aka: Nature, natural stuff, life, etc.
Why would anyone want to remove living beings from our environment, and replace them with dead things? That consume vast amounts of energy? That contribute nothing (other than waste) to the environment?
Over the past few years, we have seen some quite significant changes in the global economy. Most of humanity has now come to the realization that machines are sometimes (in some respects) less efficient than nature, natural forces and organic life forms. This is not so much an argument in support of so-called “intelligent design” as it is in support of “evolutionary design”.
Many life forms evidence a great deal of intelligence — not just humans, but also humans. A human can in many respects be more efficient than a machine.
Some people seem to have forgotten that… but you still can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Let’s begin with information technology: All languages are infomation technologies, but not every information technology is a language. To qualify as a language, an information technology must be shared (in a free and open manner) among a community of users. Any and all aspirations to make an information technology proprietary immediately disqualifies it as a language. This is the case, for example, among registered trademarks, secret codes and such.
Now let’s turn to languages, in particular Latin. Indigena and propaganda are long-standing concepts based in the Latin language. They are basically opposites. Indigena (from “endo-” + “genus”) means inborn (either as adjective or as a noun). Propaganda is a term from the point of view of the propagandist — meaning essentially to propagate something (such as Christianity) in another environment (from its own native environment). In a zero-sum world, concepts are either native (indigena) or foreign (propaganda). That is all fine in a logical or mathematical manner, but reality is rarely so clear-cut.
Societies can be rather open or closed — and when they are more open, ideas can cross borders quite freely and easily. Such cross-pollination is generally seen as mutually beneficial, both in the natural world and also in the world of ideas. The expectation is that evolution will over time shape natural languages much in the same way it shapes species via the process referred to as “survival of the fittest”. Once you realize that since fittest refers to environmental conditions, and also that since nearly everything else is also evolving concurrently, the complexity of the systems involved increases dramatically as feedback loops upon feedback loops make for extremely loopy situations.
So while the indigena concept has rather fuzzy boundaries — starting right from the way “mother tongues” are not actually passed on in a genetic manner, but generally rather via involvement of close (but not fully identical) relatives … all the way to how languages are abstract and how they can transcend regional boundaries likewise freely and easily — the propaganda concept is nonetheless clearly different, insofar as it is a one-sided affair rather than mutually agreed upon. If done artfully, it may be successful in an enticing and seductive manner, fooling the sucker into believing they themselves choose to get on board.
All propaganda needs to be effective is a sufficient supply of suckers. Perhaps not every single one of Pavlov’s dogs behaved in the “Pavlovian” manner, but apparently enough did. And through the wonders of mesmerizing technology and ample amounts of legalese documentation and fine print, the trick of getting enough suckers to sign up for free offers is as easy as offering sweet candy to babes.
Among an out-of-sight-out-of-mind generation it is also a piece of cake to maintain propaganda communications at near-zero cost. The vast majority of suckers do not realize that they are being spied on around the clock, and that the communications they themselves believe to be clear and unadulterated are so adulterated that you would think it ought to be unlawful [ https://socio.business.blog/2022/05/07/the-law-one ].