Context: How new technology is introduced on public streets and we have no choice or say on whether we want it or not, even if it endangers us and gets us killed.
> 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 and farther than a 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.
and
> Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to 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 this important point that we have just 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.)
> 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.
This is offtopic, but I am reminded of how Slack initially supported IRC gateways and recently discontinued them.
It’s not a percect likeness to this quote’s point. But I think it’s interesting this pattern of initially optional technology, then de facto standardized technology emerges ubiquitously.
I suppose it’s arguable that embrace, extend and extinguish is the purposeful, deliberate manifestation of this pattern, arbitrated by a single entity (i.e. a company with a new technology).
Edit: Jeez an immediate downvote? The comment was barely posted a minute ago :)
This is a great point. Note, though, this is not new.
It's been been happening since the invention of the first tool. Stone weaponry, agriculture, and so forth, all became largely non-optional after their introduction.
The major difference, though, is that most major technologies are not also accompanied by legislation that effectively penalizes the old methods. There's nothing legally penalizing me from using a bow and arrow, or buying hand-woven clothes, etc., whereas walking is effectively criminal in some parts of the US: https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/living/florida-mom-arrested-s...
Sure, but they're considered weapons and subject to weapons laws. Firearms are not inherently privileged over a bow and arrow, the way that cars are legally privileged over pedestrians in many cases.
It's so refreshing to actually read a truly free thinking and intelligent discussion on the problems of technology and its impacts on society.
Anyway, I just finished reading Kaczynski's first book, "Technological Slavery" (Feral House, 2010) It's an amazing work and it elaborates on this point quite a bit. Recommended.
An “amazing work,” just to be very very clear, by Ted Kaczynski, the serial bomber. Not that he has nothing of value to say, but keep the source well in mind. He’s a smart guy, with a lot of insight, and he’s also batshit crazy and a remorseless killer.
Yes, he is a remorseless killer. No he's not "batshit crazy".
You might also want to check out his most recent work, "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How" (2016)
Here's what MIT's student newspaper had to say about the book:
"Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is Kaczynski’s well-reasoned, cohesive composition about how revolutionary groups should approach our mercurial future….. I recommend that you read this compelling perspective on how we can frame our struggles in a technological society."
-- The Tech, MIT's oldest and largest newspaper
"batshit crazy" haha. A political classification if there ever was one.
>But at the same time, I don't personally want to go back to an age before automobiles became commonplace.
Neither would I, but I think the cautionary value in the discussion of the resulting inadvertent restriction of pedestrian freedom is not to visualize an auto-free world as an alternative but instead to visualize a new set of customs of urban development that aggressively protect pedestrian freedom. In the real estate world, the walkability movement is concerned with this and should achieve greater influence.
I don't think that anyone is asking for a return to nature, but America has shown that adopting the automobile as the primary mode of transportation and adapting all of society wholesale for it has serious side effects. Rather than promote it as (essentially) the only option, automobiles should be a tool in a toolkit of transportation methods.
I didn't see how terrible our system is until I moved to an area that is friendly to walkers, well friendlier than the giant pickup truck havens of the Midwest where I lived most of my life.
Someone above mentioned how this type of dependency problem has happened since the first tool -- I don't think so. The problems I deal with daily are drivers who are staring at their smartphone as they turn, or people simply trying to beat the pedestrian across the crosswalk. I've had moments where my life flashed before my eyes more than I can count, and every single time the driver waves their hand at me like it's my fault. I'd like for them to get out of their mobile uterus so we can discuss this like adults, but instead I'm left yelling at their big metal machine, and they're yelling at the interior. And this is in a "walker friendly" area.
Context: How new technology is introduced on public streets and we have no choice or say on whether we want it or not, even if it endangers us and gets us killed.
> 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 and farther than a 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.
and
> Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to 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 this important point that we have just 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.)
Source: The Mainfesto: INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...