Technological Slavery - Reading # 8

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

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

Transcript:
Technological Slavery pdf
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58868276
Speaker 0 (0s): I 

Speaker 1 (3s): Haven't. We done enough with So self-important so self-important, everybody's got to save something. Now, save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those nails and the greatest arrogance of all save the planet. What are these fucking people? Kidding me. Save the planet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fucking planet Maybe sides. There is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. 

The planet is fine. The way people are fucked. 

Speaker 0 (43s): Welcome back everybody. Thank you for taking time to listen to this. Technological Slavery the writings of the Unabomber number eight, eight, eight Strategy the technocrats are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what Technological process is doing to us yet take a passive attitude towards it because they think it inevitable, but we don't think its inevitable. 

We think that can be stopped and we will give, hear some indications of how to go about stopping it. As we stated earlier, the two main tasks for the present, our to promote social stress and instability in industrial society as well to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. 

The pattern would be similar to that, of the French and Russian revolutions, French society and Russian society for several decades prior to their respective revolutions showed increasing signs of stress and a weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offer a new worldview that was quite different from the old one. 

In the case of the Russians revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then when the old system was put under a sufficient additional stress by a financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia, it was swept away by Revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines. It will be objected that the French and Russian revolutions were failures, but most revolutions have two goals. 

One is to destroy an old form of society. The other is to set up the new form of society is envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed. Fortunately two create the new kind of society have, which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new ideal form of society. 

Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society. If we paused there for a minute often here, the case is made that it is easier to tear something down and it is difficult to rebuild something. The argument Ted Kaczynski is making his that yes, we understand that. However, in this case continued progress down the route of technical 

Speaker 1 (4m 5s): Continued power 

Speaker 0 (4m 8s): Amassing in the hands of the technophiles the technologically you think 

Speaker 1 (4m 15s): I can only lead to one area, right? 

Speaker 0 (4m 22s): I think it's important to note whether it's, whether it's fascism, whether it's nationalism or socialism, both of those are fascist regime regimes. And both of those nationalism and socialism are a path albeit a different path, but to the same destination, black cat, white cat, they both catch mice regardless of which one of those ideologies is being pursued. 

And it seems as though those are the two only competing ideologies we will end up in the same spot. Nationalist will seek to use. Technological advanced for genocide, for eradicating people. They seem on pure the socialist we'll use the same technology to distribute the wealth of the middle class until there was no more wealth to give the only wealth who remained in the hands of a few. 

Ultimately both of those ideologies lead to the same spot 

Speaker 1 (5m 51s): Back to the book. And I know 

Speaker 0 (6m 0s): The ology in order to gain enthusiastic support must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one. It must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal 

Speaker 1 (6m 15s): That we propose is nature. 

Speaker 0 (6m 17s): That is wild nature. Those aspects of the functioning of the earth and is living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control 

Speaker 1 (6m 32s): With wild nature. We include a human nature by which we mean 

Speaker 0 (6m 37s): Those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society, but our products of chance free will God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions. Nature makes a perfect counter ideal to technology for several reasons, nature that which is outside the power of the system is the opposite of technology, which seeks to expand indefinitely. 

The power of the system. Most people will agree that nature is beautiful. Certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalist already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chime, miracle utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself. It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society and for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies. 

Co-existed with nature without doing it. An excessive amount of damage. Only with the industrial revolution, did the effect of human society on nature become a really devastating to relieve. The pressure on nature is not necessary to create any special kinds of social system. It is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. 

Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature, and it will take a very long time for those scars to heal. Besides even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature, including human nature, whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system. 

It is certain that most people will live close to nature. 'cause in the absence of advanced technology, there is no other way that people can live to feed themselves. They must be peasants or herdsman, fishermen or hunters. And generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities as for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society. 

Well, you can't eat your cake and have it to them to gain one thing. Do you have to sacrifice another most people hate psychological conflict for this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues. And they like to have such issues presented to...