Technological Slavery - Reading #6

Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Buy Grow kit:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/

Technological Slavery PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrb2e1njc4yae8d/kaczynski-tech-slavery.pdf?dl=0
Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58495097
Speaker 0 (0s): <inaudible> Technological, Slavery the writings of the Unabomber. Number six, here we go. You know, the drill Technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. What do you guys think? Yes, no, maybe. So. Let's see what Ted Kaczynski thinks it is not possible to make a lasting compromise between technology and freedom because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through repeated compromises. 

Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands, a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, okay, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked the weak one has little choice, but to give in sometime later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land. 

Again, there was a compromise and so forth by forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man. The powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between Technology and freedom. Let us explain why technology is more powerful, social force than the aspiration for freedom. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom. 

Often turns out to threaten it very seriously. Later on, for example, consider a motorized transport. A walking man, formerly could go where he pleased go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations and was independent of Technological support systems. When motor vehicles were introduced, they appeared to increase mans freedom. 

They took know freedom away from the walking men. No one has to have an automobile. If you didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon change to society and such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it was found necessary to regulate their use of extensively in a car, especially in densely populated areas. 

One cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace. One's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws, one is tied down by various obligations, licensed requirements, driver, test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of a motorized transport is no longer optional. 

Since the introduction of motorized transport. The arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities so that they have to depend on the automobile for transportation or else. They must use public transportation. In which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car or even the walkers freedom is now greatly restricted in the city. 

He continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic in the country. Motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway note, this important point that we have just build a straight in with the case of motorized transport. When a new item have technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not, as he chooses, it does not necessarily remain optional. 

In many cases, the new technology changes society and such a way that people eventually find themselves for us to use it while Technological progress as a whole continually narrows our sphere of freedom. Each new technical advance considered a by itself appears to be desirable, electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long distance communications. How could one argue against any of these things or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? 

It would have been absurd. It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone. For example, that offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained earlier, all of these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends. But in those of politicians, corporation, executives and remote anonymous technicians and bureaucrats 

Speaker 1 (5m 59s): Whom he And whom he as an individual has no power to influence the same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering. For example, few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance or of God or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs. 

Okay. Let's pause there for a minute. I think at that point is incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly thought provoking. And let me tell you why. I think that I think it is, I think he is he's he's Right in that there will be few people that will be able to deny genetic engineering can be a good thing. 

Yes, it will prevent suffering. Yes, it will prevent harm. But here is where the dangerous part is. Once you begin to be genetically engineer, there is already, at least in the United States, there's a precipice, a precedent for patenting genes, right? For those of you, for those, for my European friends, for stuff, I love you guys and good for you guys for taking this Monsanto garbage. The U S has trying to put out because this is the exact company that has tried to patent genes. 

In fact, they have them on a lot of their seeds that give to farmers. And if those seeds are found in another farmer's yard, then Monsanto can actually go in there, ensue that farmer for stealing their patent for using their product, without paying for it. So if there is already a precedent on genes and the new genetic engineering technology comes forward, that would be able to look at that case and possibly use it. 

So let's say that I got genetically engineered and then I had a child. My child could now be because those genes got passed on to him, the genetically engineered genes, it is possible that the company that I used to be genetically engineered could own not only some of my genes, but some of my offspring's jeans. It sounds crazy. It sounds like a science fiction movie, but we are heading in that way. 

Not to mention another dangerous issue with that. 

Speaker 2 (8m 59s): You are a commodity once that happens 

Speaker 1 (9m 2s): And you have been given your, you have to become a product of a corporation at that time. And you can say that as an employee of a large corporations, you are already that, however, once people put their Technology inside your body, now you become a commodified product to be tracked traced in database, back to the book. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction, it can never be reversed. 
<...