TrueLife - Technological Slavery: Ted Kaczynski’s Warning and the Rise of the Machine Mind (Reading #8)

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/58868276Speaker 0 (0s): I Speaker 1 (3s): Haven't. We done enough with So self-important so self-important, everybody's got to save something. Now, save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those nails and the greatest arrogance of all save the planet. What are these fucking people? Kidding me. Save the planet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fucking planet Maybe sides. There is nothing wrong with the planet, nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The way people are fucked. Speaker 0 (43s): Welcome back everybody. Thank you for taking time to listen to this. Technological Slavery the writings of the Unabomber number eight, eight, eight Strategy the technocrats are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what Technological process is doing to us yet take a passive attitude towards it because they think it inevitable, but we don't think its inevitable. We think that can be stopped and we will give, hear some indications of how to go about stopping it. As we stated earlier, the two main tasks for the present, our to promote social stress and instability in industrial society as well to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that, of the French and Russian revolutions, French society and Russian society for several decades prior to their respective revolutions showed increasing signs of stress and a weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offer a new worldview that was quite different from the old one. In the case of the Russians revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then when the old system was put under a sufficient additional stress by a financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia, it was swept away by Revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines. It will be objected that the French and Russian revolutions were failures, but most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society. The other is to set up the new form of society is envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed. Fortunately two create the new kind of society have, which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society. If we paused there for a minute often here, the case is made that it is easier to tear something down and it is difficult to rebuild something. The argument Ted Kaczynski is making his that yes, we understand that. However, in this case continued progress down the route of technical Speaker 1 (4m 5s): Continued power Speaker 0 (4m 8s): Amassing in the hands of the technophiles the technologically you think Speaker 1 (4m 15s): I can only lead to one area, right? Speaker 0 (4m 22s): I think it's important to note whether it's, whether it's fascism, whether it's nationalism or socialism, both of those are fascist regime regimes. And both of those nationalism and socialism are a path albeit a different path, but to the same destination, black cat, white cat, they both catch mice regardless of which one of those ideologies is being pursued. And it seems as though those are the two only competing ideologies we will end up in the same spot. Nationalist will seek to use. Technological advanced for genocide, for eradicating people. They seem on pure the socialist we'll use the same technology to distribute the wealth of the middle class until there was no more wealth to give the only wealth who remained in the hands of a few. Ultimately both of those ideologies lead to the same spot Speaker 1 (5m 51s): Back to the book. And I know Speaker 0 (6m 0s): The ology in order to gain enthusiastic support must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one. It must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal Speaker 1 (6m 15s): That we propose is nature. Speaker 0 (6m 17s): That is wild nature. Those aspects of the functioning of the earth and is living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control Speaker 1 (6m 32s): With wild nature. We include a human nature by which we mean Speaker 0 (6m 37s): Those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society, but our products of chance free will God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions. Nature makes a perfect counter ideal to technology for several reasons, nature that which is outside the power of the system is the opposite of technology, which seeks to expand indefinitely. The power of the system. Most people will agree that nature is beautiful. Certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalist already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chime, miracle utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself. It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society and for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies. Co-existed with nature without doing it. An excessive amount of damage. Only with the industrial revolution, did the effect of human society on nature become a really devastating to relieve. The pressure on nature is not necessary to create any special kinds of social syste...

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, furious 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. Haven't we done enough? We're so self-important, so self-important. Everybody's going to save something now.

Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, Save those nails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another.

We're going to save the fucking planet. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are fucked. Welcome back, everybody. Thank you for taking time to listen. to this.

Technological slavery, the writings of the Unabomber. Number eight, strategy. The technocrats are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological process is doing to us, yet take a passive attitude towards it because they think it inevitable. But we don't think it's inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.

As we stated earlier, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society, as well to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian revolutions. French society and Russian society for several decades prior to their respective revolutions showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offer a new worldview that was quite different from the old one. In the case of the Russians, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia,

It was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines. It will be objected that the French and Russian revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society. The other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed, fortunately, to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed. But they were quite successful in destroying the old society.

We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society. If we pause there for a minute. Often here the case is made that it is even, easy to tear something down and it is difficult to rebuild something. The argument Ted Kaczynski's making is that, yes, we understand that. However, in this case, continued progress down the route of Technopoly, continued power, amassing in the hands of the technophiles, the technologically elite,

can only lead to one area. I think it's important to note whether it's, whether it's fascism, whether it's nationalism, or socialism. Both of those are fascist regimes. And both of those, nationalism and socialism, are a path, albeit a different path, but to the same destination.

right black cat white cat they both catch mice regardless of which one of those ideologies is being pursued and it seems as though those are the two only competing ideologies we will end up in the same spot nationalists will seek to use technological advance for genocide for eradicating people they seem impure the socialist will use the same technology to distribute the wealth of the middle class until there's no more wealth to give. The only wealth will remain in the hands of a few. Ultimately, both of those ideologies lead to the same spot. Back to the book. An ideology in order to gain enthusiastic support must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one. It must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal that we propose is nature, that is wild nature, those aspects of the functioning of the earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control.

With wild nature, we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects, of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society, but are products of chance, free will, God, depending on your religious or philosophical opinions. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature, that which is outside the power of the system, is the opposite of technology, which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system. Most people will agree that nature is beautiful. Certainly it has tremendous popular appeal.

The radical environmentalists already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. nature takes care of itself. It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society. And for countless centuries, many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage.

Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature, it is not necessary to create any special kind of social system. It is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature, and it will take a very long time for those scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal.

It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature, including human nature. Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain. that most people will live close to nature. Because in the absence of advanced technology, there is no other way that people can live. To feed themselves, they must be peasants or herdsmen,

fishermen, or hunters. And generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society,

well, you can't eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing, you have to sacrifice another. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason, they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple black and white terms. This is all good and that is all bad.

The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels. On the more sophisticated level, the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational thought-out basis with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational level as possible. Facts should know. Facts should

never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal, care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology versus nature in unambiguous terms. But even on the second level, the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate, or irrational, that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains,

but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse, and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old worldview goes under. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side.

History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution, the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently. Though, of course, it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.

Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society, politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials. it should not be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. I'm going to pause there for a minute. Anybody watching any kind of mainstream television, listening to any sort of mainstream pundit,

if you listen to a mainstream channel, mainstream radio, the propaganda we have now is desperately trying to divide us by color, by age, Black Lives Matter, old versus young, white nationalists, Middle East terrorists, all these invisible boogeymen. Who do they really divide? They divide the people. All the while, the technological elite, the technocrats, the government officials, the Bloombergers, the Atlantic Council, the CFR,

Trilateral Commission. All of these individuals are working lock, step with one another. They have a plan. They have an agenda. It's called 2030. Working people and people of all countries

would do well to lock arms and rise up against their government. It should be all of us, everybody who works, against the ruling elite. Those people need to face the consequences of their actions, and they spend billions of dollars on propaganda to divide the populace. So the next time you have an idea about the person next to you

that's a different color, different religion, older or younger, ask yourself if they are in fact really the problem. I think it was Socrates who inspired people to ask one question, and that question is, is that true? If it is true, you should address it. If it's not true, you should look deeper and not be fooled by the propaganda. The line should not be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be a bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising

and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn't need, and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy, one should generally avoid blaming the public. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite which wields technology and the general public over which technology exerts its power.

For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts between power elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature. For another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologicalization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. example. In America, many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing black individuals in the technological power elite. They want there to be many black

government officials, scientists, corporation executives, and so forth. In this way, they are helping to absorb the African American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts. that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power elite versus ordinary people, technology versus nature. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is not through militant advocacy of minority rights. Instead, the revolutionary should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is a peripheral significance.

Our real enemy is the industrial technological system, and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a political revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. probably the revolutionaries should even avoid assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proven itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose, for example, that some Green Party should win control of the U.S. Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology, they would have to take vigorous measures. to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage.

To the average man, the results would appear disastrous. There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Disatisfaction would grow. The Green Party would be voted out of office, and the revolution would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason, the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power

until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above. The revolution must be international. The revolution must be worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis.

Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and just start screaming that if we fall behind in technology, other countries will get ahead of us. Holy robots. The world will fly off its orbit if the rest of the world sells more cars than the U.S. Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.

More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology, while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam, and North Korea, continued to progress. Eventually, the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously. To the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk and has to be taken, and it is worth taking, since the difference between a democratic industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one.

It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable because dictator-controlled systems usually have proven inefficient. Hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to build the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA or GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short term, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature.

They argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best, these people are expressing themselves, because they fail to distinguish between power for large organizations and power for individuals and small groups. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity because people need power. Modern man as a collective entity, that is, the industrial system has immense power over nature and we regard this as evil. But modern individuals and small groups of individuals.

have far less power than primitive man ever did, generally speaking. The vast power of modern man over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups, but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern individual can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. You need a license for everything. And with the license, it comes rules.

With the license comes regulations. The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His personal power over nature is slight. Primitive individuals and small groups actually held considerable power over nature. Or maybe it would be better to say power within. nature. When primitive man needed food, he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapon. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals, but primitive man did relatively little damage to nature

because the collective power of primitive society was negligible compared to the collective power of industrial society. Instead of arguing for powerlessness, and passivity, one should argue that the power of the industrial system should be broken, and that this will greatly increase the power and freedom of individuals and small groups. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionary's only goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit them,

to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to the temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system so that in order to retain some technology, one finds itself obliged to. to retain most technology. Hence, one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology. Suppose, for example, that the revolutionaries took social justice as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously.

It would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it, the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control for that they would need rapid, long-distance transportation and communication. Therefore, all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people, they would have to use agriculture, manufacturing technology, and so forth, so that the attempt to ensure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using some modern technology.

If nothing else, they must use the communications media to spread their message, but they should use modern technology for only one purpose to attack the technological system. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of them. Suppose he starts saying to himself, wine isn't bad for you if you use it in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you. It wouldn't do me any harm if I just take one little drink. Well, you know what's going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.

Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend within the context of our society to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view, it doesn't matter much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training.

In either case, they are passed on. The trouble is that many of the people, who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problem. Hence, they are apt to have few or no children. In this way, they may be handing the world over the sort of people who support, or at least accept the industrial system. To ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries, the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so, they will be worsening the population, problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get rid of the industrial system,

because once the industrial system is gone, the world's industrial, because once the industrial system is gone, the world's population necessarily will decrease, whereas if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely with regard to revolution strategy. The only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foreseeing, forgoing, foregoing,

paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded. Two kinds of technology. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail because it is claimed throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed. Hence technological regression is impossible, but this claim is false. We distinguish between two kinds of text. which we will call small-scale technology, an organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance.

Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organizational dependent technology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example, when the Roman Empire fell apart, the Roman small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel. Any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods and so forth. But the Roman's organization-dependent technology did in fact regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt.

Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of ancient Rome. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that until perhaps a century or two before the industrial revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the industrial revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator, for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a modern machine shop, it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator.

If by some miracle they did succeed in building one, it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream, build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an ice house or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down,

refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organizational dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so, it would take centuries to rebuild it. Just as it took centuries to build it for the first time around, surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch, without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages. You need tools to make tools, to make tools, to make tools.

A long process of economic development and progress and social organization is required. And even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial. society. The enthusiasm for quote-unquote progress is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts. In the late Middle Ages, there were four main civilizations that were equally advanced, Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East. Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at the same time.

Historians have their theories, but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about. would society eventually develop again toward an industrial technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it. Since we can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future, those problems will have to be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

There you have it, folks. The strategy. I hope you take a few minutes to maybe go over some parts in this, reread or re-listen to the strategies you can use in your life. And let me know what you think. Again, there's a free PDF copy in the show notes. Thank you for your time and we'll talk to you soon.