the growth of unchecked power and the creation of false enemies is not all that’s going on. The relationship between the means and the people is undergoing a reversal. To coin an old-fashioned word, it is the process of idolatry - and it is particularly important with respect to technology.

ADDENDUM part-2: THE GROWTH OF IDOLATRY

(i).The Innocent Beginning

Traditionally people would find something in the natural environment - a rock, tree, stone, well-spring - see it as a place of special power, and revere it. Nothing wrong with that. In fact reverence for Nature is vital. Or maybe they would sever something from the landscape and refashion it as a totem-pole or statue, and put it in a special place. A reminder of their dependence on Mother Earth. Nothing wrong with that either. Or build Stonehenge. Also o.k.

If you think where ‘stuff’ comes from - gadgets, planes, whole cities - they all originate in Mother Earth. Raw material is mined, processed, shaped and put in a special place. A flashy car on your driveway; a smart-phone in your pocket.

(ii).A Dubious Step

It is just a gadget that serves you, right? It’s just a reminder to be grateful, right? Maybe, but not for long. Without realising, you begin to relate to it in special ways. You develop rituals that give them special attention. The car is washed every Sunday. The smart-phone is checked regularly throughout the day, and each night is placed carefully on your bedside table (or under your pillow). The technological artefact is viewed and felt increasingly as a thing which has a life of its own, especially if it breaks down.

(iii).A Slippery Slope

Sacrifices are brought to it. The smart-phone gets a nice leather case. The car a new set of wheels. You begin to look to them for advice and direction, to improve your relationships. In short you begin to worship the technology. And it must be developed yet further to save the world; to save your world. The idol starts to demand; the car wants a new set of seat-covers. The totem-pole an animal sacrifice.

(iv).Payback Time

Expectations arise that your reverence and sacrifices to the idol should repay you with health and happiness. Expectations increase on both sides. ‘After all I’ve done for you, now you owe me …’. The idol is seen as some kind of saviour bringing blessings, and demands ever greater sacrifices; including animals and humans, plus complete obedience. You find this type of thinking in a lot of the AI and trans-humanism literature.

(v).Role Reversal

Not surprisingly, people become dependent on their own creations; they have given it life and now it has a grip on them. It might be a business built up over 20 years, a dedicated fitness or prayer regime, a stash of money, a legacy of artwork, bureaucracies, religions, a public personae replete with reputation. It matters not. Anything can become an idol. We have given it our life energy, with the ‘deal’ that we get something in return. The relationship between idol-maker and idol undergoes a complete reversal. That which we have created to serve us … we end up serving it. And this is never more obvious than with Technology. Now the technologies imprint their image onto us. We the living serve the way machines do things, serve the inert algorithm and the stone statue.

(vi).Fear

The final stage is that we live in fear of our own creations. Fear of the vagaries of Nature, which the idol (of technology) was supposed to protect us from, has merely been transferred to fear of the techno-world we have built.

Summary of Ideology & Idolatry

The only way to avoid good ideas becoming bad ideologies, and to avoid the slippery descent into idolatry, both contributing to a society living in fear, is to do things for their own sake. Avoid all mental gymnastics of ‘the ends justify the means’, avoid thinking someone/something ‘out there’ will solve my problems for me.

Our competitive capitalist anthropocentric driven world looks at Nature and says “thanks for that, nice resource, we’ll take over from here”. A more sustainable (symbiocentric) attitude would be “here’s my humble and inspired contribution, Nature, please, you take over from here”. This is what underpins my philosophy of technology and my work with geodesic greenhouses, plant structures, sculptures and weaving.

Thank You for Being Part of Our Community

Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.

Discover Our Free Libraries:

Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.

Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.

Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:

I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.

Resources for the Community:

For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.

Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.

Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.

Andrew N

The Illusion of Knowledge

Mar 30Liked by Unbekoming

Great article couldn't help thinking about CS Lewis and his essay The Abolition of Man and his novel That Hideous Strength that deal with some of the issues discussed here. "What we call man's power of nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men." and "For science (technology) the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men, the solution is a technique and in the practice of this technique men are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious."

Expand full comment

3 replies

Dan...

WhyNotThink’s Substack

Absolutely amazing contribution. You can delete all articles from the Unbekoming’s Substack and leave this one only. In this time of the invasion aimed to destroy our roots in the existence, the reader does not need anything else.

What a beautiful merger of the understanding of what technology is really for and where is the human part in it.

Commenting on this interview is pointless. Read it like one hundred times and let it sink in. This is not an intellectual game.

Thank you both.

2 replies

11 more comments...

Lies are Unbekoming

Discussion about this post