read on and discuss, please:
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking person formerly could go where they pleased, go at their own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase peoples freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking person, no one had to have an automobile if they didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking person. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly peoples 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 they continually 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 they choose, 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.)
PLEASE NOTE: 'unabombers' original manifesto was self edited and never received any other editing. i therefore decided to omit the terms, "men/man/mans/mens" and replace with people,person, etc. ted's language was perhaps not the 'best', but this piece on technology is surely bang on and a good reason to discuss real revolutionary progress?
anyone care to comment?
Comments
Hide the following 14 comments
the choice is ours not his
18.01.2010 22:48
This is anouther version of "I am right,everyone listen to me,come on EVERYONE, I am important" and when rightly regarded by those not shareing his rather totalitarianist approach to life, he chucks a fit and blows stuff up.
Want to use tech, and have the choice as to what amount of it you use = hes a crank and should be laughed at
Dont want to use tech and wish to reject all modern aids = become an amish or go live in a cave
Your choice, dont you dare try and make it for me.
anon
more freedom
19.01.2010 00:16
I can go away at the weekend pretty much anywhere i choose and its a lot faster than walking especially if i've got luggage. Walking - you'd get about 10 miles and then consider not really going any further.
Additionally, a car protects you from hostile environments - who walks in the windy sleet. And a car allows you to easily travel at night
Finally, the disabled and elderly have a lot more freedom because of cars.
jud
More Freedom?
19.01.2010 08:15
very strange comments regarding your view that cars give more freedom. It seems that your limited view of 'freedom' is simply defined by what benefits you gain from, in this case, a piece of technology.
Sadly it is this selfish view of freedom that leads to many of the screwed up situations societies are faced with today. Think of ourselves and stuff others. For instance the article states that the freedom to drive has greatly restricted the freedom of others to walk. Of course we all have to breath in the crap that cars produce and are suffering the costs of global warming of which cars of course have played their part.
Problems/costs are externalized - something that your limited view simply does not take into account.
Of course, perhaps the biggest problem with cars, and other industrial technologies is the massive amount of raw materials that have to be extracted, transported etc. Activities that have had devastating effects on indigenous/tribal people worldwide. Asking people to have their environments devastating so that we can enjoy the freedom of getting away quickly on the weekend with our luggage seems pretty unfair to me.
Steve
@ jud and anon
19.01.2010 11:12
Here's the following paragraph from the unabomber, which replies itslef to the crap you both just said.
as taken from 'unabomber manifesto':
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 persons fate is no longer in their own hands or in the hands of their neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom they as an individual have no power to influence. 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).
the cisco kid
re: unabomber fanboy
19.01.2010 17:52
Think for yourself. Write your own manifesto on primitivism and the evils of the industrial revolution. Don't use the textbook of a mentally inbalanced murderer to make your point for you.
fuck terrorism,state and otherwise
hmmm@fuck terrorism,state and otherwise
19.01.2010 19:05
i said regardless of what you think of him, he was right about tech versus freedom.i said nothing of primitivism or killing people. i said he was right about tech vs freedom and called for discussion.
im no "fan boy" as you say, i just found an article about him and though id mention some of the manifesto for maybe to inspire others to discuss these things and maybe act on them.
you seem angry at me for some reason, yet you know nothing of me......?
anyway,discussion of tech vs freedom welcome....
the cisco kid
discuss
19.01.2010 21:39
Cars have given people a huge amount of freedom and let them do a whole lot more than they could of without cars.
Regarding cities, we all know a city like London is conjested and high with pollution.
If you don't like it then don't live there and leave the millions of people who do want that lifestyle to stay there.
I find lefties are all for making their environment better, but when it comes to planting wind turbines in the remaining beauty spots, they have no qualms in spoiling it for people WHO ACTUALLY DO WANT TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. If these people were so bothered about the country and nature, they wouldn't be living in a city would they?
Max
Why?
19.01.2010 22:22
Jason
hmmm
20.01.2010 10:21
discussions on this subject welcome, not just shouting me down because you love your car and have "car driver guilt" as you know you cause pollution as a result of fossil fuel engine usage. more constructive arguments, possibly based in fact and your personal opinions welcome, but not your reactionary drivel thanks.....
@ john: why is it not hidden then, if its spam? why is it not news? because its not also on the bbc news website, or the daily mail website? get a grip, its alternative media, its alternative discussion, its real life, mate, as much as you may live in denial about the mess you cause with your love of technology.........have you got "car driver guilt, too"?
sounds like it.
the cisco kid
The future needs an action doing on it!
21.01.2010 20:06
But I agree with his direct action to disrupt the way the future develops. I do think it has seriously challenged people devolping these new technologies think twice about its impact and are having to seriously justify it. Because of Ted K actions people are aware of alternative opinions that are opposed to sleepwalking into an unwanted future tyrany. Many sci-fi films have weird visions of the future. In 'terminator' A.I. is the future problem and a bit of direct paramilitary action is required to stop it.
I think technology gives us more freedom, more freedom of speech, more knowledge, more freetime, better propaganda. But who will fight the future technologies of control? eg. GCHQs tyrany.
autism freaks of the world unite!
@ autism freaks of the world unite!
22.01.2010 00:52
Terminator is obviously made up....yet tech has been responsible for many MILLIONS of deaths.
I would never call for all technological advances to be scrapped, never, not me personally. solar panels, even though quartz is extensively mined and it is not in abundance, can be massively better for a community than fossil-fuelled energy provision. I personally would like a solar panel, yet for a billions of us to have them would be near impossible. however, billions of people sharing energy from them is different.
But i would love to see the doing a way with lots of the stuff that kills or leads people to kill, whether accidentally, by way of car, or purposefully, by way of gun, for example, or the tech that inhibits human expression or freedoms, like CCTV or public order control laws.
Is a system like a public order law even a "technology" in that respect, or is there a clear line?
anyone care to discuss further?
the cisco kid
More tech = less freddom
22.01.2010 08:26
Here I find the use of the word 'freedom' very strange indeed. The idea that more tech has advanced struggles I just find baffling. For starters it has got us off the streets and sat behind our screens, obsessed with sexy worldwide struggles and all the while becoming more and more detached from our communities where we can have change. Gone is face to face organising and discussion replaced by isolated people freely insulting each other from the safety of our computers.
Of course those in authority make far better use of new technologies than we do. To believe that organisations such as the government, police, army and corporations don't reap far greater benefits from technology than people struggling against them is very naive. Sure we get to put our news out there through great initiatives such as indymedia but to believe that this has eroded the scope of authorities to exert control is ludicrous. Of course technological advances have meant that world is simply being destroyed at a far greater rate than ever. We are no closer to stopping the juggernaut.
Of course technological advances have given us far more freedom to further deteriorate our health and the health of the environment. The freedom to pave, and destroy, the countryside with roads so that we can travel where we like.
To talk of technology giving "us" more freedom shows how narrow a view of who is impacted is taken here. As I mentioned in a previous post, those whose environment and cultures are being decimated so that we can have luxury items in most cases don't see that their freedom is being enhanced. Of course those whose labour is producing our goods in such desperate labour conditions likewise would hardly see our products as enhancing their freedoms.
Freedom isn't just an individual perception. If our freedom (even if it is agreed that we have more freedom - which of course I don't buy into) is based on the suffering of others (people, animals and the environment) then what moral worth can it have?
Steve
@ steve
22.01.2010 10:38
"Of course those in authority make far better use of new technologies than we do"
its true. and its also true that we, certainly myself, spend too much time trawling the net for our causes.
alas, the weather's getting warmer, so more demo's/actions coming up im sure. not that i haven't done my fair share in the rain or cold, im just a family person now, more focused on literature and discussion with my peers.so i take more of a back seat now. let the young uns get up to the front line while they have the energy, eh?
the cisco kid
pic
24.01.2010 12:34
Ted K.
r