Revisiting Thoreau in the Twenty-first Century

When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do.

I recently read Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience alongside Claude in my book club of twoAn involuntary second member- someone call an AI ethicist!. . I was intending to read Critical Art Ensemble’s Electronic Civil Disobedience in a noisy pub but got sidetracked into a more interesting Claude chat which helped me decide that, perhaps, going to the source would be a better starting point; so I was prompted to dust-off Thoreau’s essay from my shelf. As I spoke to Claude in the pub, I wondered if Thoreauvian disobedience differed from Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement and discovered that Gandhi disputed being inspired by Thoreau. While Thoreau spoke of an individual’s action, Gandhi mobilised a collective but the principle of non-cooperation seems, to me, unquestionably inspired by Thoreau. Both forms remain relevant today as new peaceful, non-violent, and non-disruptive¹ non-cooperation is developed not just as a means of resistance but for something more fundamental: an ability to bargain with those in power. Thoreau’s essay is timeless and I recommend everyone read it to allow an opportunity to reflect on just how different is our world from his.

Thoreau Remains Relevant

In Civil Disobedience, the use of civil does not imply civility in one’s acts of disobedience but is the disobedience of a civil society towards unjust government. Thoreau’s anti-war posture² and identification as an abolitionist confirms his position that such disobedience be non-violent or, as he puts it, peaceableI really like this word. . In fact, governments systemic approval of unconscionable perpetuation of war and chattel slavery³ are the driver of his disobedience within the first couple pages. The reader is left with little choice than to agree with Thoreau as he systematically dismantles the defense for an elected governments being de facto just. For strength in numbers couldn’t automatically imply fairness but an unconscionable consensus among the majority to hurt a minority (comprising slaves and abolitionists).

A corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience.

Like Thoreau, I have long held a belief that right decisions, by individuals or groups, can be reached via conscience as a compass and not the consensus of a voteOver a decade of housesharing across California and the UK has been instructive. ; it is quite easy to prove what is good and right if one is turning a blind eye to the plight of slaves. Refusal to pay his taxes was Thoreau’s demonstration of decision by conscience while exposing the government’s lack of it. Isolating himself from his tax-paying neighbours, Thoreau’s words below precurse the more famous Woody Allen one.

I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined.

His choice presents an interesting thought experiment today as a wage-earner cannot as simply opt out of paying income tax. The difference being Thoreau withheld taxes from the government whereas your taxes are withheld by your employers⁴ for the governmentEmployers are like Uber or Amazon; a middle-man between governments and citizens. . Nearly a century later, we have the Gandhian disobedience to bargain with the British Raj for Indian (and Pakistani) independence. Even at this point, it was possible in most cases to follow Thoreau’s lead as the technology of money hadn’t yet undergone the radical electronic transformation of today: wages in cash were still a thing and taxes were still personally or manually collected and not withheld via the PAYE/PAYG mechanisms of today creating an avenue, even for the commoner, to negotiate with those in charge.

For this reason, people might find Thoreau’s essay dated⁵. But to this crowd, I countenance that the problem of unjust governments lingers even if his response appears invalid. In fact, the precise things he found unjust are perhaps even more deeply entrenched in today’s system as there are standing militaries and much fighting across states which, like in Thoreau’s times, are supported by our taxes without giving us pause to negotiate.

The Emergence of Oligotechnodemocracy

Electronic money and modern taxation mechanisms diminish the possibility of an equivalent individual protest so what might Thoreauvian civil disobedience look like today? An answer is unlikely to be found without understanding the increasingly intertwining of government with technology.

The financial technological coupling is quite tight but social media is emerging as a second coupling mechanism. Today, social media companies have coffers⁶ and better tools to surveil and steer the decision making of its users, comparable in size to nation states . These companies maintain critical infrastructure for global communications, commerce, and information flow that rivals or exceeds what many nations can provide, showing how much more powerful they are than their platform’s individual users as well as the governments. Their data, in my opinion, is not used as much for governance as it is in influencing our choices during elections. But we are seeing the emergence of new symbiotic relationships with government ranging from companies recruiting former civil servants in the UK to reimagining “government efficiency” in the US; heck, even the name for DOGE emerged from X!It should be DoGE, by the way. DOGE would be Dept. Organising Govt. Efficiently. . This is leading to, as I see it, a two-party system of governance- a multivariable calculus that Thoreau didn’t have to contend with- at least not in this way.

I call the emerging two-party system an oligotechnodemocracy⁷. The public, catching onto this form of governance, is expressing their discontent, targeting billionaire technologists via unconscionably violent acts of torching and defacing of Teslas across America and Europe by civilians. While certainly a form of disobedience, these are unfortunately not in keeping with Thoreau’s spirit. However, it does expose the public acknowledging how such governing power has reached technologists via the crazy wealth gap.

The Power Laws of Plantations and Technocapitalism

Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue.

Littered with many quotables, this pithy one stands out for it remains timelessly true- so much that it would not be out of place in the Tao Te Ching.

Bernie Sanders has repeated that the 3 richest Americans have as much wealth as the poorest 50%. But this made me reflect on Thoreau’s statistic that 1/6th of America’s population were chattel slaves; reading this, I felt there might have been a considerably healthy middle class (compared to today) which also hinted that wealth inequality might have been less stark than it is today. This felt so obvious, even without data, as wealth from physical assets and land has natural scaling limitations compared to digital platforms with integrated global markets. However, I extrapolated from here that a power law distribution of wealth in Thoreau’s era was unlikely. I could not have been more wrong.

Reliable wealth by wealth percentile data for 2024 is easy to find but is nontrivial for Thoreau’s time. Claude generated estimates without references for 1850s America but ChatGPT linked me to this articlePretty good for the free tier! ; I compared data from Table 3 (which I hope I interpreted correctly) to Claude’s numbers, which held up quite well! What we see is a steep increase over time in wealth concentration at the top 1% and steep declines in the latter categories. Today’s world is, indeed, very unequal.

That the power law might be seen in slave ownership data for this period occured to me a little later. This is captured in census data on slave ownership in antebellum America, provided by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, and visualised below. Approximately 6.7% of white families with large plantations owned 84% of all enslaved people and over 76.1% of white families owned no slaves at all. The slave ownership pattern, using the red bars, could provide a proxy measure for economic stratification of that period; at least it appears a more data rich way to reach a conclusion about that period. The concentration of slave ownership in the 7-39 range accounts for 53% of enslaved people, suggesting a substantial “middle tier” of economic power. Perhaps this suggests a larger white middle class in Thoreau’s times (in addition to their having more wealth than today) with the caveat that this data is limited to antebellum Southern USA so may not extrapolate to the rest of the country.

So, one might say that Thoreau was also, in some sense, opposing large plantation owners with a lopsided influence on government policies promoting slavery. If we examine today’s three richest people - Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg- they are technologists with an unquestionable influence on government.

I feel users of their big technological platforms (me included) are at least somewhat responsible for this so called engine of the techno-capitalist machine. We are voting for their existence in the current form with our attention alongside our dollars. It should not surprise us to see the emergence of a non-virtuous oligotechnodemocracy, where a minority with technological power has been unwittingly majority elected into office. This is the critical difference between our times from those of Gandhi or Thoreau. Digital money taxes our income whereas digital media taxes our attention- this gives credence to the idea of an oligotechnodemocracy.

This also tells us where our optionality lies in executing a modern Thoreauvian civil disobedience; our individual action should be concentrated on digital platforms as there is no obvious optionality in paying taxes for the masses. The emerging landscape of oligotechnodemocracy necessitates that we participate in some form of [[ Digital Disobedience ]]. But what is that exactly? Is it a disengagement from the digital? To me, it currently means an opportunity to act in the digital sphere of existence using the principles of Thoreau- migrating from platforms that do not align with your values to seemingly more conscionable platforms e.g., using Signal/BlueSky instead of WhatsApp/Twitter. But there are some obvious caveats here as these platforms have origin tales linked to the machine⁸ and, at some point, they could change their policies. Admittedly, such platform migrations are easier said than done as they rely on one’s networks migrating too; the implications of which I have lived with over the last decade.

Deleting my Instagram and Facebook accounts (in 2016 and have managed to stay away from the two) has likely had significant ramifications on my social life⁹. A couple years later, around 2018, I deleted my WhatsApp account and was able to stay away from it until 2021¹⁰. I think leaving the Meta ecosystem effectively weakened my connections by a factor of 20 (1000 “friends” on Facebook to 300 contacts on WhatsApp to around 50 on Signal)- so, yes, there are downsides but I have likely retained mostly authentic friendships through this migration (and I would have probably stayed close to them under most other circumstances). Despite the challenges, I think it is undeniably a simple, effective, and, most importantly, non-violent form of protest that eschews the engine of the techno-capitalists who also self-identify as as techno-optimists.

Another tactic I used was developing a (voice) messaging app for my friends and me to supplant WhatsApp. During this period, I experienced the ease with which one can succumb to the temptation of metrics to grow user numbers etc. With this scaling, comes the need to organise into something more formal and potentially hierarchical; I couldn’t imagine building the prototype app into a full-featured service. Again, if we were willing to chip in and learn to build together, we might have been able to sustain the platform. But this period also exposed how much of the community around me who complain about techno-capitalism were merely arm-chair philosophers. That said, it also showed us that resistance is difficult for other reasons, too; there were too many dependencies on big technology for me to maintain this platform as a single developer with a full-time job in the academy. But I remain optimistic that, eventually, BlueSky and Signal will offer a way out of the unconscionable status quo created by big tech. Just as Thoreau withheld his financial support from a system that empowered wealthy plantation owners, we might need to withhold our attention from platforms that empower today’s tech billionaires. An individual action, in keeping with Thoreau’s principles.

On Protests and Taxes

Thoreau is critical of organised protests. His refusal to pay taxes was a form of protest not merely in opposition to government but also to other members of civil society who did not take a similarly thoughtful stance. Some, in addition to paying their taxes, covered Thoreau’s to keep him out of prisonSPOILER: He does end up in prison, which he describes quite humorously. .

Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.

It’s hard to disagree with Thoreau that we are complicit in the unjust actions of government through our taxes.

I, too, have questioned the mindfulness of my protester friends previously, who organise en masse to express their dismay at a situation while collectively participating in elections and tax-paying. Clearly they do not see their own role in perpetuating the idea that central governance is needed and, by extension, so is an army. If one feels so strongly, then some new mechanism must be invented, by the upset individual/group, to wilfully disengage from this machine. I do not share their view that (potentially violent) protests in the town square are radical or effective- if anything, such protests will continue to be used as further justification by government to strengthen a police force (which redirects taxes that might have gone somewhere more useful) to keep its citizens in check while working with (or forcing) technology companies to persistently surveil its citizens. If anything, this protester group plays into the hands of this two-party system; their taxes are merely buying them permission to protest in a manner that the government deems acceptable.

Rethinking Taxes to Tackle Natural Existential Threats

So what of taxes? Early on, Thoreau speaks of standing armies as an insurance paid by public tax to governments for protection against a nation’s existential risk. The largest parts of budgets of Western governments are justified by such existential risk-based thinking, with a new wave kicking off in the UK, as well. I do not share the sentiment that developing technologies for war, in the guise of defense, is the right actionShamelessly lifting this phrase from Buddhism. . It is akin to retaliating to cannibalism with cannibalism, which is not a conscionable non-violent defensive actionWe should instead focus on addressing cannibalism itself. . Historically, we have seen budget increases in space research when national pride is seen as an existential risk. However, since the end of the space race that defined the Apollo-era, NASA funding has dried up but the moment this pride is in question again, we will see some strategic funding emerge. It is interesting that these are examples of things we, humans, create and then perceive as threats to our species. Humanity is thus an existential threat to itself. It is our collective choice to turn our inventions towards harming others and, in turn, harming ourselves. While one answer is to stop engineering dangerous things, it is an insensible one. The other answer is, perhaps, to be found from Thoreau. We can choose to “just do things” based on conscience and morality, which are undoubtedly robust qualitative tools for decision-making than majority-led decisions.

Instead of defending ourselves from each otherI’ll take the risk of sounding like a misguided hippy here, as a friend has pointed out to me. , we can (and must) choose to protect and defend ourselves from the existential threats posed by nature, which is trying to kill us at every moment in our lives. These are either not wholly of our making or are out of our control. Such as the asteroid which had a 2.8% chance of striking Earth by 2032. If we are so steadfastly committed to investing in defense, why not develop planetary defense systems that leverage our existing wartime capabilities to address these genuine existential threats to humanity? Defense contractors can adapt their existing capabilities to planetary defense with similar economic returns. The required engineering, materials science, and physics expertise significantly overlaps with national defense. Some countries have advanced military technology development capabilities, and the underlying market dynamics—where some nations develop technologies that others purchase—could remain intact. Repurposing our strategy from national security to a pan-galactic security offers a path where technological capabilities developed for warfare are channeled toward species-level threats without economic disruption, maintaining the existing industrial base while serving a more conscionable purpose. Without disrupting supply chain and global economics, we might re-purpose how we think of defense.

Human health is another example where governments could focus our taxes (and, to be fair, some are funding R&D in these areas). But this also means re-evaluating the production of fentanyl and other highly potent opioids provide. Ramping up research into novel non-addictive pain medications, including new drug classes that target pain pathways differently than opioids. Claude tells me that potent opioids like fentanyl remain necessary in some specific contexts (particularly for severe breakthrough cancer pain, certain surgical procedures, and palliative care) but they’re no longer considered the only option for most pain management situations. Yet we persist with these medications so maybe either there is no incentive for us to make people healthy or death from natural causes is accepted as a reasonable existential risk. Or, maybe this will be put into action only when an increase in an lifespan addresses an individual’s existential risk and that of their nation during war.

So, what I think of today when I hear “protection” is developing technologies to tackle death, illness, and aging. When I hear “defensive” technologies, I want to get behind the idea of defending ourselves from threats like asteroids and climate change. So, investing our taxes in such protection and defence is what I can get behind. Services that prop up this protective/defensive technology development will remain crucial too- investing in better education and housing seems obvious here.

As I have tried to explain above, if we see this coupling between technology and government, we can then choose to take the right action of which technology platform to promote. And then, we may find the moral answer of what is an appropriate reaction to today’s unjustness even if tax withholding isn’t really an option for the majority. Ideas of direct action groups and decentralised governance are some ideas of political action; David Graeber talks about these here though I am not versed enough here to know of its viability in the West. I’ll admit that I do not know its form, but I can say that this reaction’s fundamental nature must be conscionable and non-violent. It is likely the only way to influencing government through co-ordinated action. With a combination of the right choices in the digital domain and by instructing governments to offer us the kind of protection we need- with advanced technology, we can solve problems that couldn’t be done in Thoreau’s times: eliminate natural existential threats within the human body and from its external environment, while investing in the expansion of our minds for a greater collective flourishing.

Thanks to Rohit and Preet for their patient reading and helpful pushback.