Maybe the sky isn't falling

[blackie]

I had a banana split the other day. And another one for breakfast this morning.

[Erroneous_Logic]

Enjoy your banana splits while you can! Another banana apocalypse is inevitable, given that they're propagated entirely by cuttings with no genetic variation! Soon, disease will destroy the banana industry once again, and we shall lack our delicious dildo shaped fruit toppings

[blackie]

Enjoy your banana splits while you can!

That is the point.

Enjoy life while you can, because it will end some day. Worrying doesn't change the outcome, so you might as well enjoy what you can., while you can.

[Erroneous_Logic]

And also you could try to develop a strain of bananas that -do- have seeds that are, perhaps, not super intrusive to the eating of the fruit, like butternut squash, perhaps.

[Tom Sawyer]

Enjoy your banana splits while you can! Another banana apocalypse is inevitable, given that they're propagated entirely by cuttings with no genetic variation! Soon, disease will destroy the banana industry once again, and we shall lack our delicious dildo shaped fruit toppings

Interesting note... I had heard that. However the Polly Anna view I have is that there is one heck of an incentive to come up with a different cultivar through genetic engineering.

I don't subscribe to that whole Rachel Carson "Silent Spring" we are doomed view. Because we were supposed to be poisoned already, when in fact the air is cleaner than when she wrote that book. Until man sees the consequences of actions there is not the incentive to change course.

Many people sell fear by charting a straight line... If we stay on this path look at the doom it leads to. When in fact there are no straight lines anywhere in our history or in nature.

[Erroneous_Logic]

I mean, true, true, but it happened like fifty years ago, and we turned around and did the exact same thing with a new strain of bananas that tasted different. that's why bananas don't taste like banana flavoring. The variety that banana flavoring tastes like is no more.

[blackie]

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY
 
   
   
   99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic
   component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no
   discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of
   long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term
   trends.
   
   100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a
   long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost
   always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original
   state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political
   corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect;
   sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The
   level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain
   constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society.
   Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by
   widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be
   enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to
   be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in
   which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered
   but only pushed a step ahead.
   
   101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not
   stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather
   than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a
   long-term trend at all.
   
   102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large
   to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter
   the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which
   all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any
   important part without change all the other parts as well.
   
   103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to
   alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the
   society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various
   other societies have passed through the same change and have all
   experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on
   empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same
   change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
   
   104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on
   paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance,
   then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.
   
   105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of
   human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of
   a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the
   environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the
   environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways;
   and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to
   be untangled and understood.
   
   106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose
   the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of
   social evolution that are not under rational human control.
   
   107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.
   
   108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an
   attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the
   society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change
   that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory
   effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To
   make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important
   aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is
   required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising
   or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a
   revolution never changes only one aspect of a society; and by the
   third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by
   the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or
   utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.
   
   109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The
   American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word,
   but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political
   reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of
   development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They
   only freed the development of American society from the retarding
   effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any
   basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its
   natural direction of development. British society, of which American
   society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the
   direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of
   Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant
   degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The
   political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the
   British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration,
   to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very
   important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking
   world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its
   colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British
   descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially
   similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost
   their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our
   way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe
   we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had
   a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
   No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a
   counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.
   
   110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles.
   They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for
   interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present
   these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or
   guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas
   about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly
   in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with
   them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the
   conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
   
  INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
 
   
   
   111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it
   would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent
   it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been
   a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial
   Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in
   individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to
   protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental
   trend in the development of our society.
   
   Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one -- soon
   swamped by the tide of history -- or, if large enough to be permanent
   would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and
   second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way
   that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would
   be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in
   favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would realized that
   they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would
   be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a
   lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their
   disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor
   of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept
   radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system.
   In other words, by revolutionaries, not reformers.
   
   112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed
   benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of
   society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the
   fact that people who make suggestions seldom propose any practical
   means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first
   place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form
   of society could be once established, it either would collapse or
   would give results very different from those expected.
   
   113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbably that
   any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile
   freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give
   more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological
   progress are incompatible.
   
 
 
  RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
 
   
   
   114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped
   down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on
   the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot
   influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of
   arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any
   technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human
   behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what
   they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos.
   Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any
   substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would
   disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to
   differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their
   discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be
   eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by
   large organizations is necessary for the functioning of
   industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of
   powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however,
   that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by
   psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires
   of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health"
   programs, etc.)
   
   115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are
   increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For
   example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It
   can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to
   excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being
   to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A
   normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the
   real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are
   trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses.
   Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active
   outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our
   society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which
   most do grudgingly.
   
   116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify
   human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people
   who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare
   leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical
   environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
   
   117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate
   MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any
   great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into
   small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the
   cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a
   society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that
   affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a
   million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the
   average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What
   usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public
   officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but
   even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters
   ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be
   significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence
   measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no
   conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.
   The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make
   people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if
   this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel
   better, it would be demeaning.
   
   118 Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy."
   Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes
   less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with
   and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer
   networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern
   health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that
   technology applied in one location often affects people at other
   locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may
   contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the
   greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
   
   119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.
   Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs
   of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social
   ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the
   fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but
   by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many
   human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent
   that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of
   the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For
   example, the system provides people with food because the system
   couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's
   psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it
   couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.
   But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert
   constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the
   system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the
   educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a
   mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A
   chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask
   whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their
   time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put
   out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining,"
   no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in
   this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to
   technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put
   before technical necessity there would be economic problems,
   unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in
   our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual
   behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without
   showing signs of stress.
   
   120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy
   within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company,
   instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a
   catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed
   to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have
   tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for
   practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited
   extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to
   ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed
   toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their
   employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any
   company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to
   act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,
   workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,
   otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the
   system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible
   for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in
   industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only
   limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,
   he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system
   and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a
   new technology, the small-business person often has to use that
   technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
   
 
 
  THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS
 
   
   
   121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in
   favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in
   which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the
   "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take
   modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on
   progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other
   fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech
   equipment that can be made available only by a technologically
   progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much
   progress in medicine without the whole technological system and
   everything that goes with it.
   
   122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of
   the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.
   Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People
   with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and
   reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for
   diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the
   population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since
   diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of
   insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases
   susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the
   population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or
   extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the
   future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God
   (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a
   manufactured product.
   
   123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much
   NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic
   constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow
   the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the
   consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
   [19]
   
   124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical
   ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in
   the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code
   of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means
   of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody
   (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and
   such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others
   were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on
   the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of
   ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority
   would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a
   different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic
   engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom
   would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings,
   and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a
   technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a
   minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented
   by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible,
   especially since to the majority of people many of its applications
   will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and
   mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in
   today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used
   extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the
   industrial-technological system. [20]
   
  TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM
 
   125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between
   technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful
   social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED
   compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the
   outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful
   than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land.
   The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise.
   Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to
   give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece
   of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long
   series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually
   gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology
   and freedom.
   
   126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force
   than the aspiration for freedom.
   
   127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom
   often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it
   very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A
   walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace
   without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of
   technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced
   they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away
   from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't
   want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel
   much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized
   transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly
   man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it
   became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car,
   especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one
   likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of
   traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various
   obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,
   insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on
   purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer
   optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the
   arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority
   of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of
   employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that
   they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they
   must use public transportation, in which case they have even less
   control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the
   walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually
   has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to
   serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous
   and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we
   have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item
   of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept
   or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many
   cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people
   eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
   
   128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our
   sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF
   appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid
   long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of
   these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical
   advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to
   resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many
   advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs
   59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world
   in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in
   the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians,
   corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and
   bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21]
   The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic
   engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a
   genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no
   apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of
   genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an
   engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God,
   or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).
   
   129 Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is
   that, within the context of a given society, technological progress
   marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a
   technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become
   dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced
   innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a
   new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes
   dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if
   computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in
   only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology
   repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the
   overthrow of the whole technological system.
   
   130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at
   many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and
   regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large
   organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic
   engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and
   computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would
   require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect
   freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the
   rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no
   longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be
   futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological
   system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.
   
   131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all
   those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to
   be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a
   conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost
   always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the
   case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators,
   humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use
   propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve
   their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they
   find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about
   individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies
   are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects
   and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they
   can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent
   those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law
   officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but
   when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work
   is more important.
   
   132. It is well known that people generally work better and more
   persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid
   a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are
   motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those
   who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom are working to avoid a
   negative outcome, consequently there are a few who work persistently
   and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a
   signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further
   erosion of freedom through technological progress, most would tend to
   relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the
   scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as
   it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more
   and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent
   on the system.
   
   133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or
   ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology.
   History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all
   change or break down eventually. But technological advances are
   permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for
   example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements
   that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human
   beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten
   freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting.
   Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably
   sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic
   engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this
   invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological
   civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent
   through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently
   happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed
   that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the
   worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political
   wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
   
   134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful
   social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement
   requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next
   several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing
   severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and
   especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion,
   hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We
   hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will
   cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a
   revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment
   the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than
   technology.
   
   135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is
   left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing
   on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong
   neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak
   neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can
   kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to
   give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets
   well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible
   alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has
   the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we
   must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its
   sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.

[Tom Sawyer]

I didn't read the entire post (wall o' text).

Interesting though. Where did you get it from?

What is your take on the article?

[blackie]

Industrial Society and Its Future
by Theodore J. Kaczynski

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225468.Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future


AKA, unabomber's manifesto


http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

I agree with most of it.

[Tom Sawyer]

Industrial Society and Its Future
by Theodore J. Kaczynski

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/225468.Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future


AKA, unabomber's manifesto


http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

I agree with most of it.

 

Ya got me with that one.

Although I remember when that was published in the news and had to agree with much of it. It often comes down to what we should do about the situation. His approach didn't change anything.

Along those lines...
I took an oath when I entered the military to "Defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." So by their own oath they required me to swear to, I should be storming the Capitol or something, right? But, long ago I had to realize that those paths not only are suicide, but they lead to making things much worse.

Poor Ted, got all dark and isolated and forfeited his life with no positive result.

Things could be much worse than they are and positivity is the only path to any meaningful change.

I have often said that, "Libertarians are often one of the biggest obstacles in the way of their own cause." Spend too much time dwelling on how fucked up the gooberment has made things can end up turning the movement into a death cult... i.e.. "We're doom!" And more importantly missing the opportunities that present the chance to influence change.

[Erroneous_Logic]

Oh, the government -is- horrible. I always keep that firmly in mind, and use it as a sort of map for what to do next. Basically, I'm plotting my steps forward based on a loose recitation of the fall of the roman empire.

[Russell Kanning]

glass half full
There is a tv on in the room I am typing from ... there is a debate on ABC .... but good news, it is the vice-presidents debating
So no Hillary or Trump yay

[Free libertarian]

glass half full
There is a tv on in the room I am typing from ... there is a debate on ABC .... but good news, it is the vice-presidents debating
So no Hillary or Trump yay

I was driving last night and that was the only thing my radio could pick up, so I listened to some of it.   It was like taking a multiple choice test in school, where you knew all of the answers could be challenged because the question was misleading and formed wrong from the get go.   

[Russell Kanning]

so true

[KBCraig]

That's the biggest truth of this campaign season.