Conventional Modern society and its Upcoming

Unabomber Condensed “industrial Society And Its Future”

It’s the typical kind of crap I read in the editorial section of the WSJ on a daily basis. After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identffying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See “Seeking the Criminal Element,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become violent criminals.

Inevitably, technology’s takeover has its casualties. Kaczynski created them, and became one of them – a former professor now an inmate of a maximum-security prison. Kaczynski was haunted by the notion of the noble savage, a myth that has echoed through Western thought from Rousseau to today’s blockbuster Avatar. The Unabomber, said Apostolidès, is a direct heir of the anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important . He argues that technological progress has increased our dependence on the prevalent economic structure, and this curtails our freedom- buying a car is a necessity now, and not a luxury. Our jobs don’t give us an intrinsic satisfaction, since it’s not a ‘need for survival’ per se.

The best we can hope for is that environmental or economic forces will soon weaken the system enough that it can be destroyed by revolution . Reformers follow only one cause, so they are limited in number and often switch to other causes. Revolution offers one solution for all problems, and its followers see an ideal new world as their goal.

The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world’s population has become so overMown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step.

99% of the laws are already written – to keep people safe and preserve the status quo. Now extend that asymmetry to a human vs a machine. If the machine is sophisticated enough (and why not since it isn’t limited in the ways we are) it can effortlessly set up a situation for us that we cant possibly comprehend. Just look at us trying to make sense of black box machine learning. Similarly large corporations are set up globally either by evolution or by design to control absolutely everything.