Nice post, Alex. Kaczynski commented on the general, incremental encroachment of technology over all aspects of our lives as well: "Whereas formerly 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 being 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….
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 that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents….
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."
Ah yes, Teddy K. He had a lot of insightful things to say on the subject of technology. I think most rational people would be hard pressed to find any flaw in the excerpt you shared. Unfortunately, he lost most of his credibility when he resorted to violence. As the saying goes: kill one man, you're a monster; kill thousands, you're a king; kill millions, you're a god.
Yes, great writer but his proposed solution (stopping technology) was widely off the mark.
Technology must continue to its natural endpoint because technology provides power advantages over others, so if one country does not maximize its technology on its own, it will be dominated by a neighbor who will, just as western civilization was so thoroughly able to dominate other less advanced societies in the past four hundred years. Additionally, individuals desperately seek out technology to make their own lives easier; people generally care about convenience and comfort far more than they care about freedom.
Therefore, his line of question of whether the advancement of technology is leading to the decline of humanity is an irrelevant one -- technology is going to continue until it reaches its own endpoint, whatever it happens to be.
I agree 100%. In fact, I'm working on an upcoming column on this topic. The question is not IF technology will be detrimental to human health and happiness, but HOW we can mitigate that harm without, as you pointed out, creating unacceptable vulnerabilities.
Prior to the lockdowns and madness of 2020–2021, I was an extrovert who liked people and had a lot of faith in humanity. Since that time, I have gotten a little less extroverted. I still like people when I actually meet them—I am still friendly and affable, and make it a point to say nice things. But I also now have a general mistrust of, and lack of faith in, people—something I didn't really have before.
funny you too 're bringin' up one a my FAVE-O-RITE actors, Burgess Meredith! This eppy-sode goes hand in hand with "The Obsolete Man," another good'un 'bout books, ALSO starrin' Meredith, there as a librarian, killed fer bein' obsolete (ouch!). I myself wrote 'bout that'un in this turrible era of book bannin' an' too many folks not readin' books--yup, all addicted ta cell phones n' A-social me-dia (their "god" of ME!!!!). All depressin' nooz, humans takin' up social distancin' (what an oxymoron!) themselfs even when it's not imposed on 'em... durned shame an' a greater danger...
As fer Meredith, a Bookworm himself (tho' he played the Penguin! and that other honor wuz given ta another fun braniac actor, Roddy McDowell), Meredith (who started performin' Maxwell Anderson an' always did hi-falutin' stuff) wuz the epitome of the literate lil' guy (common man), small in stature, tall in thinkin' an' a fine example fer us all! ....As ya wrote about re Rocky bein' a feller that never stops tryin', behind him was that fine coach (a' course portrayed by Meredith) pushin' that human rock of a man up that Sisyphian hill!
Americans gotta learn that lesson've Henry Bemis 'fore it's too late--unless we're already past that point of no return... I do worry. Time ta start a book club an' I ain't jokin' neither!
You wrote in response to one of my replies that you may be close to 100% agreement with my on tech. After reading this piece, I believe you are correct.
It also, I think, supports my thesis that despite how bad the Covid response was/is, it is just a small series of steps in a much larger program that has been underway for decades. Replacing as many humans as possible with machines has long been a stated goal, but at some point we useless eaters were bound to say, “Hey! That’s enough.” So, the seemingly insane, idiotic, universal covid mitigation measures we were forced to endure. We emerge from our enforced isolation and sedentary lifestyles to find unmanned, cashless stores, shops and even hospital reception. They didn’t allow the chance to say “No!”, to any of this.
Nice post, Alex. Kaczynski commented on the general, incremental encroachment of technology over all aspects of our lives as well: "Whereas formerly 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 being 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….
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 that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents….
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."
Ah yes, Teddy K. He had a lot of insightful things to say on the subject of technology. I think most rational people would be hard pressed to find any flaw in the excerpt you shared. Unfortunately, he lost most of his credibility when he resorted to violence. As the saying goes: kill one man, you're a monster; kill thousands, you're a king; kill millions, you're a god.
Yes, great writer but his proposed solution (stopping technology) was widely off the mark.
Technology must continue to its natural endpoint because technology provides power advantages over others, so if one country does not maximize its technology on its own, it will be dominated by a neighbor who will, just as western civilization was so thoroughly able to dominate other less advanced societies in the past four hundred years. Additionally, individuals desperately seek out technology to make their own lives easier; people generally care about convenience and comfort far more than they care about freedom.
Therefore, his line of question of whether the advancement of technology is leading to the decline of humanity is an irrelevant one -- technology is going to continue until it reaches its own endpoint, whatever it happens to be.
I agree 100%. In fact, I'm working on an upcoming column on this topic. The question is not IF technology will be detrimental to human health and happiness, but HOW we can mitigate that harm without, as you pointed out, creating unacceptable vulnerabilities.
Prior to the lockdowns and madness of 2020–2021, I was an extrovert who liked people and had a lot of faith in humanity. Since that time, I have gotten a little less extroverted. I still like people when I actually meet them—I am still friendly and affable, and make it a point to say nice things. But I also now have a general mistrust of, and lack of faith in, people—something I didn't really have before.
funny you too 're bringin' up one a my FAVE-O-RITE actors, Burgess Meredith! This eppy-sode goes hand in hand with "The Obsolete Man," another good'un 'bout books, ALSO starrin' Meredith, there as a librarian, killed fer bein' obsolete (ouch!). I myself wrote 'bout that'un in this turrible era of book bannin' an' too many folks not readin' books--yup, all addicted ta cell phones n' A-social me-dia (their "god" of ME!!!!). All depressin' nooz, humans takin' up social distancin' (what an oxymoron!) themselfs even when it's not imposed on 'em... durned shame an' a greater danger...
As fer Meredith, a Bookworm himself (tho' he played the Penguin! and that other honor wuz given ta another fun braniac actor, Roddy McDowell), Meredith (who started performin' Maxwell Anderson an' always did hi-falutin' stuff) wuz the epitome of the literate lil' guy (common man), small in stature, tall in thinkin' an' a fine example fer us all! ....As ya wrote about re Rocky bein' a feller that never stops tryin', behind him was that fine coach (a' course portrayed by Meredith) pushin' that human rock of a man up that Sisyphian hill!
Americans gotta learn that lesson've Henry Bemis 'fore it's too late--unless we're already past that point of no return... I do worry. Time ta start a book club an' I ain't jokin' neither!
You wrote in response to one of my replies that you may be close to 100% agreement with my on tech. After reading this piece, I believe you are correct.
It also, I think, supports my thesis that despite how bad the Covid response was/is, it is just a small series of steps in a much larger program that has been underway for decades. Replacing as many humans as possible with machines has long been a stated goal, but at some point we useless eaters were bound to say, “Hey! That’s enough.” So, the seemingly insane, idiotic, universal covid mitigation measures we were forced to endure. We emerge from our enforced isolation and sedentary lifestyles to find unmanned, cashless stores, shops and even hospital reception. They didn’t allow the chance to say “No!”, to any of this.