Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 1

Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

AT Questionnaire 05272023

Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

Date: 30/1/2024
E-mail: [email protected]
Other contacts (Discord, Reddit, etc.): Discord: Jampalí#5862

Section 1: True/False

Read the following statements and mark if they are true or false. Further explanation is not
required.

1) Modern technology is just a tool, what matters is how it's used.

True

2) We can and should strive to strike an optimal balance between the use of certain
modern technologies and the flourishing of the biosphere and humanity.
True

3) Technology can be scaled down gradually to a more human and manageable level so
that it does not interfere with individual freedom and happiness and it does not
negatively impact the environment.
True

4) There is a process fundamental to technological growth itself that ultimately leads to

disaster for society and the biosphere.
True

5) We need massive, elaborate, world-wide planning to create a more sustainable,

equitable, and just world.
False

6) The worldwide techno-industrial system must collapse sooner rather than later, because
if it collapses soon then much of the biosphere can be saved, whereas if it collapses
later there won't be anything left of the biosphere to support complex life, including
humans.
True

7) A revolutionary movement should be formed, dedicated to ending the worldwide

techno-industrial system as soon as possible.
True
 Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 2
Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

8) We can predict and control the development of society, and every effort must be made to
predict and control the development of industrial, technological society to ensure that in
the future there is an optimal and balanced use of technology.
False (in the sense that we cannot predict the development of society)

Section 2: Short Response

1) When did you first start to be critical of modern technology or consider yourself to be
anti-tech? What was it that brought you to this orientation?
When I was 15 (2020) I began to develop some critical thoughts on society. Later the same
year, I read The Industrial Society and its Future and Walden; or, Life in the woods and I clearly
saw that modern society is inherent to technological development.
From then on, I started noticing things: the alarming amount of security cameras, how the
government makes us pay to keep what is ours via taxes (at least here in Spain; I don’t know
about other countries), etc.

2) What are your motivations for wanting to work for the cause against the techno-industrial
system?
I think that happiness and joy are emotions that ensure survival in nature. If survival is granted
by society, happiness and joy are almost impossible to achieve.

3) Should anti-leftism be a core stance of the anti-tech movement? Explain.

Yes. Even though I agree with some of their ideas, the vast majority of their opinions are
essentially unnatural, unuseful or just contrary to anti-tech beliefs; for example, not eating meat,
artificially redistributing wealth, censoring opinions and ideas, etc.

4) Should anti-rightism be a core stance of the anti-tech movement? Explain.

To some extent it should. Rightism is far more similar to individualism than leftism (which is
similar to collectivism). Taking into account that collectivism usually implies a modern
government getting involved in people’s lives and individualism defends individual freedom,
rightism is somewhat compatible to anti-tech ideas.
Even so, authoritarian rightism is against individual freedom, so the anti-tech movement
should be against this kind of rightism.
 Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 3
Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

5) What are the motives of scientists?

It depends deeply on the case. The motives of doctors are ensuring that people live longer.
Apart from them, every other scientific branch is just this: scientia (Latin for “knowledge”).
They don’t usually have a practical approach, so they are somewhat unuseful. The motives of
these other scientists are just learning things they didn’t know to not be bored (as dull and
empty as it sounds).

6) What is the essential difference between primitive technology and modern technology?
For primitive technology, you only need the prime material, primitive tools and someone who
knows how to make whatever you want to make. For modern technology, you need a large
chain of people and machines working in order to create a single object.
For example: to create a hammer, you just need metal, wood, the tools to work metal and
wood and someone who knows how to make a hammer.
To make a microphone, instead, you need a very large chain of people and machines
extracting metal, making wires, extracting oil, making plastic, making the magnetic transducer,
the contact plate, the contact pin, etc.

7) How is the "freedom" of people living in modern society different from the freedom of people
living in primitive or low-tech societies?
New technologies make it easier for the government or corporations to spy on us and
manipulate our thoughts and opinions. This wouldn’t happen in low-tech societies.
But what really matters is that technology right now is more than a tool to do manual work: we
use it to entertain, to write, to read, to learn, to play, to communicate with one another, etc. In
primitive or low-tech societies, technology is mainly used for manual labour, so using it is not
addictive (it just makes this kind of labour easier). However, nowadays using technology is
almost an obligation and it also creates addiction. All that makes us dependent on modern
technologies —taking our freedom away.

8) Describe your thoughts on the following:

A) Anthropocentrism (considering human beings as the most significant entity of the

universe)
I don’t think that we are objectively the most important entity in the entirety of the universe, but I
also think that there is no need at all to even think about it. From a human point of view,
humanity is the most important entity, and in my opinion that’s all that matters.
 Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 4
Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

B) Ecocentrism (considering wild ecosystems - regardless of their usefulness to humans -

to be the most important thing)
I don’t have a scientific or a spiritual approach to this. I don’t defend wilderness because I think
that it can be useful to us or because I think it to be God’s work. Surely, I love nature and defend
it —I am a boy scout—, but it is just from a human perspective: I find nature beautiful and
amazing. Not just the ecosystems, but everything in nature (even planets with no life, stars,
etc.). It is overwhelming to me how it all exists harmonically, and therefore I think that we
humans should not intervene on it if it is not strictly necessary for our survival.

9) Of the above (anthropocentrism and ecocentrism) which best describes your beliefs? Explain
your choice below:
Ecocentrism. We humans are not objectively more important than other forms of life (even
though subjectively we may be). We are a part of an ecosystem and we cannot exist without
being a part of an ecosystem, so the obvious answer to me is “ecocentrism”.

10) Should an anti-tech organization ever make its stance more palatable to the public in order
to gain a higher number of active members? Or should it always be strict about who it allows
into its ranks (i.e., only allowing in individuals with the same values, beliefs, and strategy)?
Explain.
It would be absurd to start a movement and allow anyone, regardless of their opinions, to join.
To give an example: it is not compatible to be in favor of collectivism and against modern
technologies, because a government requires these technologies to implement any form of
collectivism (it needs to have all the inhabitants of the country registered, for instance).
I believe that people of all kinds should be accepted: men, women, white, black, rich, poor,
gay, straight, atheist, Christian, Jew, agnostic, etc. And also people with different ideas: more
reformist people, more revolutionary people, more intellectual people, more activist people, etc.
This is to have a solid community with different points of view and different opinions; however,
NO one with ideas and goals different from the original ones should be accepted.

11) Explain the meaning of this quote: "The supreme luxury of the society of technical necessity
will be to grant the bonus of useless revolt and of an acquiescent smile."
This sentence says that the greatest luxury that the technological-industrial society can afford is
to deny the revolt against modern technology. The explanation is as follows: society simply does
not know what it loses when it refuses to revolt, because this conformity with the current
situation will translate into imbalance, inequality, scarcity, etc. in the future.
 Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 5
Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

12) Briefly describe what you believe the anti-tech movement should be focusing on at this
stage in the movement (OR: What does the anti-tech movement need “most” right now?)
I don't know how many people have anti-tech ideas, but it seems to me that a very important
step right now would be to disseminate information and educate people about the dangers of
new technologies. To achieve anything meaningful, a solid foundation of individuals with
different proposals and different approaches to the issue is necessary.

13) In theory, a successful revolution to force the collapse of the techno-industrial system would
only need a minuscule minority of the population composed of committed revolutionaries. True
or false? Explain.
To some extent, a small minority could make some changes. Nevertheless, I doubt that a tiny
minority could make significant and lasting changes given the current state of affairs. If this
minority had a well-studied and highly structured plan, perhaps it would be possible to alter
some aspects of industrial society.

14) Anti-tech individuals should live up to their ideals in their personal lives. True or false?
Explain
In an ideal world, yes. It would be the most honest thing to do because living as you believe you
should live demonstrates consistency, willingness, and also (in this case) courage.
Unfortunately, nowadays it's very complicated, especially in some places. Here in Spain, for
example, I would have to pay quite high taxes every year just to own land. I wouldn't be allowed
to build my own house without government permission, and if I built it without permission, I
could be fined. Free hunting is not allowed (only in very specific places and at a high cost), etc.
Maintaining a primitive lifestyle is often unfeasible because the system does not allow it (nor
does it want to).
On the other hand, some new technologies provide significant advantages (for example, using
email provides immediacy that traditional means cannot provide in any way). Therefore, the
ideal would be to live as one preaches, but in many instances, it is very complicated.

15) What lesson(s) can be learned from Earth First!?

I'm not very well-informed about the topic, so I don't dare to express much of an opinion. What I
do know is that they engage in activism without fear of the consequences (which is how it
should be done), so many times members have been arrested. I respect them for that.
 Anti-Tech Questionnaire 0527023 Page 6
Name (or pseudonym): Joan Gelpí

16) Why did "democracy" become the dominant political form of the modern world?
I think it's because it's a system that keeps everyone more or less content. Everyone believes
they have the right to make decisions (which is always pleasing), but in reality, they don't have
as much. There are the political parties that exist, most of which have extremely similar policies,
and often make promises that are impossible to fulfill. When they come to power, they make
minimal changes to keep the population happy and blame the opposition for everything.
So, everyone is satisfied and believes they are changing the world without really doing so. It's
a bit like gambling: you never get what you want, but you continue voting (or playing), thinking,
"What if this time what I want happens?"

17) Describe any disagreements you have with Kaczynski’s texts.

Right now, I can't think of much that I'm strongly against. What is true, and I think is not fully
taken into account, is that there are relatively few natural areas at the moment. If there is a
revolution against the technological system, not everyone will be able to go live in nature
because there simply isn't enough space for everyone. Therefore, many people will die (not due
to a lack of will to survive, but rather due to territorial conflicts).
It's a consequence of the revolution and not a topic I'm against, but right now, I can't think of
anything else.

18) Detail any relevant experience or skills you have (this will not impact your outcome, it is
simply helpful for us to know. Please be honest, there is no need to embellish).
I can't think of anything relevant that I need to convey, so I'll just make a list of things about me
(although I don't think they are of much use):

- I am a Boy Scout.
- I study Classical Philology.
- I know Catalan, Spanish, and English (and Hebrew, but only at an extremely basic
conversational level).
- I write very well (in Catalan and Spanish; not so much in English).

I think that’s all. If there is something more you want to know about me, feel free to ask.
Also, I apologize if my English has any mistakes.