I'm looking into the arguments for and against technological

>>1795483
who is this seminal feminal

>hey, I really like your massive birds popping out above your deliciously slim waist er I mean bird

>>1795483

who is this discourse mistress?

>>1795483
Well, our nature as a species is responsible for a lot of our values in the first place, but our nature doesn't change, at least, not nearly as fast as our technology. Many of our social dynamics are from our far primate ancestors, and technology doesn't determine those fundamental, primitive things still in us. At best, it modulates them in another direction, perhaps.

>>1795483
nice brid

Bumping this topic for interest. Also, what books do support the theory?
>>1796285
>>1795488
My mom.

>>1795488
>>1796285

https://www.instagram.com/pythonpaige/

>>1795483
I can't recall any specific books, but I would highly recommend looking at anthropological texts. The debate over what's the driving force behind civilization (tech, social factors, etc.) is actually a core issue of the field whereas historians generally seem to prefer just looking at technology and warfare as driving factors and focusing on the results over the causes.

If you can find some anthropological figures who had the stance it shouldn't be hard to find some texts written by them or their colleagues. I'd dig into my old college notes if I could, but they were unfortunately lost some time ago.

>>1797069
I trust you're continuing the family tradition of sexy falconry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism#Criticism

Citations are made but links not provided. You may be able to find some of the articles mentioned in online databases though.

File: Q.jpg (59KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 320x240px

>>1795483

skip searching for "technological determinism" and look for any early critique of McLuhan's works "t.d." was coined years after McLuhan published

lotsa stuff there

also, that babe with the bird is hot