5 ms·

A lot of this seems to be gibberish: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? Technology destroys nature, which strengthens techno

• jjguy 18y ago
  It's too late in the day for me to give a coherent reply to all your questions. But your first, I think, is easy: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? We apply new technologies in new ways to help improve and regulate our society. Each decision is well-intentioned, improves society and -- taken alone -- is a good idea. Examples: (1) Red light cameras (2) RFID passports (3) National ID Cards Each decision is also a tiny reduction in personal freedom. As the libertarians say, the incremental destruction of our liberties. Or, as Kelly condensed -- "the less our freedoms."
  • unalone 18y ago
    But every technology that lessens freedom comes with technology that increases freedom even more. Citation: the Internet.
    • astine 18y ago
      That was mentioned in the article. It was around the point were he started to refute the anarcho-primitivists.
• patio11 18y ago
  I disagree with the vast majority of the piece, but this bit has something to it at least some of the time: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Technology makes certain forms of social control a whole lot more viable than they were prior to the technology. (Conversely, it makes certain forms of freedom more viable, too.) Here's a relatively benign example: technology makes it possible for a computer to make a decision on your credit worthiness in the blink of an eye. This is a wonderful thing for many reasons: for one, it greatly cuts down on the amount of discrimination in lender/lendee relationships. It also means that your insurance company knows that you missed a credit card payment 7 years ago. This has been factored into your premiums. Have a nice day. (I suppose theoretically you could go to Ask No Questions Insurance, Inc but since credit scores are scandalously good predictors of insurance risk you're not likely to get a bargain there.) You can, of course, opt out of this by opting out of a) credit cards and b) insurance agencies. Ahh, seems like you're legally required to deal with the second to drive. So if you want the freedom to have your previous dealings not attached to you, which I gather at least some people might desire, you need to stop driving.
• mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense. Speaking as a piece of cellular technology, (admittedly a very advanced and well-abstracted one) I'm surprised that you find this hard to believe. Organisms are technologies, and our agendas are technological agendas. If you take away my supply of fresh water, I will fight to get it back. Why do I want fresh water so badly? Ultimately, it's because of a technology choice, made -- perhaps by accident -- by my distant ancestors. My really distant ancestors. Several billion years ago a replicator (might have been DNA or RNA; might have been some earlier self-replicating structure; nobody really knows) built itself a nifty technology for protecting itself and moving around. The technology -- which eventually evolved into things like cell membranes and organelles -- was designed to work in salty water, where the replicators happened to live (or did they move there, because saltwater-based tech worked so well? Again, we don't know.) It's been a long time since my ancestors lived primarily in salty water. And yet nearly every component of my body still requires a wet environment, containing a rather precise concentration of specific minerals in solution, in order to survive. Maintaining that environment requires a steady supply of fresh water from the outside world. And so I find that my body is preprogrammed to seek fresh water. This isn't my idea. In theory, I could be happy to live as a disembodied mind, without drinking water. But I'm built out of a specific technology, and that technology has an agenda. Humans often fail to consciously notice that living things and technologies are aspects of the same thing. We use the word technology only to refer to objects that we don't identify very closely with. (But not, of course, to things that weren't built by living creatures. A star is very complicated, but it is not a technology.) But the word wears off quite quickly. Successful technologies rapidly get adopted into our lives. I would never call my left hand a technology except in an essay such as this. Even to call my cell phone a technology is beginning to seem stilted -- to do so, in my culture, would label me as either a techie or a luddite. And we may have reached the point where, alas, the Internet is no longer a technology to me. It's a significant part of my thinking, and a significant component of my happiness. Cut me off from the web long enough and I will probably react as if you'd stolen my fresh water. (We may soon reach the stage where being disconnected from the net will literally kill you, just as losing your job in the USA can kill you by removing your health insurance at a crucial moment.) But though I identify more closely with my left hand than with the stainless steel screws in my jaw, and more closely with my metal components than with my contact lenses, and more closely with my contacts than my clothes, and more closely with my clothes than my car, and more closely with my car than my iPod, and more closely with my iPod than with the buggy software I wrote this afternoon which I will probably throw away, what -- really -- is the fundamental difference between any of these things? They're all technological components, created by technologies, in pursuit of technological agendas. Or, phrased differently, they are all artifacts created by living creatures in pursuit of life. Same difference. Incidentally, I'd like to wish Charles Darwin a happy, belated 200th birthday. And it doesn't surprise me that, so many years after his work, essays like this still strike many people as "utter nonsense", perhaps even evil. The really big ideas take time to soak in.
• astine 18y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel the need to point out that the article is an attack on anarcho-primitivism and Ted K., not an endorsement. "The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms." Why? - for a number of reasons mainly stemming from the fact that technology needs to be maintained. If you want to live in a house, you need to build a house and society must be developed to a point to allow you to build the house. So, our desire to build houses compels society to do all of the things necessary, from logging to manufacturing. (The point is ultimately flawed, but the article addresses this.) "Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further." Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean? - by making it more pervasive. If you accept the premise that technology has an influence on people, then the mere spread of it would make its influence stronger. Also, by making us more dependent. If we over fish the ocean, we must then really on fish farms. "This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics." Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow. - If you were familiar with Marxism this would make sense. According to Marx, economics determined politics, that is, all of history was determined, not by ideas, but by basic economics needs and the conflicts that these needs and desires caused. To the extent that technology drives and empowers our economy, the same could be said of it: that our need of technology is a greater determiner of world events than the machinations of individual politicians and movements. This point, I think, is actually true. If a new technology arrives that 'conflicts' with current laws, it is the laws that will adapt not the technology. Witness bittorrent. "Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it." What system? The vast collection of industry, infrastructure, and legal structures needed to produce the technology and stability people take for granted. So, spreading anarcho-primitivist propaganda on the Internet makes you dependent on the Internet (to an extent.) "Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed." Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming... Well, if technology's influence really is negative... "Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse". If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement... - For the same reason that Marxists are ethically obliged to bring about the inevitable revolution. We must all immanentize the eschaton. "Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again." Again, nonsense. - no, this makes perfect sense: Create a culture of killing smart people and you'll be sure that technological advance never happens.
• giardini 18y ago
  It is gibberish because it is the result of a bitter, angry paranoid mind. Why bother to read it? Perhaps to understand Kaczynski? But why, really? Isn't it enough to accept that he's insane and criminal? There is undoubtedly better reading available. Some people can "get into the mindset" of other persons. That ability is both a gift (helps understand the other's motivation) and a curse (often it's a demented mind - a sick viewpoint). One either has that ability or doesn't. Some FBI profilers are good at this. Usually people with broader experience and open minds are better at it. The lesson to be learned from reading such madness is summed up by the Roman writer Terence: "I am a man and nothing human is foreign to me." (L. "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto") Montaigne had the saying inscribed on his library ceiling. Most who, out of curiosity, examine the writings of psychotics such as the Unabomber or Marquis de Sade reject them as incomprehensible. "Understanding" requires the ability to temporarily suspend one's own beliefs and to accept those of the demented individual. But you can see the danger; to accept the individual's beliefs fully would make _you_ mad. In the end you'll find that the time spent trying to understand would be better spent elsewhere. There are so many examples of deranged persons' writings and they all lead to little more than headaches. On the other hand some exposure to such writings might make it easier to accept what Terence said. Once you accept that, you won't ever be surprised by what you read or see again.