From 31ba7a56248d53090b0ad79891bf185ffc6286b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: kurets Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 08:52:27 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] . --- .../Why_the_Technological_System_Will_Destroy_Itself.md | 8 ++------ new-site/public/blog/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/categories/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/library/hackbook/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/library/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/index.xml | 6 ++---- .../index.html | 6 ++---- new-site/public/tags/blog/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/tags/index.xml | 6 ++---- new-site/public/tags/updates/index.xml | 6 ++---- 11 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) diff --git a/new-site/content/library/ted-kaczynski/Why_the_Technological_System_Will_Destroy_Itself.md b/new-site/content/library/ted-kaczynski/Why_the_Technological_System_Will_Destroy_Itself.md index 31b08900..392556b0 100644 --- a/new-site/content/library/ted-kaczynski/Why_the_Technological_System_Will_Destroy_Itself.md +++ b/new-site/content/library/ted-kaczynski/Why_the_Technological_System_Will_Destroy_Itself.md @@ -134,9 +134,7 @@ This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach pe [^1]: When we refer to “competition” we don't necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors. -[^2]: Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don't know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: - -Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance. +[^2]: Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don't know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance. [^3]: When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that's why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long. @@ -152,9 +150,7 @@ Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. Dur [^9]: See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827. -[^10]: For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n" generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. - -For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation. +[^10]: For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n" generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation. [^11]: Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals. diff --git a/new-site/public/blog/index.xml b/new-site/public/blog/index.xml index 41961df7..bf80e740 100644 --- a/new-site/public/blog/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/blog/index.xml @@ -1427,8 +1427,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1438,7 +1436,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1462,7 +1460,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/categories/index.xml b/new-site/public/categories/index.xml index 4d0bb738..f131e4a5 100644 --- a/new-site/public/categories/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/categories/index.xml @@ -1426,8 +1426,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1437,7 +1435,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1461,7 +1459,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/index.xml b/new-site/public/index.xml index 973bdb44..a1c57354 100644 --- a/new-site/public/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/index.xml @@ -1427,8 +1427,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1438,7 +1436,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1462,7 +1460,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/library/hackbook/index.xml b/new-site/public/library/hackbook/index.xml index 3dd0bd4a..9c802b05 100644 --- a/new-site/public/library/hackbook/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/library/hackbook/index.xml @@ -1427,8 +1427,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1438,7 +1436,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1462,7 +1460,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/library/index.xml b/new-site/public/library/index.xml index 2ec43dfb..860562d9 100644 --- a/new-site/public/library/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/library/index.xml @@ -1427,8 +1427,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1438,7 +1436,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1462,7 +1460,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/index.xml b/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/index.xml index 5ce28a58..9130fe07 100644 --- a/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/index.xml +++ b/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/index.xml @@ -1427,8 +1427,6 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”</p> <p>These are some of the tools that organizations use to counter environmentalists’ efforts to arouse public concern; similar tools can help to blunt other forms of resistance to the organizations’ pursuit of power. The organizations that are most successful in blunting public resistance to their pursuit of power tend to increase their power more rapidly than organizations that are less successful in blunting public resistance to their power-seeking activities, whatever the degree of environmental damage involved. Because such organizations have great wealth at their disposal, environmentalists do not have the resources to compete with them in the propaganda war.</p> <p>This is the reason, or an important part of the reason, why attempts to teach people to be environmentally responsible have done so little to slow the destruction of our environment. And again—note well—the process we’ve described is not contingent on any accidental set of circumstances or on any defect in human character. Given the availability of advanced technology, the process of inevitability accompanies the action of natural selection upon self-propagating systems.</p> -<p>Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.</p> -<p>For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.</p> <div style="text-align: center;"> <p><a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library">Back to the Library</a> - <a href="https://vodoraslo.xyz/library/ted-kaczynski">More from Ted Kaczynski</a></p> </div><div class="footnotes" role="doc-endnotes"> @@ -1438,7 +1436,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>When we refer to “competition” we don&rsquo;t necessarily mean intentional or willful competition. Competition, as we use the term, is just something that happens. For example, plants certainly have no intention to compete with one another. It is simply a fact that the plants that most effectively survive and propagate thesmelves tend to replace those plants that less effectively survive and propagate themselves. “Competition” in this sense of the word is just an inevitable process that goes on with or without any intention on the part of the competitors.&#160;<a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:2"> -<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur:&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>Something along these lines, but more complicated; probably happened among the ancient Maya. See Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Penguin, New York, 2011, pp. 157-177. Probably many good examples could be drawn from the realm of economics. I don&rsquo;t know enough about economics to cite any specific examples, but something like the following might well occur: Two savings-and-loan associations, X and Y, compete for the same depositors. During a real estate boom X makes money hand over fist by investing massively in real estate and therefore is able to offer its depositors a higher rate of interest than does,Y, which follows a more cautiousinvestment policy. As a result, Y loses most of its depositors to X. Perhaps Y will go out of business; if not, it will certainly be greatly weakened. A few years later the. real estate bubble bursts and X goes broke. Thus, a trait (willingness to take risks) that is conducive, and perhaps necessary, to the survival of X in the short term, leads to the demise of X in the long term. I rather suspect that this example represents in grossly simplified form a phenomenon that occurs fairly often in the world of finance.&#160;<a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:3"> <p>When we refer to the exercise of “foresight” or to the “pursuit” of advantage, our reference is not limited to the conscious, intelligent foresight or to the intentional pursuit of advantage. We include any behavior (interpreting that word in the broadest possible sense) that has the same effect as the exercise of foresight, or the same effect as the pursuit of advantages, regardless of whether the behavior is guided by any mechanism that could be described as “intelligence”. (Compare Note 1.) For example, any vertebrates that, inthe process of evolving into land animals, had the “foresight” to “attempt” to retain their gills (an advantage if they ever had to return to water) were at a disadvantage due to the biological cost of maintaining organs that were useless on land. Hence, they lost out in “competition” with those incipient land animals that “pursued” their short-term advantage by getting rid of their gills. By losing their gills, reptiles, birds, and mammals have become dependent on access to the atmosphere, and that&rsquo;s why whales today will drown if forced to remain submerged too long.&#160;<a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> @@ -1462,7 +1460,7 @@ List of Works Cited</p> <p>See The New Encyclopcedia Britannica, 15th ed., 2003, Vol. 25, article “Physical Science, Principles of”, pp. 826-827.&#160;<a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:10"> -<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> +<p>For the sake of simplicity we define a lineage to be any sequence of organisms O1, O2, O3,…,On such that O2 is an offspring of O1, O3 is an offspring of O2, O4 is an offspring of O3, and so on down to On. We say that such a lineage has survived to the n&quot; generation. But if On produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to generation n+1. For example, if John is the son of Mary and George is the son of John and Laura is the daughter of George, the Mary-John-George-Laura is a lineage that survives to the fourth generation. But if Laura produces no offspring, then the lineage does not survive to the fifth generation.&#160;<a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> </li> <li id="fn:11"> <p>Among very large animals the number of individuals in each generation may be in the thousands rather than in the millions. But biological species that consist of a relatively—small number of large individuals—such as mammoths, giant sloths, and the “megafauna” generally—have proven to be far more vulnerable to extinction than species that consist of a large number of small individuals.&#160;<a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-backref" role="doc-backlink">&#x21a9;&#xfe0e;</a></p> diff --git a/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself/index.html b/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself/index.html index f179d147..c144ebf4 100644 --- a/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself/index.html +++ b/new-site/public/library/ted-kaczynski/why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself/index.html @@ -87,8 +87,6 @@ Table Of Contents: