These are narrative framings to push forward one selected [[Future Scenario]] as the "strictly and exclusively desirable one" and thus seize all other potential futures. ## Technological inevitability People claiming "Technology X" to be inevitable are likely to gain from this becoming true. In other words: They state [[Desirable Futures]] from their PoV as the best, most desirable, most enlightened outcome, which in reality might not be desirable for everybody. As Adam from [Toolsfortherevolution](https://toolsfortherevolution.com/) puts it: "*Technological inevitability is the dogmatic insistence that some technological thing is definitely coming to save/eat/deliver/us all.*" This is done to persuade and / or bully others that a given scenario will come to be, regardless of their views or opinions, essentially threatening them with their vision. [[Technology Solutionism]] often uses such rhetoric to inflate their importance. See also: [The fallacy of technological inevitability – Tools for the revolution](https://toolsfortherevolution.com/the-fallacy-of-technological-inevitability/) ## Borg Complex A version of technological inevitability, defined by https://thefrailestthing.com/](L. M. Sacasas). > A Borg Complex is exhibited by technologists, writers, and pundits who explicitly assert or implicitly assume that resistance to technology is futile. The name is derived from the Borg, a cybernetic alien race in the Star Trek universe that announces to their victims some variation of the following: “We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.” See: [Borg Complex: A Primer](https://thefrailestthing.com/2013/03/01/borg-complex-a-primer/) ## Technology as a natural force This is a narrative around "discovering technology" and that once discovered it cannot be stopped anymore. It compares technology to a natural or supernatural force that is inevitable once it appears. A typical phrase is "The genie is out of the bottle", "You can't stop $TECHNOLOGY" or simply "Resistance is futile", being similar to the [[Futures Appropriation#Borg Complex]]. Political theorist Stefan Eich [talked about this in "The Dig" podcast](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3PfNYUSVcKhNHipqVkijfw?si=_U9et9xqSZisvWm95DFaXQ). ## Year Zero Year Zero is the idea that radical innovation can only happen by discarding or destroying current approaches, cultures and practices and that new approaches, cultures and practices must completely replace them. In the process this also discards any alternatives to the proposed approach, since only it can rebuild the future from first principles. ## See also: Teleology Teleology is the same looking backwards in time, a view of history in which outcomes appear inevitable. This view obscures the confusion and conflict during that time, removes all contingency and complexity from it, leaving only an oversimplified but meaningless verdict of "it was obvious." > Despite my best efforts, I always feel that I fail to communicate the concept of _teleology_. This is the technical term for a view of causation in which events have a purpose. This concept, and criticisms of it, constitutes one of the most important intellectual contributions that History as a discipline has to offer. But this highly specialized term is hardly a figure of everyday speech. I can stand in front of a class and announce, “we have to remember that the present was not inevitable!” but those words mean little to students when they _know_ that the Old Regime ended with the French Revolution. The challenge is to understand the world from the perspective of someone in, say, 1785, who had no idea what the future had in store. Link: [Ignorance is Bliss, or, Teaching the Dangers of Teleology with The Great Cat Massacre – Age of Revolutions](https://ageofrevolutions.com/2024/08/12/ignorance-is-bliss-or-teaching-the-dangers-of-teleology-with-the-great-cat-massacre/)