Living a Non-Cartesian Life Without Technology and Formal Education: Is It Fair in Civilization?
Modern civilization is largely built on Cartesian foundations: rationalism, formal knowledge systems, scientific method, and technological mediation of everyday life. To live a non-Cartesian life—one grounded in intuition, tradition, embodied knowledge, spirituality, or communal wisdom—without technology and formal education raises a fundamental ethical and social question: is such a life fair within a modern civilization? Fairness here must be understood not as sameness of outcomes, but as equality of dignity, opportunity, and autonomy. While a non-Cartesian life can be ethically valid and meaningful, it is not inherently fair within contemporary civilization unless society actively protects choice, prevents coercion, and ensures access to basic capabilities. Defining “Non-Cartesian” Living Cartesian thinking, derived from René Descartes, emphasizes: Rational calculation Formal logic and abstraction Separation of mind and body Mastery of nature through science and technology A non-Cartesian life, by contrast, may emphasize: Experiential and embodied knowledge Oral traditions rather than written systems Communal or ecological identity Minimal reliance on technology Learning through practice rather than formal schooling Such ways of life exist historically and today among Indigenous communities, intentional minimalist groups, spiritual orders, and individuals who reject technological modernity. Civilization and the Problem of Structural Asymmetry Modern civilization is structurally Cartesian. Its institutions—law, economy, healthcare, governance, and labor markets—are designed around literacy, technological competence, and formal education. This creates an asymmetry: Rights are formally universal Access to exercising those rights is not A person without education or technology may legally be “free,” yet practically excluded from: Political participation Economic mobility Legal self-representation Medical decision-making Informed consent Thus, even if non-Cartesian living is chosen voluntarily, civilization does not meet it halfway. Fairness is compromised not by the lifestyle itself, but by the institutional environment that penalizes it. Fairness as Choice vs Fairness as Outcome A key ethical distinction must be made: Voluntary non-Cartesian living If an individual, with access to education and technology, knowingly chooses to reject them, fairness is preserved. The choice is informed, reversible, and autonomous. Imposed non-Cartesian living If individuals are born into or confined to non-technological, non-educational conditions without meaningful alternatives, fairness collapses. This becomes deprivation, not cultural difference. Civilization is fair only when non-Cartesian life is an option, not a destiny. Education as Capability, Not Indoctrination Formal education is often criticized for enforcing Cartesian norms. However, from a fairness perspective, education is less about ideology and more about capability. Education provides: The ability to navigate institutions The language to defend one’s interests The tools to critique the system itself Denying education in the name of preserving a non-Cartesian life risk romanticizing vulnerability. A fair civilization must allow people to live intuitively or traditionally while still possessing the knowledge needed to protect themselves. Technology and Power Technology is not neutral; it concentrates power. Refusing technology may be ethically admirable, but in a technological civilization it often means: Reduced bargaining power Dependence on intermediaries Exposure to exploitation Invisibility in decision-making Thus, a non-technological life is fair only if civilization does not make technology a prerequisite for dignity—a condition rarely met in modern states. Cultural Pluralism and Moral Limits Civilization can be fair to non-Cartesian lives only if it: Recognizes plural epistemologies (different ways of knowing) Protects minority lifeways legally Prevents economic and political marginalization Ensures exit options for individuals within such communities Without these safeguards, tolerance becomes neglect, and respect becomes abandonment. Living a non-Cartesian life without technology and formal education can be meaningful, ethical, and internally coherent. However, within modern civilization, it is not inherently fair unless it is: Freely chosen Supported by legal and social protections Accompanied by access to education as capability Shielded from structural exclusion Civilization is fair not when everyone lives the same way, but when every way of life can exist without becoming a disadvantage imposed by the system itself. Until modern institutions decouple dignity and participation from Cartesian norms, non-Cartesian living will remain morally valid but structurally disadvantaged. ADOPTED FROM WHETHER DES CARTES IS RIGHT IN THINKING K RAJARAM IRS 251225 On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 at 07:05, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote: > > > -- > *Mar*I will answer *from their side*, as far as language allows—not by > imagining their thoughts, but by tracing what technology *does to their > conditions of living*. This is an ethical–ecological answer, not an > emotional projection. > ------------------------------ > Short Answer > > Yes. > *From the point of view of animals and other non-human life forms, > technology is overwhelmingly a curse*, because it enters ecosystems > without belonging to their communicative, sensory, or temporal worlds. > > But the reason matters more than the verdict. > ------------------------------ > 1. Technology Is Deaf to Their Languages > > Non-human life does not primarily communicate through symbols or > representations. > It communicates through: > > - > > Smell gradients > - > > Vibrations > - > > Electromagnetic sensitivity > - > > Light cycles > - > > Chemical traces > - > > Rhythms of presence and absence > > Technology introduces: > > - > > Constant noise > - > > Artificial light > - > > Novel chemicals > - > > Hard edges and straight lines > - > > Sudden speeds > > To animals, this is not “progress.” > It is *sensory pollution*—a scrambling of meaning. > > A forest with machines is not just altered; it is *made confusing*. > ------------------------------ > 2. Technology Breaks Predictability, and Predictability Is Safety > > For most life forms, survival depends on *stable patterns*: > > - > > Seasonal timing > - > > Migration routes > - > > Breeding cues > - > > Food availability > > Technology accelerates change beyond adaptive speed. > > Animals are not failing to adapt. > They are being asked to adapt to *non-patterns*. > > From their perspective: > > - > > The ground changes > - > > The sky changes > - > > The water changes > - > > But nothing explains why > > This is not challenge. > It is disorientation. > ------------------------------ > 3. Technology Treats Them as Background, Not Participants > > In natural systems: > > - > > Every organism is a signal > - > > Every presence alters the field > - > > Even predators participate in balance > > Technology does not participate. > It *overrides*. > > It does not negotiate with: > > - > > Nesting > - > > Migration > - > > Breeding > - > > Territorial boundaries > > To animals, technology appears as an *unanswerable force*—something that > acts but does not listen. > > That alone makes it hostile. > ------------------------------ > 4. Technology Removes the Option to Withdraw > > In nature, when danger appears, organisms can: > > - > > Hide > - > > Move away > - > > Change timing > > Technology spreads everywhere: > > - > > Roads > - > > Lights > - > > Chemicals > - > > Sounds > > It reduces refuges. > > For non-human life, the tragedy is not just harm—but *inescapability*. > > A danger you cannot avoid is not part of evolution. > It is a dead end. > ------------------------------ > 5. Technology Has No Emotional Complementarity > > Animals coexist through emotional attunement: > > - > > Warning signals > - > > Submission > - > > Curiosity > - > > Mutual tolerance > > Technology has no such signals. > It does not: > > - > > Show restraint > - > > Communicate intent > - > > Adjust behavior in response to fear > > From their point of view, it is *emotionless power*. > > Emotionless power is indistinguishable from catastrophe. > ------------------------------ > 6. Is All Technology a Curse? > > From their perspective, *yes, unless*: > > - > > It is slow > - > > It is quiet > - > > It is localized > - > > It withdraws easily > - > > It does not alter sensory fields > > Most modern technology fails all five conditions. > > Animals do not object to tools. > They object to *permanent disruption*. > ------------------------------ > 7. The Deepest Injury: Loss of Trust in the World > > Perhaps the greatest harm is this: > > Technology makes the world *unreliable*. > > Places that once meant: > > - > > Safety > - > > Food > - > > Continuity > > Become suddenly: > > - > > Dangerous > - > > Empty > - > > Inhospitable > > Animals live by trust in patterns. > Technology erodes that trust. > > A world that cannot be trusted is not livable—no matter how intelligent > the species. > ------------------------------ > Final View (Non-Cartesian) > > From the point of view of animals and other non-human life: > > - > > Technology is not “evil” > - > > It is *unrelated* > - > > It does not belong to their web of meaning > > And what does not belong, but dominates, is experienced as a curse. > > If humans wish to coexist again, the question is not: > > “How can we make technology greener?” > > But: > > *“How much of ourselves are we willing to restrain?”* > > Because for non-human life, the greatest gift is not innovation. > > It is *absence*. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Thatha_Patty" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BLJdBTV2nbUAvdOw5cDG1F5raaV1Me_MmbEiPx8%2B0DOw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BLJdBTV2nbUAvdOw5cDG1F5raaV1Me_MmbEiPx8%2B0DOw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooLUyvQb%2B4chgyn3wGNg87tze2_-eDrm9zWqG1_qH7h1w%40mail.gmail.com.
