> I'm hoping that complexity could come without authoritarianism and
> hierarchy. I would not like to live in a "simpler" society, if that
> meant no antibiotics or fiber optics. So, I guess I'm trying to evade
> the forced binary, though I really wonder if I can.
Antibiotics are a good thing, I agree, but why are fiber optics so wonderful that it is worth putting up with big government, authoritarian social and economic institutions and large inequalities in income and wealth in order to have it (accepting the binary)? I respect your choice, but personally I'd be willing to give up some toys to live in a more democratic and egalitarian society.
At the risk of being overly pessimistic, why does anyone think we can have both, anyway? A look at the historical record doesn't lead one to optimism. I'm unaware of a single civilization that has not been class-ridden, with large inequalities of wealth and power. This is just as true of the Incas and Aztecs as it is of the Romans and Americans. It is only the primitive societies that have approximated democratic decision making and egalitarianism for long periods of time. Industrial societies have experienced maybe a few weeks or months of success in total. And while standards of living in the West are pretty good, they are still miserable for large sections of the world's population.
Of course this doesn't mean it's impossible to have it both ways, but does anyone really _want_ to work in an IC fab or a coal mine? Mabye we shouldn't. At the very least it is a rational choice to decide the benefit isn't worth the effort. And it is categorically unacceptable for someone to make this kind of a choice for someone else.
Brett