Society ruled by Machines? Industrial Society and its Future - Kaczynsky Manifesto

friendface

I posted this in Humanities but maybe one of the Mods could move it to the conspiracy theories section (or lock the other thread) as I think maybe it might be more appropriate here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055456332

friendface

The following are my posts from the original thread:


I was watching a program called Human V2.0 on RTE2 tonight about how technological advances are allowing for creation of computers with far superior artificial intelligence.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/singularity/ for details.

It's predicted that by 2029 computer intelligence will equal the power of the human brain. Some believe this will revolutionise humanity - we will be able to download our minds to computers extending our lives indefinitely. Others fear this will lead to oblivion by giving rise to destructive ultra intelligent machines.

During the program, there was mention of Ted Kaczynsky (aka the Unabomber) who publicly called for a revolution against the rise of technology. I just read his manifesto there this evening and some of his ideas are intrigueing. I would really suggest anyone who has the time to read through it.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#Industrial-technological_society_cannot_be_reformed

It's a fairly long article but well worth the read. He speaks about society as a system which is effectively controlling humanity


THE POWER PROCESS
He says that the industrial revolution led to terrible consequences for humanity, attributing many of todays social and psychological problems to the disruption in the natural human way of life, or a disruption in what he calls the "power process".

The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later.

In order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed.....One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.....Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression...

Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group.

Kaczynski goes on to claim that "n modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives." Among these drives are "surrogate activities", activities "directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the 'fulfillment' that they get from pursuing the goal"

In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one's physical needs.... Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction... For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next.

I won't describe all of Kazcynskys work as I will just be quoting him directly.

I guess the conclusion of his article is that in a society driven by surrogate activities which are never fulfilled, and where technology is continuously being advanced, we are headed for a world where humanity is destroyed or reduced to an insignificant species on a planet run almost entirely by computers and machines.

I guess this sounds a bit like the script for Terminator but it does seem entirely possible that this may be where we are headed. I'm not saying we would be enslaved by machines but eventually our presence will barely be necessary with many tasks being carried out by machines. We are becoming so dependent on technology that it's hard to imagine life without it or even life without any one of our modern conveniences.

What is human society really working towards? What is our goal?

What do ye think? Are these just paranoid theories or is there some justification behind them?


Just a few more links to some interesting articles;

Interview with Ted Kaczynsky http://www.primitivism.com/kaczynski.htm

Ship of Fools (Kaczynskys Short story symbolising societies voyage toward destruction) http://bigoil.gnn.tv/blogs/6607/Ship_of_Fools_by_Ted_Kaczynski

Ship of Fools (Lego Video ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKh1mOeXfqE


While I don't agree entirely with Dr. Kaczynsky's argument, some of his work does strike me as being really interesting and well worth a debate. Like how technology is constantly encroaching on human freedom and how we as individuals have increasing less control over our lives. I agree with him on this, though I am not sure as to how much of a part this has to play in causing human suffering (boredom, depression etc). His argument however does get you to think outside the box, about where humanity is headed.

Look at the advances made in science and technology over the last decade or so. It's true to say that todays sci-fi is tomorrows reality. The advancement of technology is a task which never ends. At what point should we stop. Imagine computers with processing power far superior to the human mind, where factories could produce super-computers on vast scale, where tasks become completely automated and computers become self-advancing...

What place would human beings have in a world controlled by technology? At best our lives would become menial with little/nothing to do but feed and sleep. :eek:

friendface

Wagon wrote: »

I'll be honest, I love computers. I love building them and love learning new things about them and their capabilities. I work with them every day. I play games and use Skype and MSN and got a facebook. I'm a nerd, through and through.

Computers were always faster than humans. Even a calculator can complete complex mathamitical functions extrememly quickly. Press ctrl+alt+delete right and click on the "processes" tab. No human could hope to do that all at once. That's why computers were built; to assist us in solving problems that were far out of our own mental reach or would take far too long to calculate ourselves.

The concept of using them as a tool to help us in our lives is gradually evolving into making them an extension of your brain. Something that will do everything for you. There's nothing wrong with playing games, using MSN to chat to your mates miles away etc... You are in control of that and it's still the piece of equipment you need to do those things. But it's getting to the stage of having your PC automatically send your weekly shopping order to tesco at the same time every week rather than going and buying it yourself. It's easier to have someone else do it for you.

Many factories are automated now, which is good as it reduces costs and makes things more affordable for the common man. On the other hand, where do you stop automating? Do you eventually give a computer complete control of your factory? Yep cos it's easier. And besides if something goes wrong the computer gets the blame. This may be pretty far fetched, but it probably isn't far away from happening. It might have already bloody happened somewhere.

Computers now relieve humans of responsability. They are an escape from realisty for some. Look at that godawful World of Warcraft! People literally live their lives on that thing! The internet is a great way to communicate what you are too afraid to communicate in real life (you see it on boards all the time).

That siad, I'm glad they're here. They are the best parts of a TV, radio, phone and newspaper combined but like all those things, they are just a tool and should be treated as such. They can never match humans as they don't have the emotional capacity to do so. And remember humans have to build them in the first place. It's up to them to draw the line and see the difference between versitility and intellegence.

.

friendface

I agree that computers play a very important role in all our lives and we would be lost without them. I too am a big computer user. Technology is something I have always been interested in from a very young age. I remember getting our first computer about 10 years ago and putting it together. (I think I was about 11 at the time) The excitement of using even simple programs like MS Paint and Minesweeper :rolleyes: Prior to having a computer, games consoles were always a huge part of my childhood. I had a Commodore64, Super Nintendo, N64, PS, PS2... I was hooked. Since then, I have kind of grown out of games consoles (though I still enjoy the odd multiplayer shoot-em-up on the PC with mates).

What do you think of Kaczynskys argument that society would be better off without the advanced technological infrastructure thats present today. He says that our lives are consumed by pursuing tasks which are practically unattainable. The entrepreneur is always trying to make more and more money. The scientist finishes one problem, but no sooner than he fisishes than he moves onto a new problem. We are using 'surrogate activities' to fill the gap left in the 'power process' by most of our basic needs being provided for by society with little need for exertion of any effort. Kaczynsky obviously explains this far more articulately in his article so I won't try to elaborate here.

He claims that these pursuits leave a lot of people feeling unfulfilled. Although, of course, there are exceptions and many people are perfectly content to continue doing what they are doing and their job provides them with complete fulfillment. Do you think early man was happier though. He knew his task, what he needed to do for survival. He had to hunt and when this task was completed successfully he would have been fulfilled. He also had a lot more freedom than modern man, in that he had more control over his surroundings. Kaczynsky claims that modern man has a lot of decisions imposed on him by society and this is one of the underlying causes for social and psychological problems that are rampant in todays world.

Technology, while appearing to solves our problems and improve our lives, seems to lead to more serious problems in the long run. Scientists are constantly coming up with ways of extending human life. This seems to be great on the surface but will lead to increased populations and more strain on resources in the future. I know that this goes against all modern thinking. It seems counter-intuitive to be claiming that these technological advances are actually bad for humanity. I am constantly having conflicting thoughts on the subject since I started reading the article.

There an interesting anecdote that kind of sums up the problem in simple terms. I found it fairly amusing.

Dr. Resnick, also a Harvard alumni, once posed the following question in a seminar on political legitimacy: Say a group of scientists asks for a meeting with the leading politicians in the country to discuss the introduction of a new invention. The scientists explain that the benefits of the technology are indisputable, that the invention will increase efficiency and make everyone's life easier. The only down side, they caution, is that for it to work, forty-thousand innocent people will have to be killed each year. Would the politicians decide to adopt the new invention or not? The class was about to argue that such a proposal would be immediately rejected out of hand, then he casually remarked, "We already have it--the automobile."

Every advance in technology seems to create more problems further down the line. Thus, there is a never-ending pursuit of solving these problems through technology, leading to more and more problems. To what end are we working towards. Imaging a world in te future where every part of the globe becomes intensely populated. We will have overcrowding on a mass scale. I guess the only way to stop this becoming a problem would be to enforce a limit on human reproduction? All in all, it seems we are heading towards a society where our freedoms are becoming incresingly reduced. While it seems our lives are getting better, could it be that they are actually worsening.

In one passage, Kaczynsky envisages a future where humans become menial beings, reduced basically to the status of sort of domestic pets where all of our basic needs are looked after by 'the system'.

Also, I realise computers have also had more processing power than humans. But the worrying prospect is the future development of artificial intelligence where atomic computers are being developed with 'thought' capabilities. They may not be human in the classic sense but there may come a time when we end up putting computers in charge of decision making in society because any decision they make is surely better than 'man-made' decisions. That day may not be far off either with the current rate at which technology is advancing. I can imagine computers being developed to take control of factories, and making decisions when necessary without the need for human input. When that day comes, it won't be long before we start appointing computers to make more important decisions which influence peoples lives. I am not saying computers will take over or turn against humanity or anything of the sort but there may come a time when it will be seen that important decisions should be made by computers because of their superior 'thought-capabilities'. There may still be politicans 'in-charge' but whose to say what will be done 'fo the good of humanity'. Every advance in technology is considered to be 'for the good of humanity' but are we in effect making the human race 'obsolete'.

Maybe i'm getting ahead of myself here. It makes sense when you read Kaczynskys article. The section entitled 'The Future' makes for particularly interesting reading.

humanji

Are you having a conversation with yourself?

friendface

Yes, I always talk to myself. Really I'm not mad.

No, I just copied the posts from the original thread. I thought it was more suited to this section. I had originally posted in Humanities. Maybe one of the Mods could lock the original thread as I don't think it would get any replies over in humanities. Thanks

Kernel

Very interesting and thought provoking. I'll need more time to mull it over and read into it. Thanks for posting it anyway.

nyarlothothep

Ok this isn't fully thought out but...firstly Kacynsky for all his incredible talent as a mathematician is flawed in his reasoning. He makes the assumption that people are only fulfilled in tasks which produce tangible results with end points. However what exactly is so bad with a never ending story which is continually good? I like Star Trek. I hope it never ends. I don't get tired with it unless its not up to standard. What he would be more appropriate in saying is that 9-5 drudgery is meaningless, consumerism is meaningless, disastisfying etc. Yes these are the things which truly suck.

He makes another mistake in thinking that the world prior to the industrial revolution was somehow better which is mental to put it bluntly. Life was hell, many people died of disease, society was ruled by the most ruthless some of whom had the gall to think of themselves as semi divine, war was rampant, religion was ubiquitous, civil liberties null. Prehistoric society was similarly nasty I would imagine, everyday meant survival, not living.

So his argument is to run away from the problems confronting us with our advancement as a species. Retrogression is not the answer as I see it. I think the current system of corrupt politicians, in fact the hierarchical system of most societies, where people continue to be exploited despite all our progress (in the western world) in terms of individual rights, could be attributed to those prior centuries he speaks of, when we lived in harsher conditions and the vicious rised to the top as a result.

Finally he was and still is a nutjob. A very clever nutjob. For example his manifesto was typed and had virtually no mistakes. But a nutjob nonetheless. He lost it somehow and his calls for retrogression sound like a reflection of his own need to get back to a childhood state almost.

Now in terms of computers ruling us, hmmm...Hugo De Garris is trying to build an intelligent super computer and has so far failed. He describes the future as an apocalyptic battle between the terrans and the artilects (artificial intellects), basically machines will regard us as pests, wipe us out and explore the galaxy. Now there is one major problem with this, why would the artilects want to wipe us out??? Perhaps they would regard us as their parent and so would be benign towards us. Mayhaps humans would still have a place as transhumans, corporeal beings as intelligent as their computer compatriots, due to cybernetic implants. Furthermore, perhaps humans would merge with the central computer intelligence, with people entering into when they would get bored with their material existence.

If anything technological progression is an ongoing story that gets better and better with a few bad episodes, and series. I believe that our prosperity is linked with it and further still, that it affords us the opportunity to address higher questions and issues like this one now. Moreover I think there is a weak link (because other factors are involved) between increased civil liberties and prosperity which is aided by technological progress. But if there were no prosperity, if it were simply a fight to survive, it would be a case of the rule of the most brutal and devious.

In conclusion no programmer is going to program a super computer to be unethical or anti social towards humans. They would have to put in a few fundamental bits of code to prevent that from happening, if there was a serious plan to put them in charge of administration for example. In any case I think they would do a better job than us, seeing as we seem to be p1ss poor at ruling ourselves. A lot of people take no responsibility for how the state is run, this is one of the reasons why corporate and political scum float to the top. Also some people erroneously seem to think that negative qualities somehow equate to being good like ruthlessness.

There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way the human species thinks. We need to think in terms of the bigger picture. And I think technology will aid us in that, if we use it wisely. I thought about this two years ago and it would be great if we could meld with an essentially benign yet completely rational computer intelligence, to become part of an interconnected web of consciousnesses while retaining our individual sentience.

friendface

First nyarlothothep I would like to thank you for your post. It's nice to get such an intelligent reply. I don't completely agree with most of Kaczynsky's arguments myself but I must say it did get me thinking. I didn't like the implications of a technology-driven society that Kaczynsky claimed were inevitable, so I was hoping for a decent reply like this to provide a counter-argument.

He makes another mistake in thinking that the world prior to the industrial revolution was somehow better which is mental to put it bluntly. Life was hell, many people died of disease, society was ruled by the most ruthless some of whom had the gall to think of themselves as semi divine, war was rampant, religion was ubiquitous, civil liberties null. Prehistoric society was similarly nasty I would imagine, everyday meant survival, not living.

I don't think Kaczynsky claimed life was all roses prior to the industrial revolution. He claims that while living conditions may have been poorer, man had more control over his surroundings and his environment and therefore would have had an improved mental state.

It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. but psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us feel secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless; nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nation-wide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.

I guess its true that ignorance is bliss. Primitive man would not have known life to be any better. He endured hardship but I assume that survival would have provided him with great fulfillment. It seems that societies problems have over time shifted from those of a physical nature to those of a mental nature. Most of our physical needs are reasonably well looked after in society. In the Western world, most of us grow up with a roof over our head and plenty food and nourishment to satisfy all our physical needs. However, as Kaczynsky says, all of this advancement/improvement has led to other problems in the form of psychological issues. Depression/Anxiety/Stress etc.. are issues which a lot of us face in modern society. I doubt these would have been problems in primitive society where survival would have been the key issue.

I know it's ridiculous to claim that we should revolt against technology and destroy it. That obviously won't solve our problems. As you say retrogression is not the answer. It simply would not work.

I can nearly see how Kaczynsky went mad. It's one of those problems, that the more you seem to look at it the more distant the solution seems to be.

In a way, I feel sympathy for him. He saw technology as the problem with society and moved into the mountains to try and escape only to find that there was no escape.

"The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two days hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it" His voice trails off; he pauses, then continues, "You just can't imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge."

He looked at this problem with society as a mathematician and tried to find a straight-forward solution in what is not a straight-forward problem. Maybe, being an engineering student, I shared his view up to point, trying to find a simple to solution to a complex problem. It's just not possible I guess.

I have to say though, Kaczynskys story really intrigues me. If you read the interview in the link I posted (http://www.primitivism.com/kaczynski.htm) he seems to be a fairly reasonable guy. You can sort of understand what drove him to do what he did. I think his life would make for a great book or a movie (Reminds me of 'A beautiful mind' but with a far more tragic ending).


I want to read more into your post anyway but its late and I better get some sleep. Thanks for the reply

humanji

friendface wrote: »

Yes, I always talk to myself. Really I'm not mad.

No, I just copied the posts from the original thread. I thought it was more suited to this section. I had originally posted in Humanities. Maybe one of the Mods could lock the original thread as I don't think it would get any replies over in humanities. Thanks

lol, ah right. I spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out what was going on.

Offalycool

Great Stuff This Idea is exactly what Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is about (Though there is more than one interpretation). Good Flick.