| ANTI-PALEOTECHNOCRATIC MANIFEST
original Version by David K. corrected Version (suggestions for WAYS OUT) by EUROPANTH to be crossreaded with Ethics
of Occupational Safety and Health --- German (unter "technological"
ist die überkommene Form v. technokratisch
zu verstehen)
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the
life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they
have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering
(in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe
damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology
will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater
indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably
lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may
lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries
.
.........
73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee. .................... 114. As explained in paragraph 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 , 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.
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.
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.
Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions
that affect their lives. Their is no conceivable (exept
in Ethics of Occupational Safety and
Health --- German) 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. 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. 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.
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. Na
endlich ein Versuch der Patentierung positiver Modelle!!! Die "positive
Norm" wird es endlich erlauben, gegen ungerechtfertigte Zuschreibungen,
Stigmatisierungen und Vorurteile gesamtgesellschaftlich vorzugehen!! Rassismus
ade!!!
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.
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. Zumal sich der Schimpanse genetisch nur geringfügig vom Menschen unterscheidet, wird man wegen minimalsten genetischen Unterschieden kaum viel Theater machen. Den jetzt noch Rassisten wird es eher wie Schuppen von den Augen fallen, worüber man sich vorher so mokiert hat. Vielleich gibt es sogar ein Rassismus-Gen, das man gentechnisch elegant wegzüchten könnte....
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 before, 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. 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).
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.
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 transformation (Ethics of Occupational Safety and Health --- German) occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology. 139. And note this important difference: It is
conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day
be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens
it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to
solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve
freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest
of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible
extent. Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system
to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally
practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior
ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the
encroachment on freedom.) This isn't just our opinion. Eminent
social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of
"socializing" people more effectively.
|
