[newt_slowly]

You are basically acknowledging that technological development is a force that happens outside of our control, and that we are forced to keep up lest we be conquered by our neighbors. This is true, and it's what I believe also, but I don't see how you come to the conclusion that there is anything desirable or moral about this state of affairs.

Without us keeping the Amish way of life "subsidized", perhaps they would indeed have perished. And they would have gone willing, due to their belief system. It's remarkable that you can try to spin not being willing to participate in the technological-industrial system as "more odious than violence".

[michaelmrose]

Absolute pacifism is more odious than violence because violence in the course of human history has been from the perspective of an individual player been inevitable and necessary to prevent subjugation and murder.

It is the statement that I know violence may be needed in some occasions but in order that I may imagine my own hands clean I am going to abstain from making the choice forcing someone else to. It neither stops your fellows from becoming nazis and hurting others nor being marched to concentration camps.

The simplest moral test one can apply is what would happen if everyone applied the same thought rules for behavior. It would be great right. More realistically what would happen if most people did? If they weren't willing to apply at least minimal defensive violence then a minority of defectors enslaves everyone else.