TrueLife - Technological Slavery: Ted Kaczynski’s Warning and the Rise of the Machine Mind (Reading #7)

Episode Date: December 14, 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?Transcript:Technological Slavery pdfhttps://app.podscribe.ai/episode/58824685Speaker 0 (0s): <inaudible> Speaker 1 (19s): Welcome back, everybody let's jump right back in to Technological Slavery writing's of the Unabomber Human Race at a Crossroads we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory, a series of psychological or biological techniques from manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. This to me brings to mind the Stanley Milgram experiments. For those of you on aware of the Stanley Milgram experiments, look up a Stanford prison experiment and Stanley Milgrim. I think you'll find it amazing. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless works quite well in the lab schools, where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively. Throughout our educational system. We all know that many of our schools are alike. The teachers are too busy as of 1995, taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior, the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those have the type that might be called booyah, but there are growing numbers of people who were in one way or another are rebels against the system. Welfare leeches, youth gangs, Colt, a Satanist Nazis, radical environmentalist's militiamen, et cetera. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to a hundred years. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time, it will have to have solved or at least brought under control. The principle problems that confront it in particular that have socializing human beings that is making people sufficiently docile so that their behavior no longer threatens the system that being accomplished. It does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology. And it would presumably advanced toward its logical conclusion, which has complete control over everything on earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition just as today, the government, the corporations, and other large organizations, both cooperate and compete with one another human freedom mostly will have vanished because individuals and small groups will be impotent. Vis-a-vis large organizations armed with super technology and an arsenal of advanced, psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of the surveillance and physical coercion. That's like the trifecta. You have technology over everyone. You have advanced psychological and biological tools. Some say at the beginning of those biological tools, our in fact, this new vaccine coming your way only a small number of people will have any real power. And even these probably we'll have only very limited freedom because there are behavior too will be regulated just as today. Our politicians and our corporation executives can retain their positions of power. Only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits. Don't imagine that the system will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature. Once the crisis of this next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system survival. On the contrary, once the hard times all Rover the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained earlier, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity, that is they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those have understanding the humans, body and mind and intervening in their development for the quote unquote good of humanity, of course. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades proved to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down, there may be a period of chaos, a time of troubles, such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past, it is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate, the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people, power hungry types, especially who we'll be anxious to get the factories running again. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude too, which the industrial system is reducing the human behavior. First we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system. So as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Se...

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. Fearist 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 everybody. Let's jump right back into technological slavery. Writings of the Unabomber. Human race. At a crossroads.

We have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques from manipulating human behavior. And quite another, to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. This to me brings to mind the Stanley Milgram experiments. For those of you unaware of the Stanley Milgram experiments, Look up Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram. I think you'll find it amazing.

The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology, doubtless, work quite well in the lab schools where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. we all know that many of our schools are alike. The teachers are too busy as of 1995, taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior,

the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called bourgeois.

But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system, welfare leeches, youth gangs, cultists, Satanists, Nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc. The system

is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise, it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say, 40 to 100 years. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades.

By that time, it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control the principal problems that confront it, in particular, that of socializing human beings. That is, making people sufficiently docile so that their behavior no long, threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion,

which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition just as today the government the corporations and other large organizations

both cooperate and compete with one another human freedom mostly will have vanished because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with super technology and an arsenal of advanced psychological

and biological tools for manipulating human beings besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. That's like the trifecta. You have technology over everyone. You have

advanced psychological and biological tools. Some say the beginning of those biological tools are in fact this new vaccine coming your way. Only a small number of people will have any real power. And even these probably will have only very limited freedom because their behavior too will be regulated. Just as today our politicians and our corporation executives can retain their positions of

power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits. Don't imagine that the system will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of this next few decades is over, and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system's survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over, The system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained earlier, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity.

That is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technology. technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm. And among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human's body and mind and intervening in their development. For the quote-unquote good of humanity, of course. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades, proved to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down, there may be a period of chaos,

a time of troubles, such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles. But at any rate, the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial

society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly, there will be many people, power-hungry types especially, who will be anxious to get the factories running again. Therefore, two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human behavior. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently

so that a revolution against it becomes possible second it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system such an ideology can become the basis for a revolution against industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened

and such an ideology will help to ensure that if and when industrial society breaks down its remnants will be smashed beyond repair so that the system cannot be reconstituted the factories should be destroyed technical books burn you know it brings me to a interesting point whenever someone brings up the burning books.

The concept of history, if you look at the etymology of that word, his story, history, his story. I think it's pretty profound. History, his story, are written by the people who won the war. When you win the war, you win the right

to fundamentally record what happened. His story. Let's take it one step further. Everybody remembers hearing his story, history about the burning of the library of Alexandria. On one hand, we have people who believe it was a tragedy. It was a travesty.

to burn all the information collected in such a vast library. And there's no doubt on some level it was that. However, I've always wondered why. Why would they burn that down? Why would they burn books? People would burn books because they don't want that information in books being out. What if? What if?

it possible that maybe in previous times the structure of society was a lot like the society being proposed for our future? If there was just this small class of people who had all the information, what if only a small subset of elite people were allowed to go into the library at Alexandria? What good does all that information. What good does all those books do if only a small subset of people can even understand them? It seems to me that would be a reason for the mobs of people to go and burn down that library. Let's keep moving forward. Human suffering. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties.

So if the system breaks down, it will do so either spontaneously or through a process that is in part spontaneous, but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die. Since the world has become so grossly overpopulated and it cannot even feel. itself any longer without advanced technology. I want to make a quick note. I think it was Buckminster Fuller who thought the carrying capacity of the planet is way higher than it is today. I haven't read a lot of his work but I think it's important to note that when we talk about overpopulation. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth

rate than through elevation of the death rate. Let's spend a second there. One needs only look at Bill Gates' TED Talks or modern-day science to realize the threat of overpopulation. And let's think about the two ways being mentioned to deal with overpopulation. One is a decreased birth rate. One is an increased death rate. One of them is a decreased birth rate.

One of them is an increased death rate. When it comes to a decreased birth rate, think about GMO foods. Think about housing being expensive. Think about women being told not to have to have. being told not to have kids until later in life. These are all examples of a decreased birth rate. There's clearly, clearly, an agenda set forth to stop women from having kids. Now, I'm not saying that women should be having children at a younger age. I think women should

have a choice to have a family whenever they want. However, society makes it almost impossible to have multiple kids and play at the highest level. And that's for a reason. It's for a reason. Let's look at increased death rate. What do you think is the agenda of testing vaccines in Africa? If you look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I think if you really dig in there,

you can see that the majority of their vaccines are being tested in sub-Saharan Africa. in Africa as a whole, on a certain type, on a certain race of people. What do you think they do with those findings? Do you think that they find, oh, well, this particular vaccine works well on this particular race? You think that they just make that a double-blind placebo-controlled study? Or do you think that they write down every possible outcome? You think that they maybe monitor, wow, this particular vaccine works,

really well on this color people. It seems to me it is plausible that COVID-19 could be some sort of a eugenics process. And when I say eugenics, I mean lowering the birth rate,

increasing the death rate for some subsets of people. Think about it. Let me know what you think. The process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way,

especially since the technocrats will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway. And the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be. So it may be that revolutionaries by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster. That's something to think about.

And I'm sure most of you are aware, but I just want to drive this particular point home that says, for every bit of comfort, for every bonus that technology gives us, it also takes something away. Most of you know that, but I'm sure there's some of you that don't. And for this particular point, I want to remind all of my awesome listeners out there about the judgment of famous. Do you remember that?

Let me refresh your memory if you don't. In Plato's Fadris, a story about famous, the king of a great city of Upper Egypt, for people such as ourselves who are inclined in Thoreau's phase to be tools of our tools. few legends are more instructive than this. The story as Socrates tells it to his friend, Fadris, unfolds in the following way. Famous once entertained the god Thuth, who was the inventor of many things, including number, calculation, geometry, astronomy, and writing. Thuth exhibited his inventions to King Famous, claiming that they should be made widely,

known and available to Egyptians. Socrates continues. Famous inquired into the use of each of them. And as Thuth went through them expressed approval or disproval according as

he judged Thuth's claims to be well or ill founded. It would take too long to go through all that famous is reported to have said. For and against each of Thuth's inventions, but when it came to writing

Thuth declared Here is an accomplishment my lord the king Which will improve both wisdom And the memory of the Egyptians I have discovered a sure receipt For memory and wisdom To this

Famous replied Thuth my peregon of inventors The discoverer of an art Is not the best judge of the good or harm which will accrue to those who practice it. I think that parallels nice with our modern day technocrat overlords. They are not in position to say what or judge the good or harm, which will accrue to those who use it.

So it is in this, you who are the father of writing, have out of fondness for your eyes. offspring attributed to it quite the opposite of its real function. Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful. They will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of their own internal resources. What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory. and as for wisdom your pupils will have the reputation for it

without the reality they will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant and because they are filled with the conceit of wisdom

instead of real wisdom they will be a burden to society That's what I mean when I say that technology, for everything it gives you, it takes something away. I think we should be very careful. I think we should remember our past so we can understand our future. Back to the book. In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity.

Too many of us, freedom and dignity. are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die sometime. And it may be better to die fighting for survival or for a cause than to live a long but empty and purposeless life. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the system would.

The system has already caused and is continuing to cause immense suffering all over the world, ancient cultures, that for hundreds or thousands of years, gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment have been shattered by contact with industrial society. And the result has been a whole catalog of economic,

environmental, social, and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance hence the population explosion with all that that implies then there is the psychological suffering

that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West no one knows as of 1995 what will happen as a result of ozone depletion the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And as for nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible third world nations.

Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering? Oh, say the technocrats, Science is going to fix all of that. We will conquer famine. We will eliminate psychological suffering. We will make everyone healthy and happy. Yeah, right. That's what they said 200 years ago.

The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everyone happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technocrats are hard. hopelessly naive or self-deceiving in their understanding of social issues. They are unaware of or choose to ignore the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict.

The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty, disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technocrats will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present one. For example, the scientists boasts that they will end famine by creating new genetically engineered food. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinite. and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the predictable problems that will arise. We emphasize that as past experience has shown,

technical progress will lead to other new problems that cannot be predicted in advance. In fact, ever since the industrial revolution, technology has been creating new problems for society far more rapidly than it has been solving old ones. Thus, it will take a long and difficult period of trial and error

for the technocrats to work the bugs out of the brave new world if they ever do. In the meantime, there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of the society would.

Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape. The future. Suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system. So that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities. First, let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines

that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case, presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions, without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjecture as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave.

We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines, nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machine's decisions. As society and the problems that face it

become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them. Simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently

at that stage the machines will be in effective control people won't be able to just turn the machines off because they will be so dependent upon them that turning them off would amount to suicide. On the other hand, it is possible that the human control over the machines may be retained. In that case, the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer. However, control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite, just as it is today, but with two men. major differences. Due to improved techniques, the elite

will have greater control over the masses. And because human work will no longer be necessary, the masses will be superfluous. A useless burden on the system. Useless eaters.

That's a term used in the eugenics literature. If the elite is ruthless, they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane, they may use propaganda. They may use psychological. They may use biological techniques to reduce the birth rate

until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy,

and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes, quote-unquote, treatment to cure his quote-unquote problem. Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their needs, for the power process or to make them sublimate their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free.

They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals. We will make great pets. We will make great pets. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing strong artificial intelligence so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. We are already seeing this happen.

But are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work because for intellectual or psychological reasons, they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system. On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed. They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. I would argue that we're seeing that right now.

For those of us, and I think it's the entire planet being infected by this COVID, the workers or people who are not at work, are being dubbed non-essential. Doesn't that kind of fit with the prior paragraphs talking about getting rid of the superfluous people? Doesn't that kind of fit with getting rid of people who are the useless eaters? And let's talk about the people that are working, the essential workers. Those people are already taking on much more responsibility. Those people that are already taking on more servitude. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

It just seems so amazing the foresight that this gentleman had. People, sometimes people that are really fucking smart are really fucking scary. On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed. They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable. conforming and docile because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized so that their work will be in a sense out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use

any means that it can, whether psychological or biological to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to sublimate their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such society will have to be docile may require qualification. Society may find competitiveness useful

provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can't have. imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power, but no more than a very few people will ever reach the very top, where the only real power is. Very repellent is a society in which a person

can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of their opportunity for power. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a... great development of these service industries

might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spend their time shining each other's cars, shining each other's shoes, driving each other around in taxi cabs. Think Uber. Making handcrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables,

etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up. And we doubt that, many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy work. They would seek other dangerous outlets. Crime, cults, hate groups,

unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a new way of life. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we've just described.

It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will, by that time, have developed certain general characteristics. Individuals, at least those of the bourgeois type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power, will be more dependent than ever on large organizations.

They will be more socialized than ever, and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent, possibly to a very great extent, will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance or of God's will or whatever, And whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision of management of scientists. Hence it will no longer be truly wild.

In the long run, say a few centuries from now, it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today. because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering, there is no reason to stop at any particular point so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment,

radically different from the spectrum of environments to which nature, to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is then, if man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter. it would be better to dump the whole system and take the consequences. Wow. It is, it's disturbing.

I mean, I can't think of a more frightening future. I've heard some people say that, you know, what if we could be engineered to be philosophers and mathematicians and and have this world in which pain is something that is only experienced by artists who want to be able to describe it. Well, my friends, I'll leave that for you to decide. The end of freedom, a possible utopia.

I think everybody knows where I stand. But that's what we have. Technological slavery, number seven, we will have number eight out shortly. I love you guys. Thank you for taking time to listen. Aloha.