Occupying the unhappy middle ground between technoprogressives and bioconservatives, Preservationists (also called Precautionists) attempt to stake out their own territory somewhere in the excluded middle, looking to find a compromise that will surely leave everyone unhappy - the sign of a good compromise, in their mind.
Who Preservationists ArePreservationists are a breed of bioconservative who promotes a slower pace of technological development; they tend to oppose nanoecologists and accelerationists, while at the same time finding the restrictions that bioconservatives would put on technological development too stifling and unproductive. The solution isn't to ban technologies; it's to regulate them to the point where they're no longer financially practical, which will result in one of three things, depending on the nature of the preservationist party: the government steps in and takes over development of the technology; the technology languishes without support and dies out just like Beta Max; the regulations do their job and the environment and human populations are saved from the dangers of unregulated technologies.
Like bioconservatives, preservationists tend to think that unregulated technologies are very dangerous, and to a degree, they're correct. Many of the technologies they target - which in addition to the usual suspects listed under bioconservatives also includes terraforming - have proven to be very dangerous at one point or another. Some preservationists even go so far as to target antimatter production and nuclear fusion, but the latter mostly because they confuse it with nuclear fission. Preservationism requires a strong, centralized government that can impose regulatory burdens and slow down technological development to a more modest pace - although what the modest pace is depends on the preservationist in question. Not all preservationists agree with the "big government regulation" model, although those who are opposed to it have yet to offer up an alternative that can work as well as the government regulation model. For this reason, many preservationists also tend to be anti-anarchist as well. The above assumes a political party of preservationists, which is where they mostly exist, or some sort of preservationist think-tank. However, a number of universities funded by political organizations have also adopted the preservationist meme, and in those cases, use the ASAI rank structure but change the networking skill to Savoir-Faire (Academics). The Network remains the same. A related breed of preservationist that is worthy of noting are those who approve of most technology types but oppose terraforming on principle. These preservationists don't think that humanity has the ethical right to terraform any world, and that humanity should not support such policies. They often oppose terraforming as a crime against nature, and they believe in preserving nature and natural districts; these are often the preservationists who push for the creation of natural parks and the like, and push for most planets to be declared off limits. They often overlap with the other type - who view that technological progress should be slowed and regulated but not stopped - but not always. Sometimes, these preservationists promote things like bioforming and altering humans to fit environments. This creates some tension between them and the rest of the movement, and since they tend to make up the bulk of the movement on average, this can lead to conflicts within preservationist communities. |
|
What Preservationists Want
Like any political structure, they want the political power necessary to impose their agenda, which is the regulation of technologies that they deem dangerous. This can lead to all manner of politicking and political conflict between groups, although being the "Centrists" in the technoprogressive and bioconservative debate, they often take heat from both sides; bioconservatives don't consider them bioconservative enough and their policies don't support the cause enough, where technoprogressive parties will argue that they're luddites attempting to undermine technological advancement in the name of fear.
What Preservationists can provide
Being the varied bunch that they are, preservationist parties can generally provide the following for those who are members to their organizations or who are adjacent:
- Favors
- Hideout. Especially from more technoprogressive governments and from those who oppose the movement, although this may not universally be the case.
- Provisions
- Political and legal support. In some cases, depending on the local power of the bioconservative party and what the individuals need accomplished.
- Replacements
- Special Orders. Mostly through their social media networks
- Training. Mostly in political-related skills, given the political nature of these parties.
Rank
0 1 2 3 |
Title
Member Organizer Leader Director |
Advantages
Rank 0 Rank 1, Politics IQ-1, Public Speaking IQ-1 Rank 2 Rank 3, Politics IQ, Public Speaking IQ |
Preservationist-Biocon-Primitivist AxisThere is a well-studied axis that connects bioconservatism, preservationism, and neo-primitivism. These three ideologies tend to be closely related to to one another, although most moderate biocons and preservationists would reject any connection to neo-primitivists, especially luddites and those who carry out terrorist attacks to destroy terraforming facilities, blow up uplifting facilities and genetic clinics, and the like. Precisely where one falls on this axis tends to depend on one's outlook, but all of them are colored by a belief that technology is not necessarily a good thing, and that it's the job of the state or government to restrict technology to the hands of those who can use it properly. An interesting outlier here are the techno-primitivists, who embrace technology as the key to living a "proper" primitivist lifestyle. |
History of Preservationism
As a movement, there are technically two different types of preservationism. The second, anti-terraforming form type is anchored in a much older ideology of conservation, which seeks to isolate natural areas and areas of natural beauty so humanity can't abuse them or take advantage of them. In some ways, movements against terraforming are tied directly to movements against the construction of oil pipelines and drilling in natural parks. This is the intellectual history of preservationism as conservation of the natural world. This use of the term gained widespread popularity during the Utopian Era and has remained popular ever since. The second use of the term likely emerged sometime during the Interplanetary Period, when humanity began to experiment with generic engineering on a widespread scale. Protests to this lead to the development of the precautionist movement.
At some point, likely post-Battle of Storm, the two movements were lumped together in an uneasy truce. The two sides often don't see eye to eye over many issues, but many are struggling to maintain the appearance of a unified front, so their "centrist" position between bioconservatism and technoprogressivism can remain appealing.
At some point, likely post-Battle of Storm, the two movements were lumped together in an uneasy truce. The two sides often don't see eye to eye over many issues, but many are struggling to maintain the appearance of a unified front, so their "centrist" position between bioconservatism and technoprogressivism can remain appealing.
Culture of Preservationism
Preservationists, as noted, tend to split into two broad groups, and these two broad groups don't always see eye to eye. Those who are better described as "precautionists" often oppose a lot of the technologies that the conservationist wing of their movement openly embraces, such as germline engineering and AGIs. Meanwhile, the conservationist wing only really agrees with the precautionists when the issue of nanoecology comes up, since conservationists believe in doing everything possible to maintain the natural world. This split is often hidden by preservationist organizations and attempting to figure out which side of the divide one falls on can be problematic for those joining the movement. That aside, the local culture is far more influential than the movement culture, and so the movement tends to be colored by local characteristics ∎