Technological Slavery PDFTranscript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58413191Speaker 0 (0s): Right, right.
Speaker 1 (6s): Welcome back. My friends. Hope you're all having a great day were getting right back into some Technological Slavery Reading number for you
Speaker 0 (14s): Or for, for, for by Theodore John Cause it's the same
Speaker 1 (22s): And one revised and expanded addition. If you remember, when we left
Speaker 0 (25s): Off,
Speaker 1 (28s): Excuse me, when we left off with, so the motivations of scientists' the nature of Freedom, how people adjust, right?
Speaker 0 (34s): And we are moving forward
Speaker 1 (37s): With the industrial society and its future. Let's jump right in. I don't want to keep you any longer than I already have some principles of history. Think of history as the sum of two components and erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern
Speaker 0 (1m 1s): And a regular
Speaker 1 (1m 1s): Component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.
Speaker 0 (1m 11s): First principal, right?
Speaker 1 (1m 13s): If a small change is made, that affects a long-term historical trend than the effect of that change will almost always be transitory. The trend will soon revert to its original state example. A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect sooner or later, the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in the level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant or to change only slowly with the evolution of society.
Normally a political cleanup will be permanent only if a company by widespread social changes, a small change in the society will not be enough. If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent. It is only because of the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving so that the trend is not there
Speaker 0 (2m 21s): And altered, but only pushed a step ahead. You know what I,
Speaker 1 (2m 27s): Regardless of what country you live in, I think we are seeing evidence of this first principle take place.
Speaker 0 (2m 33s): Yes. And let me try to break that down a little bit for everyone. Does anybody really remember before COVID I know it's been a while
Speaker 1 (2m 45s): Really overwhelming for a lot of people and there's a lot of different beliefs. However, I want to talk about
Speaker 0 (2m 50s): The state of our
Speaker 1 (2m 52s): Politics, the state of our world prior to COVID. If you remember the students in Taiwan protesting there we're the yellow vest in France.
Speaker 0 (3m 2s): There was Cerisa. Am I saying that right in Greece and a note on a note on that,
Speaker 1 (3m 10s): And I was paying attention to verify because that gentlemen with his <inaudible>, I think he, and the people that are working there are doing some really good work. They have some really good ideas. And if you haven't read any of the <inaudible> Fox's work, you should definitely check into it. I maybe I'll do a, a, a, a series on him as well. It's fascinating to think about what went on and, and how he, as the finance minister and was able to walk in to the ministers of finance and, and say what he had to say.
And then he just ended up getting sold out by secrecy. So that's the first principal of all the economic chaos that was in fact happening prior to COVID makes me think that COVID is just an umbrella to squash that the world was on fire. There was a populous backlash around the world, the people that you lead. So the now controlling technocrats are scared and they realized the only way to move forward with their plan to distribute resources mainly for themselves, and cut off tiny little slivers from everybody else
Speaker 0 (4m 25s): That is in danger. That's what I mean by normally
Speaker 1 (4m 33s): A little cleanup will be permanent only if a company by a widespread social changes. You see their trying to force these widespread social changes of wearing a mask and being cooped up in your room. And, you know, not being able to go outside, not celebrate your holidays and through Restriction, they're trying to force behavioral change. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend we're not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction.
In other words, it would not be a long-term trend at all. A second principle, if a change is made, that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, it's a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.
There, you see the theory of complexity. Third principle, if a change is made, that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend than the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance unless the various other society's have passed, do the same changed and have all the experience, the same consequences in which case one can predict on empirical on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be likely to experience similar consequences.
Fourth principle, a new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. Let me read that part again, just for all my friends in government, a new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function. As it was designed to do someone, please send this to all the technocrats out there.
Should I just read it again for them? A new kind of society dummies cannot be designed on paper. What do you retards? This is you cannot plan out a new form of society in, in advance, then set it up and expect it to function. As it is designed to do feel free, to study a little bit of complexity. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment.
The economy will affect the environment and vice versa and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood. Fifth principle. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. The society is develop through processes of social evolution that are not under a rational human control.
The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four to illustrate by the first principle. Generally speaking in attempt to social reform, either acts in the direction in which the society is developing any way so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case or else. It has only a transitory effects so that the society soon slips back into its old group to make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society reform is in sufficient.
And revolution is required. Reform is insufficient. Revolution is required. Reform is insufficient. Revolution is required in a revolution, does not necessarily involved and armed uprising or the overthrow of a government buy. The second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society. It changes the whole society.
And by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out right planned. I would argue that what happened before COVID was a world revolution, the populous backlash in Brexit and Donald Trump in Poland in the middle East, people are pissed off that global capitalism has gone into every corner of the earth, destroyed it and is now reorganizing it and commodifying it.
That means that the commodification of value's the commodification of ideas, that means that you as an individual have zero autonomy. That means that you can have the ideas, but your ideas have no meaning. I want you to think about this concept. And this concept is this whole new public private partnership. What this is, is an attempt to commodify your ideas, but not just your ideas, the meaning of your ideas.
They want to control and prioritize and commodify the meaning. I have ideas this whole reorganization and that's what COVID is make no mistake about it. COVID is something that was released in order to quell the population with the threat of an actual real biological bomb being dropped on the world. The entire populace is being sanctioned right now.
The world leaders look at Davos, look at the United nations, all of these so-called quote on quote leaders. They I have realized that they, and by they, I mean, presidents, prime ministers, cabinet members, the CFR, the Atlantic council, all these private groups that actually own you and the world, they are under threat to the point where they can no longer control the mass populations yet they still want forever growth.
So for me, COVID is a means to an end COVID is a way for people to cram you into your house, not provide you with healthcare, not have to pay for the elderly demographics at sweeping the world, let them all die. Lord knows what's in this vaccine, but if I were you, I would do my own research before
Speaker 2 (12m 10s): Taking it
Speaker 1 (12m 13s): Back to the book. The American revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American revolution was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far reaching political reform. The founding fathers did not change the direction of development of American sight society, nor did they aspire to do so.
They only fried the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. I think that British rule always has a retarding effect. And you can, if you want evidence for the retarding effect of British rule, just look at the Royal family there
Speaker 2 (13m 8s): In a bunch of retards
Speaker 1 (13m 11s): Political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society have which American society that was an off shoot had been moving for a long time in the direction of a representative democracy. And prior to the war of independence, the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies.
The political system established by the constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies with major alterations, to be sure there is no doubt that the founding fathers took a very important step, but it was a step along the road that the English speaking world was already travelling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent, ended up with a systems of representative democracy.
Essentially similar to that in the United States, have the founding fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the declaration of independence. Our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would of had somewhat closer ties to Britain and would have had a parliament and a prime minister instead of a Congress and president, no big deal. Thus, the American revolution provides not a counter example to our principles, but a good illustration of them.
Still one to use common sense and applying the principles they are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles, not as inviolable laws, but as rules of thumb or guides to thinking that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society.
The principles should be born constantly in mind. And whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them, one should carefully re-examine, one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so. Today's industrial technological society cannot be reformed. What do you guys think? Do you think the society in which you are currently living can be a reformed?
If so, how would you go about doing it? How would you go about gathering? How would you go about setting up a new system when everything you're currently doing? As much as let's dive back in, but think about that question. The foregoing principles helped to show that how, how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing, our sphere of fruit Freedom, which is happening right now, there has been a consistent tendency going back at least to the industrial revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy.
Hence any change is designed to protect Freedom from technology Whoo. It would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one soon swamped by the tight of history, or if largely enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society.
This by the first and second principle. And moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted at the time Vance, the third principle, that would be great risk change, right, was large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of Freedom would not be an issue 'cause it would be realize that they would greatly disrupt the system. Do you guys hear that changes a lot, a large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of them Freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system, right?
That's why you see No small businesses in this new, great reset. There is no room for small business. There's no room for people creating a life of freedom for themselves. The system can't work. If individuals have Freedom technology requires you and I to be under surveillance. So it can accurately effectively and efficiently distribute the resources.
Speaker 2 (18m 25s): I think about it
Speaker 1 (18m 34s): Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of Freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective, even if change is large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became a parent. Thus permanent change is in favor of Freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous, and unpredictable alteration of the entire system.
In other words, by revolutionaries, not reformers people anxious to rescue Freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile Freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make some suggestions, seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place.
It follows that the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could once be established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected. So even on very general grounds, it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile Freedom with modern technology. And the next few sections, we will get more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are in compatible.
I know it's tough to hear us some of these things.
Speaker 2 (20m 33s): And then
Speaker 1 (20m 36s): There is times when I begin reading, when I go to this book or I I'm like no, that ain't right. However, the more I think about the ideas, the more I think about the way in which this world is heading It's, it's eerie, it's eerie have the foresight to do
Speaker 2 (20m 55s): Got it.
Speaker 1 (20m 58s): Restriction of Freedom is unavoidable and industrial society as explained in paragraphs above modern man is strapped down by a network, have rules and regulations. And his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him, whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or as a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats.
It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system has to regulate human behavior closely in order to function at work, people have to do what they are told to do when they are told to do it. And in the way they are told to do it, otherwise production will be thrown into chaos. <inaudible> have to be run according to rigid rules to allow any substantial personal discretion to lower level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to the charges of unfairness, do to differences in the way individuals, bureaucrats exercise their discretion.
It is true that some restrictions on our Freedom could be eliminated, but generally speaking, the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial Technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be however that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that makes us want to do or what the system requires of us propaganda, educational techniques, mental health.
I would add a SSRI different types of, of drugs, be it some form of amphetamine,
Speaker 2 (23m 7s): Or
Speaker 1 (23m 11s): I might as well as the drop some Soma in there, right? The system has to force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to Excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time, sitting at a desk, absorbed and study a normal adolescent wants to spend time in active contact with the real world among primitive people is the things that children are trained to do, tend to be in reasonably harmony, reasonable harmony with natural human impulses among the American Indians.
For example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits, just the sort of things that boys like, but in our society, children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which mostly they do grudgingly because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior. There is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society. The requirements, welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist, saboteurs, dropouts, and resistors of various kinds in any technologically advanced society.
The individual's fate must depend on decisions that he Pre.
Speaker 0 (24m 47s): I personally cannot influence to any great extent
Speaker 1 (24m 52s): A Technological society cannot be broken down into small autonomous communities because production depends on the cooperation. A very large numbers of people and machines, such a society must be highly organized and decisions have Right
Speaker 0 (25m 10s): To be made that affect a very large numbers of people want to do
Speaker 1 (25m 15s): Decision affects, say a million people than each of the effected individual who has on the average only a 1000000th share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
Speaker 0 (25m 33s): Officials or corporation executives or
Speaker 1 (25m 39s): By technical specialists. But even when the public vote on a decision, the number of votes ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. Thus, most individuals are unable to influence measurably. The major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technological advanced society.
The system tries to solve this problem by using propaganda to make people want the decisions that have been made for them. But even this So
Speaker 0 (26m 25s): Illusion, even if this solution were complete,
Speaker 1 (26m 31s): Well, at least successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning
Speaker 0 (26m 37s): Conservatives
Speaker 1 (26m 38s): And some other advocate, more local autonomy.
Speaker 0 (26m 44s): Local
Speaker 1 (26m 45s): Communities once did have the autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible. As local communities become more
Speaker 0 (26m 54s): And more in meshed with the dependent
Speaker 1 (27m 4s): Conservatives and some other others advocate more local autonomy. Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible. As local communities become more and more in meshed with and dependent on large scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media and the modern healthcare system also operating against the autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations, far away.
Speaker 0 (27m 44s): Yeah.
Speaker 1 (27m 47s): Thus pesticide or chemical use near a Creek may contaminate the water supply, hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effects. It affects the whole world. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the Technological system.
It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology because the system is guided, not by ideology, but by technical necessity, of course, the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking, it does this only to the extent that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount.
Not those have the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function of every one, starved, it attends the people's psychological needs whenever it can conveniently do so, because it could not function at too many people became depressed or rebellious, but the system for good solid practical reasons must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system, to much waste accumulating the government, the media, the education system.
Environmentalist's everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. I need more technical personnel, a chorus of voices, exhorts kids to study science, no one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects that most of them hate when skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo retraining.
No one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. And for good reason, if human needs were put before technical necessity, there would be economic problems, unemployment shortages, or worse. The concept of mental health in our society is defined largely by the extent, to which an individual behaves and a chord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress efforts to make room for a sense of purpose.
And for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees, a symbol, only one section have a telephone book, had each assemble, a whole telephone book, and this, it was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and chief mint. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons, this usually it can be done only to a very limited extent.
In any case, employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals. There are autonomous efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise, I guess, similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise.
Otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose. As part of the system is that once again, for purely technical reasons, it is not possible for me, individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small business owner, commonly has only limited autonomy apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements.
For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small business person often has to use that technology, whether he wants to or not in order to remain competitive. And if the bad parts of technology cannot be separated from the good parts, a further reason why society cannot be reformed in favor of Freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another.
So you can't get rid of the bad parts of technology and retain only the good parts take modern medicines. And for example, progress right, modern in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive economically rich society.
Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole Technological system and everything like that. He goes with it, even if the medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the Technological system, it would by itself brings certain evils. Suppose for example, that a cure for diabetes is discovered people with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else.
Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. This may be occurring to some extent already since diabetes, while not curable can be controlled through the use of insulin. The same thing will happen with many other diseases, susceptibility too, which is affected by genetic factors, EEG, childhood cancers. Sure. Resulting in massive genetic degradation of the population.
The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings. So that man in the future will no longer be a creature of nature or have a chance, or have God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions, but a manufactured product I would argue that were already is there. If you look at what Elon Musk has planned or, you know, I, I'm not sure that neural links, I think it is a creation of Elon Musk, as much as it is a creation of the intelligence communities with such companies like 23andme and ancestry.com with your smart device, tracking all your steps.
And it's just a matter of time before technology gets inside the body. And a lot of people are arguing. That's in fact, what this vaccine is, it's a smart tattoo or its a nano some sort of a nano technology that we'll be, Yeah be able to immediately identify potential cancerous issues, too much blood sugar, or ultimately it's a, it's a eugenics this process. I think And in on one level, it's just fascinating to think about the possibilities.
However, what Mr. Kaczynski is arguing is that Yeah, that is fascinating to think about the possibilities, but the consequences vastly outweigh the possibilities of, of benefits. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much, now just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children.
Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of humans because of consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about medical ethics, but a code of ethics would not serve to protect Freedom in the face of medical progress. Listen to this, the usual response to such concerns is to talk about medical ethics, but a code of ethics would not serve to protect Freedom in the face of medical progress.
It would only make matters worse. So he's telling you right here that in the phase of medical progress, when we're faced with a pandemic, ethics goes out the window, do you see what's happening here? This is exactly where we're at in our world today. Ethics is out the window in the face of medical progress. It would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in fact a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings.
Somebody's probably the upper middle class mostly would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were ethical and others were not. So that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population. At large, even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an ethical use of genetic engineering.
The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited any genetic engineering of human beings. And you can be sure that no such code would ever be applied in Technological society. No code that reduce genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially sense to the majority of people.
Many of its applications will seem obviously an unequivocally good eliminating physical and mental disease, giving people the ability they need to get along in today's world. Inevitably genetic engineering we'll be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial Technological system.
Speaker 0 (39m 15s): Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just going to drop the mic right there for the day. You might want to go in and look at them
Speaker 1 (39m 26s): Back a little bit more. You might want to listen to this one again, it's a little slow going in the beginning, but I'll tell you what, right in the middle, we get into some really red meat right there. So think about it. Think about your freedom to think about technology, to think about decoupling. I'd love you guys LOA.