Alien Invasion!

[Greg Montalbano]

All well and good, kids;  but isn't the real problem the intrinsically
destructive nature of said modern technology itself?  ...The fact that "we"
have created a machine with an exponential growth rate (that, indeed,
DEFINES itself by exponential growth; the main difference between "our"
lifestyle and that of the "native peoples" cultures) that seems intent on
fouling and devouring everything and everybody?  
Or am I just sounding like a "dewey-eyed tree-hugger?"

>Date: 	Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:34:36 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Steven Maas (CUTR)" <maas at cutr.eng.usf.edu>
>X-Sender: maas at cutr
>To: Pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Alien Invasion!
>Sender: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org
>
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Murthy Yenamandra wrote:
>
>> Steven Maas writes:
>> > While it is very tempting to decry the "pollution" of native peoples by
>> > modern technology (whether in the polar regions or tropical rain forests
>> > or wherever), and while I often fall prey to that temptation, the fact is
>> > that generally these peoples _want_ TVs and t-shirts and computers when
>> > they see them.  Who are we to tell them no, you shouldn't have them,
>> > because we like you just the way you are?
>> 
>> In the same vein, it's also tempting to think that generally everyone
>> else wants the same things (TVs, computers and cosmetics) that we not
>> only want, but also want everyone else to want and are prepared to shove
>> down their throats.  Which doesn't necessarily make it a fact.  The real
>> fact is that we don't like them just the way they are and want them to
>> be more like us.  Whether they want it or not we keep pushing the coke
>> until they accept and then, of course, it's too late to change anything
>> because it's the way things are and who are we indeed to deny people
>> (who are now the all-powerful consumers and whose wishes suddenly are
>> God's own will) what they want.
>> 
>> Let's compare mythologies...
>> 
>> Murthy
>
>I'd like to separate the various "we"s.  The we I referred to is those who
>in fact would like to see tribal cultures survive because they seem to
>have a better relationship with the cosmos than "modern" cultures do.  It
>seems that the we Murthy refers to are the pynchonesque they; if so I
>agree with him completely that they will do their best to "keep pushing
>the coke"--in more ways than one. 
>
>I think that those in _my_ "we" need to keep in mind that native peoples
>often do in fact want modern technology once they see it, and that we
>should think hard before we advocate keeping them "pure"--"for their own
>good." (Sort of sounds like "little brown brothers," doesn't it?) Were the
>Inuit, for example "pushed" to ditch dogsleds for snowmobiles? Were
>American Indians "pushed" to give up stone projectile points for metal
>ones, and those for firearms?  Sure, if these peoples had been left alone
>and not had to deal with intruders with modern equipment they would have,
>presumably, remained happily using their native technology--until one of
>their own came up with a new and improved model.  However, unless we set
>aside human preserves (a _very_ problematic idea), it's impossible these
>days to keep modern life out of sight.
>
>	Steve
>
>
>