In kickstarting Folk Futurism – both as a blog and a philosophical movement – it is wise to step back from the precipice, even if for just a moment, before jumping. To consider what has transpired to warrant such a push for forward momentum in modern Paganism and, equally, to question why the topic of how we will adapt for the future is so contentious.

There has always been contention in our faith: that is one point that is abundantly clear. The question of our adoption of technology is, frankly, just another iteration of debates around Platonistic influence, Hinduism, Indo-European reconstructionism, Vargite pseudo-atheism, or any other number of stumbling blocks to common agreement.

This underlies the absurdity of the dichotomy. It is critically uninspired to separate Pagan from Pagan on a topic surrounding the material, on the grounds of the spiritual, when the two are interwoven:

“How does a thinker qualify their weapons as sacred, but only to a certain period of time? How does a believer quantify a reverence for grandiosity in architecture, but shun innovation in that tradition?”

Put simply, this short essay is not a case for the position of Folk Futurism (but that is coming in due course), but a statement that the distinction of whether one adopts Luddite or Futurist positions is as inconsequential as whether one believes the Gods are the dreams of a monistic super-deity or the spirits of earth and stone: that is to say – not really at all.

The consequence that matters is the survival of our faith; our culture, practice, politics, attitudes, and living existence. Whether the weapon that wards off evil is made of steel or graphene, we must have each other’s backs when it comes to promoting Pagan perspectives against the rushing current of the mainstream. We are the wardens of the Gods – we owe them a sense of common frith in the face of those who oppose their divine mandate.

switch (TheAbsurdDichotomy) {

case 0: function theCase(){}

loading 100%…

case 1: function unconditional_adoption(){}

// You should unconditionally accept nothing.

Often it is said around this discussion that Futurists adopt technology ‘unconditionally’; devoid of concern for consequence or rational reason. The equivalent to hazily watching two-thirds of a movie you dislike, because it’s 2 AM and you’re off your nut on cheap whiskey and pills. Bar some exceptions (as there are always exceptions to any rule), this is not the case.

To the contrary, we are exceptionally conditional. The scientific method rigorously necessitates the need for caution in new fields of adopting ideas: continuous testing, peer review, challenge, dialectic - over and over again. STEM - as the academic extension of this - employs the same rigidity; technology included.

While it is absolutely certain that the average user of consumer-access technologies is not following this consistency in adoption, it is unreasonable to accuse Folk Futurists of reflecting this same pattern of behavior. Accusation without merit that, when examined more closely, resembles more a case of “you should unconditionally reject this,” in lieu of consideration of… err, condition.

Rejecting emergent technology as a default is as mainstream a position as mindlessly consuming it; you just end up a fashionable non-conformist instead of a conformist.

case 2: function education(){return true;}

// “Trusting the experts” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Fundamentally, education is the only way this divide will be mended - as many divides often require. There is transparently a double standard in how we are approaching wisdom on some topics but not on others. Where the tree surgeon gives counsel on the ways to ethically cut a tree, we take their guidance to heart.

Do we also unconditionally accept it as true? As discussed above, no. There is an understanding that experience is the lifeblood of mastery and, as is with any skill, we should be considerate to at least listen to Pagan technologists when they discuss ethics in emergent solutions. To not do so is either to appeal to ignorance as a virtue, or simply to believe that current technology is a special category separate from all others.

There is no case that can be made for the latter to any rational degree. The technology of AI, for example, is as it was in Web 1.0 search engine indexes, as much as it is as it was in library book repositories. These concepts are not new - because nothing ever is ‘new’. Emergent technology is just a continuation of a process that has existed since we evolved into humans. From the conception of Valfather’s first life-affirming breath.

There is certainly nothing new under the Sunna. Being afraid of change is something we all experience; it’s how we master that animal instinct that defines us as man or beast.

In truth, Pagans all want the same thing: the security of our clan, the well-being of our Folk, the respect of our peers, and measured wisdom to give to our young. Whether we use a smartphone or smoke signals to communicate is an irrelevancy of convenience; a utility of our age to generate a greater forceful good that we can all share in.

Everything has application and limitation; it’s a case of determining truth or falsehood, as much as good from evil. In this manner, we should spend less time bemoaning new ideas, and more time exchanging their uses for righteous change; because change is coming, whether for better or for worse.

Let us make it a better change. ᚱ }