TrueLife - Technological Slavery: Ted Kaczynski’s Warning and the Rise of the Machine Mind (Reading #5)

Episode Date: December 10, 2020

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Before he became a symbol of rebellion and tragedy, Ted Kaczynski was a mathematician turned philosopher who saw the trajectory of civilization as a slow suicide by technology. In this reading and analysis of Technological Slavery, George Monty dives into the uncomfortable truths of Kaczynski’s arguments — the loss of autonomy, the illusion of progress, and the psychological toll of a world governed by machines.This episode isn’t an endorsement — it’s an examination of a prophetic, dangerous mind who saw the future unfolding faster than anyone could stop it.In this episode:The core philosophy behind Technological SlaveryHow technological systems dominate human behaviorThe paradox of freedom in a hyper-connected worldThe moral and psychological collapse of industrial societyCan humanity reclaim control from its own creation?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.&nbsp...

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear, Hears through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Back, my friends. I hope you're all having a great day. We're getting right back into some technological slavery reading number four. Four, four, four. By Theodore.

John Kaczynski, Volume 1, Revised and Expanded Edition. If you remember we left off, excuse me, we left off with some motivations of scientists, the nature of freedom, how people adjust, and we are moving forward 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, an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern,

and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here, we are concerned with the long-term trends. First principle, if a small change is made that affects a long-term trends, long-term historical trend, then 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 accompanied 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 the change acts in the direction. direction in which the trend is already moving so that the trend is not altered but only pushed a step ahead. You know, regardless of what country you live in, I think we are seeing evidence of this first principle take place. And let me try to break that down a little bit for everyone. Does anybody really remember before COVID? I know it's been really overwhelming

for a lot of people and there's a lot of different beliefs. However, I want to talk about the state of our politics, the state of our world prior to COVID. If you remember these students in Taiwan protesting, there were the yellow vest in France, there was Sarisa, am I saying that right, in Greece? And a note on that, are you guys paying attention to Verifakis? That gentleman with his DM25, 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 Avera Foccus's work, you should definitely check into it. Maybe I'll do a series on him as well.

It's fascinating to think about what went on and how he as the finance minister was able to walk into the ministers of finance and say what he had. to say and he just ended up getting sold out by Cepras. So that's the first principle. And so 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 populist backlash around the world.

The people, the elites, the now controlling technocrats are scared. And they realize the only way to move forward with their plan to distribute resources, mainly for themselves, and cut off tiny little slivers for everybody else, is in danger. And that's what I mean by normally a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes. You see, they're trying to force these widespread social changes of wearing a mask and being cooped up in your room and not being. 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 were 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. 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, 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,

then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict 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. 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 are you retards? This 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. 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. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four. To illustrate, by the first principle, generally speaking an attempt to social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case or else it has only a transitory effect so that the society soon slips back into its old groove to make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society

Reform is insufficient and revolution is required. Reform is insufficient. Revolution is required. Reform is insufficient. Revolution is required. A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government. By 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 as planned. I would argue that what happened before COVID was a world revolution. The populist backlash in Brexit, in 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 the commodification of values, the commodification of ideas. That means that you as an individual have zero autonomy. That means that you can have 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 privatize and commodify the meaning, the meaning of 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 these so-called quote-unquote leaders they 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 COVID is a means to an end. COVID is a way for these people to cram you into your house, not provide you with health care, not have to pay for the elderly demographics that's 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 taking it. Back to the book. The American Revolution does not provide a counter-example. 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 society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed 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. Political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, 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 traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If 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 have 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 has to use common sense in 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 borne 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're currently living can be 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 every, everything you are currently doing is monitored. Let's dive back in. But think about that question. The foregoing principles help to show 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 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 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 tide of history or if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society.

This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance, third principle, there would be great risk. 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. Did you guys hear that? 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. That's why you see no small businesses.

In this new Great Reset, there's 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. Think about it. 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 changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted

when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus permanent changes 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 free with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such 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. 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. In the next few sections, we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible. I know it's tough to hear some of these things. And there's times when I begin reading when I go through this book where 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, you know, it's, it's eerie. It's eerie the foresight this guy had. Restriction of freedom is unavoidable in industrial society. As explained in paragraphs above, modern man is strapped down by a network of 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 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 would

be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies have to be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead the charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercise their desertion. 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 make us want to do what the system requires of us.

Propaganda, educational techniques, mental health. I would add SSRIs, different types of drugs, be it some form of amphetamine, or might as well to 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 in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend time in active contact with the real world.

Among primitive people, 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's requirements. Welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalists, saboteurs, dropouts, and resistors of various. kinds. In any technologically advanced society, the individual's fate must depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be

broken down into small autonomous communities because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society must be. must be highly organized and decisions have to be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives. or by technical specialists. But even when the public votes 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 solution, even if this solution, were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning. Conservatives and some other 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 enmeshed with the dependent. 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 enmeshed 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 autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other local. locations far away. 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 be. to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being.

For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved. It attends the people's psychological needs whenever it can conveniently do so because it could not function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system for good, Good, solid, practical reasons must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system.

Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the education system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. 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 in accord 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 assemble only one section of a telephone book, had each assemble a whole telephone book, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons, This usually can be done only to a very limited extent. And in any case, employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals.

Their 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. 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. Once again, for purely technical reasons, it is not possible for most 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. The bad parts of technology cannot be separated from the good parts. A further reason why industrial 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. You can't get rid of the bad parts of technology and retain only the good parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress 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 that goes with it. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring 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. 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 to which is affected by genetic factors, e.g. childhood cancer, 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 of chance or of God, depending on your religious or philosophical opinions, but a manufactured product.

I would argue that we're already there. If you look at what Elon Musk has planned or, you know, I'm not sure that Neurrelink is a creature. of Elon Musk as much as it is a creation of the intelligence communities. With such companies like 23 and me 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 it's a nano, some sort of a nanotechnology that will

be able to immediately identify potential cancerous issues or too much blood sugar or ultimately it's a it's a eugenics process i think and 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 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 unregulatory 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 face of medical progress, when we're faced with a pandemic, ethics goes out the window. 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 effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings somebody 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 will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long. the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people, many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good eliminating physical and mental disease, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world.

Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial technological system. Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm just going to drop the mic right there for today. You might want to go and look 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. Think about technology. Think about decoupling. I love you guys. Aloha.