Unabomber manifesto part 164

[Anonymous No.11994915]

>164. Don’t imagine that the systems will stop developing
further techniques for controlling human beings and
nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and
increasing control is no longer necessary for the system’s
survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over
the system will increase its control over people and nature
more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties
of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival
is not the principal motive for extending control. As we
explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists
carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is,
they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems.
They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm,
and among the most interesting and challenging
problems for them to solve will be those of understanding
the human body and mind and intervening in their development.
For the “good of humanity,” of course.


Here is where I doint agree with Ted. Sure, there will be scientists that enable the technology for further mass control, but this does not automatically entail that the technology could be implemented. If we regard technological society as a non-personal, unintentional yet destructive process, why would it necessarily want to control humans if humans is no longer a threat or problem to it? It might just be more efficient leaving humans be, or even more so, humans and their dreams might be needed as the end goal for the process to satisfy?

Seems to me like Ted here is making unfounded assumptions

[Anonymous No.11994948]

>>11994915
>why would it necessarily want to control humans if humans is no longer a threat or problem to it?

That shows you that human threat was never its motivation to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11994994]

>>11994948

It doesn't really have motivations, we talk of it like a being, when it really is a process, a happening. It doesn't have a goal or motivation, just consequences

[Anonymous No.11995077]

>>11994915
You’ve read too much land and are projecting his impersonal techno-god on Ted’s writing. All Ted is saying here is that science gonna science no matter what. You may think it may not be implemented but if it fulfills it’s purpose and makes a task more efficient, then there is no debate, it will be used, even at the cost of the physical or the social. Think about it like this: Adobe recently released a project called VoCo, you speak to the software for ten minutes and after that capture timeframe the software is able to speak any words in your voice. This has massive implications for misuse and could lead to audio evidence being impermissible in a court of law. So Adobe built into the software a signature encoded in the sound waves that denotes that it is an inauthentic product of VoCo rather than authentic human voice. But imagine a more nefarious company had created this product and not put these measures in place (this will happen inevitably). What I want you to consider is the idea that we are not ‘inventing’ new technologies, we are discovering and unearthing material, physical possibilities that always lay there just waiting for someone to find. If ‘we’ aren’t creating tech then ‘they’ are.

“You can’t stop what’s coming”
No Country for Old Men.

[Anonymous No.11995097]

>>11994915
>If we regard technological society as a non-personal, unintentional yet destructive process, why would it necessarily want to control humans if humans is no longer a threat or problem to it?
Cause humans still require management, Wich requires control. What Ted here is just saying that at such point humans are made more obedient by genetic manipulation and are able to function better under this system Wich entails higher effeciency.

It might just be more efficient leaving humans be, or even more so, humans and their dreams might be needed as the end goal for the process to satisfy?
Only if we go even further and have the ability to have a hivemind type of organization. That would be after this point that Ted is speaking about. When you can have a hivemind then management by something or someone external Wich requires control isn't required.

To explain it more simply
Animal is wild and won't listen to commands, this is a problem cause the animal isn't useful for me to preform work.

I domesticate animal to the point of it becoming submissive and able to follow commands for useful work without much resistance. I can use the Animal for plowing, pulling and so on. But this still requires me as a human to "manage" and command this Animal for directions.

I genemod the Animal and give it some implants making it know it's functions and fully enjoy it without my intervention or management. It can communicate with others to preform tasks for the benefit for whatever system it obeys to.

[Anonymous No.11995111]

>>11995077

I never said science wasn't gonna continue, I question whether the application of science on humans can only go one way, which Ted assumes, and nothing in your post contributes to. A moviequote isn't an argument

>>11995097
Why would humans still require management, if they manage themselves? Let's say universal basic income is instituted and most humans are able to satsify their boredome with videogames, porn, music, drugs, etc. Why would the technological process care to spend more resources to control man even more? Man is not a problem for advancement anymore. This utopian society would probably leave new, stupid and weak man in the hands of the "machines", but I still don't see why the system necessarily must impose totalitarianism if humans are not a hindrance. Technology is a process. it doesn't have a goal or a motivation, and domineering men isn't one of its goals, only a side-effect, which could stop or peter out depending on the future of technology

[Anonymous No.11995157]

>>11995111
You’re an idiot

In your original post you regard technology as already some conscious entity in that you say it would ‘want’ to control humans. Humans want to control humans. That’s power. And tech offers that. And often technology inadvertently creates new systems of control as a side to its fundamental purpose. THIS is what Ted is saying... We have smartphones, great I can access the internet or speak to anyone anywhere instantly but the side effect is big data systems, polarised political parties existing in data bubbles, social media induced social anxiety etc etc..

With the VoCo example this is a crazy piece of software that could enable Tupac to write a song from the grave but it’s inadvertent side effect is that it could limit audio evidence in a court of law...

You combine this with the general belief of liberals that Ted also subscribes to, that humanity is a LACK and that we are something to improve, that we have to overcome our nature, overcome differences, racism, classism etc and you get a sense of why humanity (even a relatively well behaved one) will still always try to be better or have better tools and inadvertently give itself less freedom all the while.

The quote is from a book. Try reading some more.

[Anonymous No.11995192]

>>11995111
If you can't control the outcome 100%, then that's gambling. If you have power you don't want gamble it away.

[Anonymous No.11995200]

>>11995111
>Why would humans still require management, if they manage themselves?
Cause you require a hierarchy and bureaucracy to process orders and information to make small organizations cooperate in tune with other organizations to provide for each other. Humans who make copper wires need information for whom they make it, why, it's length, quality, quantity, where, when, how quickly, how good, how costly, with whom, and cooperating who will supply us the copper, transport it, who gets the workers, when, how, pay them, train them and general processing of information required to effectively organise and manage.

People can only do such if you have information organization that supplies all necessary data and communication for the organization of resources, workers, finance and so on without much issues. It's system supplying systems with a main system if information management ensuring all systems operate well and know what to do.

Like the brain controlling and commanding other functions of the body in part. If you are able to make each system highly intelligent, with excellent information processing and collective decision making you could cut the middle man and not require this central information management as all systems are all allready part of a collective hivemind.

And this, requires us to mod Humans to be able to operate as a hivemind to process and organize all this information in a collective way to know exactly everything necessary to not require any management of information as the human now is able to do it itself with all others collectively. This off course is a massive Technological undertaking and it would be best to go post human.

>Why would the technological process care to spend more resources to control man even more
Cause you want Humans to be useful and not be an drain for energy and resources. That is a waste, even so there are more effecient means of giving humans pleasure with virtual reality or full digitalization to minimize the cost humans have on energy and resources management.

Also I think we have a difference understanding of "control", I hear don't mean coercion but simply management. Like herding a herd of sheep with a dog, you control the herd to the thing you desire. To get them into a closed of area and cut the wool. You controlled them with the dog for your benefit to gain something of the sheep.

>Technology is a process. it doesn't have a goal or a motivation.
Well no but it does have a Logic! Just like Capital, it defines it and makes it function and progress. And Technological progress drives to further increase of effeciency to all it influence, just as capital drives on profit to exist. If effeciency isn't increased or profit isn't then both processes would halt and slowly Collapse as it's stagnant and not able to expand anymore for it's required input like resources to maintain and progress itself. Stop giving a car gasoline or spare parts for fix and it will stop working!

[Anonymous No.11995260]

>>11995157
Somehow I knew you wouldn't react to well for having your assumptions questioned

>Humans want to control humans

No, humans are not a homogenous group. Some humans might want 'control' of other humans, others might not.

>The quote is from a book. Try reading some more.

You still haven't made a single adequate point, maybe you should try reading less, it doesn't seem to be your thing

>If you can't control the outcome 100%, then that's gambling. If you have power you don't want gamble it away.

Technologcial process does not have a will, retard alert

>>11995200
>And this, requires us to mod Humans to be able to operate as a hivemind to process and organize all this information in a collective way to know exactly everything necessary to not require any management of information

To know exactly everything necessary to not require any management of information?

Your writing is incomprehensible

[Anonymous No.11995274]

>>11994915
>If we regard technological society as a non-personal, unintentional yet destructive process, why would it necessarily want to control humans if humans is no longer a threat or problem to it?

Why would you think of "technology" as some entity that exists apart from humans? Even if technology is impersonal, it only exists in relation to humans. In the same way that economic processes and market forces can be impersonal yet always exist in relation to humans and how they try to manipulate these forces.

[Anonymous No.11995280]

>Why would you think of "technology" as some entity that exists apart from humans?

non-personal does not mean it exists apart from humans, it means it doesn't have a persona or will of its own

[Anonymous No.11995304]

Has anybody seen Capital?

[Anonymous No.11995342]

>>11995260
>doesn’t respond to any of my points, just says they aren’t points
>thinks I am making assumptions

If you can’t see that there are horrific side effects that we ignore about technology because it is efficient and useful I have no idea why you are engaging with this material. It’s plain to see.

Let me spell this out retard. I am not saying all humans want control of humans. I am saying that SOME humans want control of humans, which was a response to your autismo point that technology wants control. Technology doesn’t want anything it is just used to the will of humans.

[Anonymous No.11995357]

>>11995260
Also you must be trolling if you don’t see how my points directly answer your argument.

Even if humanity were perfect and didn’t need to have totalitarian control, we would still create technologies that are designed for leisure that would accidentally impair our freedom as in the examples I gave.

[Anonymous No.11995378]

Control over humans is a byproduct of competition with other technologists (the "surrogate activity"). Look at the advertising/surveillance industry. Very few psychologists or programmers actually think "I want to turn the Internet into a nightmarish dystopia". They just think "wow! 5% higher conversion! I'm winning!".

However, I don't believe technology inevitably results in oppression, because there are people aware of this trend who turn technology on itself (notably Richard Stallman). Free (libre) Software is a pro-freedom use of technology. Adblockers are pro-freedom.

[Anonymous No.11995383]

>>11994915
Part of its victory over the crises of the next few decades will be the elimination of 90% of humans on earth. Then it will be able to continue unhampered in the next "dimension". So yeah, I don't think Ted saw that the system could emerge victorious from the terminal crisis and humans would not.

[Anonymous No.11995414]

>>11995192
>If you can't control the outcome 100%, then that's gambling.
All of life is gambling. If you're afraid of a little risk, why are you even alive? Further, what kind of god in myth hesitated because there was a little risk involved?

[Anonymous No.11995416]

>>11994915
I disagree with Ted.
Humans are nasty little brats. You try too hard to control and tyrannize them and they will soon find some form of mischief to make a mockery of your efforts.

[Anonymous No.11995428]

>>11995416
>says the increasingly nervous modern corporate wage slave for the tenth time in week

[Anonymous No.11995442]

>>11995414
That's why tech wants control.

[Anonymous No.11995447]

>>11995442
>tech
>wanting
Come again?

[Anonymous No.11995538]

>>11995447
you have much to learn

[Anonymous No.11995608]

>>11995538
Much to learn about how to be retarded and misunderstand everything?

[Anonymous No.11996261]

>>11994915
>current year
>reading the Unaboomer

[Anonymous No.11996483]

>>11996261
This. The Boomerbomber is in now.

[Anonymous No.11996568]

>>11996261
this dense

[Anonymous No.11996886]

>>11996261
>reading him any year
Why?

[Anonymous No.11997663]

>>11996261
the una bomber is specially relevant in this moment in time and if you can't see why you're a brainlet

[Anonymous No.11997676]

>modernity is corruption
>find some arable land and just bee yourself :^)

Remind me why people are so fascinated by the work of the second most inept terrorist of the modern epoch.

[Anonymous No.11998281]

>>11994994
cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.11998593]

>>11998281

>He thinks technology has a mind and is out for him

Maybe see a psychiatrist for ur schizo

[Anonymous No.11998609]

>>11995111
t. deluded scaredfag

truth is that every human has a carbon footprint and that will need to be reduced, at current technological pace, some form of mass murder will be utilitized. it’s the only option in due time

[Anonymous No.11998627]

>>11995428
fucking kek gotem
>>11995416
in the past the masses fought back with their swords against the king’s army’s swords. now tell me, what’s going to happen when we use our guns against impenetrable ai programmed death machines that only the elite own?

[Anonymous No.11999714]

>>11998609
Nope, we will jest colonize other planets and it will be like star trek and gundam technology is based and can solve all of technologies problems.

[Anonymous No.12001381]

bump

[Anonymous No.12002685]

>>11995260
Be a fag somewhere else.