ISAIF Commentary - Sources of social problems (part 2)

"49. (fr) For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework."

I personally experienced myself hardships in adapting to the pace at which change occurs in our society. Progress in our society doesn't follow our needs anymore. On the contrary the system tries to have our needs adapt to the pace of progress (this is done in particular using advertisements and such, Unabomber himself deals with this point later in the essay). I distinctively remember the world, people, technology and culture of 5-10 years ago and they looked quite different from now. Considering I'm only 22 it's quite something to feel a generational gap already.

"50. (fr) The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."

"51. (fr) The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a smallscale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system."

Throughout the contemporary era, industrialized countries tried to achieve the goal of breaking down small social groups by progressively taking control of their functions. The educational system in particular was born for this specific purpose.

"52. (fr) Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his coreligionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system."