TrueLife - Technological Slavery: Ted Kaczynski’s Warning and the Rise of the Machine Mind (Reading #6)

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 PDF:https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrb2e1njc4yae8d/kaczynski-tech-slavery.pdf?dl=0Transcript:https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58495097Speaker 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...

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. 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 Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. 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 is 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 motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased.

Go at his own pace without observing any trouble. traffic regulations and was independent of technological support systems. When motor vehicles were introduced, they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man. No one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one. And anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. the introduction of motorized transport soon changed to society in such a way as to restrict

greatly man's freedom of local motion. When automobiles became numerous, it was found necessary to regulate their use 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 and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations, license requirements, driver test, renewing registration insurance, maintenance, required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price.

Moreover, the use of 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.

Even the walker's 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 illustrated with the case of motorized transport, when a new item of technology is introduced as an option, that an individual can't accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily remain optional.

In many cases, the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves forced to use it. While technological progress as a whole continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance considered 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 to resist the introduction of the telephone. For example, it offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained early, all 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 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 that point is incredibly dangerous. It's incredibly thought-provoking. And let me tell you why I think that.

I think 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 engineered, there's already, at least in the United States, there's a precedent for patenting genes, right? For those of you, for those, for my European friends, first off, I love you guys. And good for you guys for not taking this Monsanto garbage that the U.S.

is trying to put out. Because this is the exact company that has, has tried to patent genes. In fact, they have them on a lot of their seeds they give to farmers. And if those seeds are found in another farmer's yard, then Monsanto can actually go in there and sue that farmer for stealing their patent, for using their product without paying for it. So if there's already a precedent on genes and the new genetic engineering technology comes forward. They 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 genes. 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 is you are a commodity once that happens. You have been given, you have become a product of a corporation at that time. And you can say that as an employee of a large corporation is you're already that. However, once people put their technology inside your body, now you become a commodified product to be tracked, traced, and 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. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. How many of you out there can drive a standard vehicle? You know what I mean by that, like a stick shift. I would say less and less people. When I was little, I had a Volkswagen.

I had to learn how to drive it. not only do people become dependent on as individuals on a new item of technology but even more the system as a whole becomes dependent upon it imagine what would happen to the system today of computers for example were eliminated thus the system can move in only one direction toward greater technologization that's a big word technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back but technology can never take a step back, short of the overthrow of the whole technological system. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points. At the same time, crowding rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda, and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy, surveillance devices and computers, etc. To hold back any one of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the

sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole. But that is revolution, not reform. Technicians, we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training. The technicians tend to be so involved in their work,

their surrogate activity, that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere. Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations, they do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends.

Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information, about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons. They do whatever they can, legally or sometimes illegally, to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials, and law officers believe in freedom, privacy, and constitutional rights. But when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work

is more important. How many people do you know or have you yourself decided that you are the arbiter of the greater good? I know there's been times in my life where I've made decisions based upon what I thought was the greater good. It's scary to think about because who are you to decide what the greater good is. That's, that in my opinion, is one of the dividing lines between the integrity and psychopathy. I don't think, I do think sometimes. However, I try to always remind myself that I am not the arbiter of the greater good. And I don't think anybody else has the right to tell me,

you what is the greater good. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technological invasion of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome. Consequently, there are few who work persistently and well. at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a single victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technical progress, most would tend to relax and

turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology, as it progressed, would find ways in spite of any barriers. to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs, or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory. They all change or break down eventually, but technological advances are permanent.

within the context of a given civilization. Suppose, for example, that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangement that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later, the social arrangement would break down,

probably sooner, given the pace of it. of change in our society, then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible, short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself. Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently, as of 95, happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago, it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least some of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind and those barriers begin to crumble. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

But the statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades, the industrial technological system will be undergoing severe stress due to human behavior. Alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties. Let me note, this was written in 95. So these are the decades he was talking about. We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least we'll weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful,

then at the particular moment, the aspiration for freedom will have proven more powerful than technology. In above paragraphs, we used an analogy for a weak neighbor, who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of, of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick so that he is unable to defend himself, the weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back. Or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool.

Because when the strong man gets well, he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick, we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all our freedom. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick, we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all our freedom. Simpler social problems have proved

intractable. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking, or domestic abuse. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here, the conflict of values is straightforward, economic expedience, now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren. But on this subject, we get only a lot of blatherer.

and obfuscation from the people who have power and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action. We keep on piling up environmental problems that are grandchildren. We'll have to deal with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment.

The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, nor is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get solved at all, rarely or never, are solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursuing their own, usually short-term self-interest, arrive mainly by luck, at, some more or less stable modus vivendi.

In fact, the principles we formulated in earlier paragraphs make it seem doubtful that rational long-term social planning can ever be successful. Thus, it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problems? of reconcline of reconciling I cannot say that word

subtle problems of reconcilling freedom with technology technology presents clear cut material advantages advances technology presents clear cut material advantages whereas freedom is an abstraction

That means different things to different people. And its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk. And note this important difference. It is conceivable that our environmental problems, for example, may someday be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan. But if this happens, it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these problems. but it is not in the interest of the system to preserve freedom or small group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent. Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems,

equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely, preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment of freedom. This isn't just our opinion. Eminent social scientists, e.g. James Q. Wilson have stressed the importance of socializing people more effectively. I think if you're honest with yourself, you can see that the last few decades or the last few generations have taken mankind down a route of domestication. Think about it.

If we were half as tough as our dads were, think about how your father lived and then think about how your grandfather lived. Or think about how your grandmother lived and then how her grandmother lived. We have become softer, weaker, clearly more pusified. In fact, I know there's people now that don't even get in fights. I know people that have never been punched in the face.

Revolution is easier than reform. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial technological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances, revolution is much easier than reform.

The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world. It provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reason, it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. Not many people will devote themselves with single-minded passion to imposing and maintaining restraints on genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions, large numbers of people may devote themselves. themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial technological system. As we noted in above paragraphs, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology

would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful reward, fulfillment of their revolutionary vision, and therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do. Reform is always restrained by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far but once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution this was clearly shown in the French and Russian revolutions

it may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is truly committed to the revolution but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. Control of human behavior. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. some of the pressures are physical, poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution,

some are psychological, noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires. In the past, human nature has been approximately constant or at any rate has varied only with certain bounds. consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong. Rebellion, crime, corruption, or evasion of work or depression, as well as other mental problems. An elevated death rate, a declining birth rate, or something else. so that either the society breaks down or its functioning becomes too inefficient, and it is quickly or gradually through conquest, attrition, or evolution, replaced by some more efficient form of society.

Thus, human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no further, but today this may be changed. because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? I don't think so. It is already happening to some extent in our own society.

It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in earlier paragraphs, but even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of some conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them an antidepressant. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. Yes, we know that depression is often a purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which an environment plays the predominant role.

Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the methods of controlling human behavior, that modern society is developing. Let us look at some other methods. To start with, there are other techniques of surveillance. Hidden cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places. Computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion. Then there are the methods of propaganda.

for which the mass communications media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections. Selling products, influencing public opinion, the entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system. possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence

entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape while absorbed in television videos or games he can forget stress anxiety frustration and dissatisfaction many primitive

peoples when they don't have any work to do are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained. Otherwise, they get quote-unquote bored. They get fidgety, uneasy, irritable. Other techniques strike deeper than the foregoing.

Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It's becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's development. Jesus Christ, do you guys have kids? What the fuck are these masks doing to our kids? You got to put a mask on your kid, put a fucking shield on their face before they go outside? We're teaching our kids to be scared before they even go outside. I don't know what you guys do.

But if you're worried or you've been affected by the virus, I think you should at least tell your children that this mask, this shield is an attempt to change your behavior. Don't be afraid. Feel free to take that thing off. I think the long-term consequences of our children's behavior in schools or, online schools now is fundamentally going to change their behavior forever. Education is no longer a simple affair. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. Parenting techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept the fundamental values of the system

and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. Mental health programs, intervention techniques, psychotherapy, and so forth, are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals. But in practice, they usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. There is no contradiction here. an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from. Hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat.

His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense, the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity. Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most, if not all, cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior, behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word

abuse tends to be interpreted to include any method of child rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious sense-lust cruelty, programs for preventing child abuse are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior, but we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind.

Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of gene therapy. And there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning. As we mentioned in earlier paragraphs, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress. due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion, children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes. Unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population. growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict, pro-choice, pro-life,

political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be forced to use every practical means of controlling human behavior. COVID-19, the vaccine, they're coming. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of chance. The social disruption that we see today, it is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disrupting.

of the power process. If the system succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to ensure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formally, the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies, industrial technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate, or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be a humanitarian justification

For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an antidepressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual of favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated and they're becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so for concern for their child's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one day, didn't have to have specialized training to get a job,

and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed to become a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan. Thus, control over human behavior

will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities, but through a process of social evolution, rapid evolution, however. The process will be impossible to resist because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial. Or at least the evil involved in making the advance

will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it. Propaganda, for example, is used for many good purposes such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. Sex education. is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education, to the extent that it is successful, is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. Of course, most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the thing. therapy, it would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rating comparison with that of our society, even though they never, they neither high-tech methods of child rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our

society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus, a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system. Our society tends to regard as a sickness, any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system. And this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system, it causes pain to the individual, as well as problems for the system. Thus, the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a cure for a sickness and therefore a good. In earlier paragraphs, we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is initially optional, it does not necessarily remain optional.

Because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program. Because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, and ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that without undesirable side effects will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which,

so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. This will lead more people to undergo the treatment and so forth, so that eventually the pressures may become so heavy that few people will be able to survive without undergoing the stress-reducing treatment. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already

with one of our society's most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce, or at least temporarily escape from, stress, namely mass entertainment, or use of mass entertainment is optional. No law requires us to watch television, listen to radio, read magazines, yet mass entertainment is a means of escape

and stress reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using any form of mass entertainment. Yet until quite recently in human history, most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself. Without the entertainment industry, the system probably would not have been able to get. get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior.

It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger, and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain, or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one, it clearly is less powerful than the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case, then researchers would not be able to easily manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.

It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem, a problem of neurons, hormones, and complex molecules, the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society and solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior. I want you to think of Neurilink right now, and I'm going to read this paragraph again.

Have you guys all seen the Elon Musk Neurlink where they go in and they're using this technology to help blind people see, to help people walk allegedly. But what are they doing? They're controlling the neurons. They're controlling the circuitry of the brain. So think of NeuroLink, and I'm going to read this paragraph again. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their head

so that they could be controlled by the authorities. Neurrelink. What does Neurlink and Starlink have in common, you think? But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problems of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem. Problem of neurons, hormones, and complex molecules. The kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human beings.

behavior. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's fact fact, the industrial revolution has radically altered men's environment and way of life. And it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

Wow. Ladies and gentlemen, what are you going to do? What are you thinking about? Think long and hard. Love your family. love your friends have a good day hello