RE: Another _Die Schere_ Contribution

[Roberto Calvo Macias <rcalvom@ctv.es>]

-----Mensaje original-----
De:	Brown 
Enviado el:	sábado 21 de febrero de 1998 14:56
Para:	ernst-juenger-l@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Asunto:	Re: Another _Die Schere_ Contribution

Bertil Haggman wrote:

> It is interesting to note EJ mention a few
> German pioneering scientists. And we are
> indeed in for a storm of the technical
> development during the 21 century. Pity
> EJ could not have experienced at least
> the year 2000. The references to Nietzsche
> are indeed valuable. For instance from the
> underlining in the unpublished works of
> Nietzsche: Signs of the next century
> (the 20th) "1) Das eintreten der Russen in
> die Cultur...2) die Socialisten...Wildheit
> und Kraftverjuengung...folglich sehr viel
> Narrheit." Friedrich Nietzsche, _Weisheit
> fuer Uebermorgen_ (dtv klassik 1994, p. 123-124)
> 
> Or "What I tell you is the history of the
> next two centuries." (my translation, for more
> see the work mentioned above, pp. 275-276).
> 
> Can we stop the burning wheels against the
> the tracks?
> 
> What is brewing in the cellars and laboratories ?
> What can we for instance expect from nanotechnology.
> 
> Molecular manufacturing will be able to make
> almost anything with little labor, land, or
> maintenance, with high productivity, and
> with modest requirements for materials and
> energy. Its products will themselves be
> extremely productive, as energy producers,
> as materials collectors, and as manufacturing
> equipment.
> 
> Products can be made for the price of raw
> materials alone. Products will be 80 percent
> stronger and more duarble. Solar cells will
> be efficient and cheap.
> 
> Miniscule devices smaller than red blood cells
> can cruise the bloodstreams fighting infections
> and destroying them.
> 
> Pocket computers could become commonplace with
> millions of times the capacity of the super-
> computers of today.
> 
> Communications capacity could be had with
> incredible datacables loaded with software
> that 'knows' how to transmit data reliably.
> 
> Plants can be produced with molecular
> manufacturing. Nanomachines can eliminate pests
> and automate the growing process.
> 
> Tunnels could be bored and made more cheaply than
> roads. Energy would be very cheap and not
> fossile-based.
> 
> But there are risks. A ministate could be a
> superpower by designing nanomachines that threatens
> everyone else.
> 
> Experts say nanotechnology will work just
> after the millenium.
> 
> Sounds good but nanotechnology could also
> be used for evil purposes and machines
> could be hard to detect. Think of Saddam
> with nanomachines.
> 
> Sounds like EJs warnings could be correct.
> Can we trust the nano technology
> scientists ? Or scientists in general?

After reading all of this, Jünger and commentary included, I begin to
wonder, what form of questioning could lead to the right answers?
Unfortunately, I believe that the technology itself would be and is
used/misused just as EJ mentions:
"Eine der Konsequenzen ist die Abzweigung eines
neuen Alchimistentums. Wer weiss, was heute in
Kellern und auf Boeden, in Urwaelden unter auch
unter dem Mantel offizieller Laboratorien gebraut
und gebastelt wird ? Vermutlich sind sie dort schon
weiter, als man zu ahnen wagt." 
This problem as Jünger presents it is of course nihilistic. That is why
"eine umwertung aller wertungen" is necessary. But as we can see from
the people around us the condition is "eher" that of business as usual.
In other words nobody knows or wants to know that the wheels are indeed
glowing, experience the danger of this time.
[Roberto Calvo Macias]   A thing that atonised me of EJ occurred a month ago. I was wacthing a good program of the public Tv- there exist a few ones still. Its a program call Nets,  its  about the next millenium, tecnolgy, internet,etc. They were talking about the final end, how would be produced. An mexican anthropologic was telling the prediction of the aztecs, based on ages, etc. The aztec prediction was that we will end by FIRE and MOVEMENT. I had just end read the J essay, and i was really surprised. Those who do not see we are accelerating seems to be blind. Its obviously. I am not saying that its is good or bad, but we sure are accelerating. 
If this is a text for survival then what is the basic premise for this
survival? I have my own ideas, but I will not mention them as of yet. As
we all agree, this is a truely serious matter. Jünger observed it and
has pointed the direction, it is left up to us to come to conclusions.

What are your (plural/list members) thoughts on this matter?
[Roberto Calvo Macias]  Every ages of humanity have times of catastrophes and times of happyness. This not affects the singular person. He must made his autobiography trough the elements. When J was in Madrid to recieve the DHC of the Complutensis U, he was asked about the destruction of Earth- the ecologist thing. He responsed: Actual destruction are big indeed, but not more than in Glacial age, the only solution its to give sovereignity to the singular person. Soon or lately-- problably lately, knowing modern politics-- the govermentes must give this soverignity. 
I look forward to your responses.
Abdalbarr




<<< application/ms-tnef: EXCLUDED >>>