Quoted By:
The stagnation or reversal of technology would mean the inevitable extinction of the species in a mass extinction event (asteroid, gradual death of sun etc). The end of humanity may be in the cards no matter what we do but interstellar colonization would likely multiply mankind's lifespan if not increase it by orders of magnitude.
I do not consider the death of humanity a worthy goal in itself. To what end? "So dirty humans can't soil this beautiful world, man!" So that polar bears can meander around on this rock until the next MEE? Human beings are not apart from nature, we are not just in the universe - we are the universe made sentient. "A way for the Cosmos to know itself" as Carl Sagan said.
In nature, all lifeforms vie for dominance and the one to show most promise until recently has been the European man, whom I am also partial to being that I am one. With dominance comes stewardship however, and I want to see a conservatory paternalism applied to all lifeforms that do not threaten to harm or dethrone us, be it on Earth or elsewhere.
Anyway, Ted's reasons for primitivizing are pretty lame, focusing more on "freedom" and mental health over the more pressing and motivating issues brought by high tech society such as dysgenics, pollution and resource depletion. His prescribed method of anti-tech revolution is also LARPy and unrealistic. Even if it succeeded and we suddenly found ourselves among the overgrown rubble of all of human civilization worldwide, an army of ideologically hogtied luddites still can't hope to compete with any would-be pro-tech dissidents who'd begin waging war on the inevitably necessary enforcers of primitivism using higher technology. That would necessarily lead to an arms race, bla bla bla the movie Elysium bla bla Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann bla bla, proving that might (not primitivist ideology) makes right.
