not only that, brett, i asked yesterday, tho i suspect mail didn't arrive b/c mailserver down, but what on earth leads you to conclude that the historical evidence points to inequality as inextricably intertwined with advancements in technology? i mean, the conventional marxist explanation--and a feminist one as well--is that technological advances produce surplus and that is why inequality emerges--as the attempt to control the surplus for a minority. i mean, here a little feminist theory might be useful, you know? eg., there is an argument that women's subordination was the result of advancements in technological knowledge of reproduction and the attempt to limit women's sexual activity so that wealth could be passed to the 'right' offspring. that's simplified, of course, and perhaps there've been holes poked in the argument since i read it in 1989.
there is nothing about technological advancement that suggests that it is determinative of inequality. what you're really saying is that we have to live under the conditions of subsistence living--with no surplus. that's more than a little insane, not to mention unsupported by historical evidence--tho admittedly i'm not an expert on that topic.
>> >I'll try it in a short, nonrambling sentence or two. Is it possible
>> >for a simple society to produce complicated technology? Can you make
>> >a computer chip without large universities, large states, and large
>> >enterprises?
>>
>>I'm curious - let's suppose the answer to your question is no. Suppose
>>that along with high tech comes statist and hierarchical societies. And
>>suppose egalitarianism requires a much simpler society, one which cannot
>>produce these types of widgets. Which would you choose to live in?
>>
>>This might be a false choice, but the historical evidence suggests that it
>>isn't. Anyway, I'm interested in how you'd answer your own question.
>>
>>Brett
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>