The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why?
Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further. Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean?
This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics. Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow.
Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it. What system?
Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed. Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming...
Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse. If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement...
Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again. Again, nonsense.
I know, Unabomber, of couse he's crazy. But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas. Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.
I disagree with the vast majority of the piece, but this bit has something to it at least some of the time:
The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms.
Technology makes certain forms of social control a whole lot more viable than they were prior to the technology. (Conversely, it makes certain forms of freedom more viable, too.)
Here's a relatively benign example: technology makes it possible for a computer to make a decision on your credit worthiness in the blink of an eye. This is a wonderful thing for many reasons: for one, it greatly cuts down on the amount of discrimination in lender/lendee relationships.
It also means that your insurance company knows that you missed a credit card payment 7 years ago. This has been factored into your premiums. Have a nice day. (I suppose theoretically you could go to Ask No Questions Insurance, Inc but since credit scores are scandalously good predictors of insurance risk you're not likely to get a bargain there.)
You can, of course, opt out of this by opting out of a) credit cards and b) insurance agencies. Ahh, seems like you're legally required to deal with the second to drive.
So if you want the freedom to have your previous dealings not attached to you, which I gather at least some people might desire, you need to stop driving.
Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.
Speaking as a piece of cellular technology, (admittedly a very advanced and well-abstracted one) I'm surprised that you find this hard to believe. Organisms are technologies, and our agendas are technological agendas.
If you take away my supply of fresh water, I will fight to get it back. Why do I want fresh water so badly? Ultimately, it's because of a technology choice, made -- perhaps by accident -- by my distant ancestors. My really distant ancestors. Several billion years ago a replicator (might have been DNA or RNA; might have been some earlier self-replicating structure; nobody really knows) built itself a nifty technology for protecting itself and moving around. The technology -- which eventually evolved into things like cell membranes and organelles -- was designed to work in salty water, where the replicators happened to live (or did they move there, because saltwater-based tech worked so well? Again, we don't know.)
It's been a long time since my ancestors lived primarily in salty water. And yet nearly every component of my body still requires a wet environment, containing a rather precise concentration of specific minerals in solution, in order to survive. Maintaining that environment requires a steady supply of fresh water from the outside world. And so I find that my body is preprogrammed to seek fresh water. This isn't my idea. In theory, I could be happy to live as a disembodied mind, without drinking water. But I'm built out of a specific technology, and that technology has an agenda.
Humans often fail to consciously notice that living things and technologies are aspects of the same thing. We use the word technology only to refer to objects that we don't identify very closely with. (But not, of course, to things that weren't built by living creatures. A star is very complicated, but it is not a technology.) But the word wears off quite quickly. Successful technologies rapidly get adopted into our lives. I would never call my left hand a technology except in an essay such as this. Even to call my cell phone a technology is beginning to seem stilted -- to do so, in my culture, would label me as either a techie or a luddite. And we may have reached the point where, alas, the Internet is no longer a technology to me. It's a significant part of my thinking, and a significant component of my happiness. Cut me off from the web long enough and I will probably react as if you'd stolen my fresh water. (We may soon reach the stage where being disconnected from the net will literally kill you, just as losing your job in the USA can kill you by removing your health insurance at a crucial moment.)
But though I identify more closely with my left hand than with the stainless steel screws in my jaw, and more closely with my metal components than with my contact lenses, and more closely with my contacts than my clothes, and more closely with my clothes than my car, and more closely with my car than my iPod, and more closely with my iPod than with the buggy software I wrote this afternoon which I will probably throw away, what -- really -- is the fundamental difference between any of these things? They're all technological components, created by technologies, in pursuit of technological agendas. Or, phrased differently, they are all artifacts created by living creatures in pursuit of life. Same difference.
Incidentally, I'd like to wish Charles Darwin a happy, belated 200th birthday. And it doesn't surprise me that, so many years after his work, essays like this still strike many people as "utter nonsense", perhaps even evil. The really big ideas take time to soak in.
In theory, I could be happy to live as a disembodied mind, without drinking water. But I'm built out of a specific technology, and that technology has an agenda.
In a sense, this validates Ted K's paranoia. Each of us is actually a colony of living organisms, but we don't think of ourselves as such. We don't, for instance, mourn the daily loss of millions of skin cells, barely a month old. We have no emotional attachment to our substrate; up until a few centuries ago, we weren't even aware it existed as such.
Given the option, I'd bet many of us would choose to be made of something more durable and predictable, to move beyond cell colonies. In some distant future, might not the larger system -- comprised of humans and their technology -- think the same thing?
We're sailing forth into even deeper philosophical waters now, and into a realm where personal opinion plays a big role.
But I'd say two things here. One is that, in practice, I doubt that I could be really be happy as a disembodied mind. I am, in fact, rather emotionally attached to my substrate. We enjoy being human -- that's what our brains were designed for, after all -- and even when we're cybernetically enhanced we tend to use that power in amusingly human ways, like World of Warcraft: An incredibly complex electronic simulation of a bunch of people gathering in small bands and tribes to go hunting and kill big animals.
The other thing is that humans have long since moved beyond cell colonies. We and our technologies -- books, artifacts, traditions, tools that we can make and pass on to others -- have been creating more durable, predictable institutions for centuries. Of course, an institution, like a university or a corporation, is no longer particularly similar to an individual human, just as an ant colony is not similar to an individual ant. I regard this as further evidence that having a human nature is inextricably linked to being embedded in a mortal human body.
Granted, we are fond of our forms, but I'm still not convinced that we're particularly fond of our cells. I think that, given the option, most people would choose to live in a body that is identical in appearance and function to their own but that needn't get sick, tired, hungry, or old -- even if it meant replacing the cell substrate with something different. Actually, for all intents and purposes, that is the goal of modern medical science. Sure, achieving it would raise all sorts of new issues and problems, but it's what we work towards right now.
Likewise, it wouldn't surprise me if a large system comprised of humans seeks to replace humans with more reliable parts. As you point out it's already happening. :)
It's comments from users like mechanical_fish that make Hacker News so interesting. Looking through your comment history I don't see anything massively interesting.
It worries me that your comment has been voted up.
Are you certain you're not misinterpretting Herring's comment? I read it as "Dude, that is so good you need to start writing a blog", but you seem to read it as "Dude, get a blog if you want to write rubbish". TBH it's ambiguous enough that either interpretation could be valid.
It's quite clear that the unabomber did not consider human beings, or nature generally, to be a form of technology. His manifesto is all about the opposition of technology and nature. He says that technology destroys nature, and therefore we must destroy technological society.
And are human beings technology? I can't find any dictionary support for that use of the word. Technology implies either something created by the application of science, or the complete set of material implements manufactured by a society. Human beings clearly don't count.
Well, the Unabomber was wrong. Which is not exactly a surprise. The Unabomber was wrong about most things. He was a crazy mass murderer who didn't get out much.
Kelly's essay points out the one thing that the guy was right about: The notion that technology has an agenda. The fact that human agendas and technological agendas are aspects of the same thing is a bit more... advanced. I'm sure the unabomber would react with horror to such an idea, but obviously that doesn't make it wrong.
Of course the dictionary wouldn't define a human child as "something created by the application of science [1]", or "a material implement manufactured by a society [2]". The dictionary's job is to tell us how words are used, not to describe the nature of reality. As I said, even using the word technology to describe a cell phone is beginning to sound stilted -- kids will probably roll their eyes. Calling a wooden sailing ship high technology sounds like a joke [3], and calling a flint arrowhead technology would just be silly. Especially to the Unabomber, who was committed to the fantasy that there was some essential moral difference between wooden-shack technology and asphalt-highway technology.
---
[1] Although reproductive biology is a science. And every society has a theory about where babies come from, backed by extensive experimental evidence. And even should you wish to concede that conceiving babies is more art than science, there's more to creating a new human than just having a baby. I was raised on pizza and penicillin. Pizza and penicillin are applications of science.
[2] My right hand is a material implement. If you don't believe me, I can always smack you with it, while uttering the traditional ritual words: "I refute you thus!" ;) (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=670519)
[3] Man, was the H.M.S. Victory high technology. For a contemporary high-level technical manual I recommend The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, published in 1819.
It makes no sense to say that the dictionary has it wrong. If you discovered that human beings were actually created by aliens for some sinister purpose then we would be their technology, but unless that's what you're proposing then the word just doesn't apply.
Technology doesn't mean 'impressive, complicated thing'. You can't say 'people are really special and a product of evolution' and infer that people are technology. It's like saying that red is a really beautiful colour and therefore is actually a shade of blue.
But even if you could say that it would be irrelevent, because it would be misconstruing what the unabomber meant.
It's too late in the day for me to give a coherent reply to all your questions.
But your first, I think, is easy:
The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why?
We apply new technologies in new ways to help improve and regulate our society. Each decision is well-intentioned, improves society and -- taken alone -- is a good idea.
Examples: (1) Red light cameras (2) RFID passports (3) National ID Cards
Each decision is also a tiny reduction in personal freedom. As the libertarians say, the incremental destruction of our liberties. Or, as Kelly condensed -- "the less our freedoms."
It is gibberish because it is the result of a bitter, angry paranoid mind.
Why bother to read it? Perhaps to understand Kaczynski? But why, really? Isn't it enough to accept that he's insane and criminal? There is undoubtedly better reading available.
Some people can "get into the mindset" of other persons. That ability is both a gift (helps understand the other's motivation) and a curse (often it's a demented mind - a sick viewpoint). One either has that ability or doesn't. Some FBI profilers are good at this. Usually people with broader experience and open minds are better at it.
The lesson to be learned from reading such madness is summed up by the Roman writer Terence:
"I am a man and nothing human is foreign to me." (L. "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto")
Montaigne had the saying inscribed on his library ceiling.
Most who, out of curiosity, examine the writings of psychotics such as the Unabomber or Marquis de Sade reject them as incomprehensible. "Understanding" requires the ability to temporarily suspend one's own beliefs and to accept those of the demented individual. But you can see the danger; to accept the individual's beliefs fully would make _you_ mad.
In the end you'll find that the time spent trying to understand would be better spent elsewhere. There are so many examples of deranged persons' writings and they all lead to little more than headaches. On the other hand some exposure to such writings might make it easier to accept what Terence said. Once you accept that, you won't ever be surprised by what you read or see again.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel the need to point out that the article is an attack on anarcho-primitivism and Ted K., not an endorsement.
"The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms." Why? - for a number of reasons mainly stemming from the fact that technology needs to be maintained. If you want to live in a house, you need to build a house and society must be developed to a point to allow you to build the house. So, our desire to build houses compels society to do all of the things necessary, from logging to manufacturing. (The point is ultimately flawed, but the article addresses this.)
"Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further." Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean? - by making it more pervasive. If you accept the premise that technology has an influence on people, then the mere spread of it would make its influence stronger. Also, by making us more dependent. If we over fish the ocean, we must then really on fish farms.
"This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics." Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow. - If you were familiar with Marxism this would make sense. According to Marx, economics determined politics, that is, all of history was determined, not by ideas, but by basic economics needs and the conflicts that these needs and desires caused. To the extent that technology drives and empowers our economy, the same could be said of it: that our need of technology is a greater determiner of world events than the machinations of individual politicians and movements. This point, I think, is actually true. If a new technology arrives that 'conflicts' with current laws, it is the laws that will adapt not the technology. Witness bittorrent.
"Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it." What system? The vast collection of industry, infrastructure, and legal structures needed to produce the technology and stability people take for granted. So, spreading anarcho-primitivist propaganda on the Internet makes you dependent on the Internet (to an extent.)
"Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed." Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming... Well, if technology's influence really is negative...
"Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse". If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement... - For the same reason that Marxists are ethically obliged to bring about the inevitable revolution. We must all immanentize the eschaton.
"Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again." Again, nonsense. - no, this makes perfect sense: Create a culture of killing smart people and you'll be sure that technological advance never happens.
Kelly's basic argument is that, yes, the Unabomber was fundamentally correct in his understanding of the tension involved in a technopoly (a society where technology is no longer a tool but actually driving the society--read Neil Postman's book of that name for a good read), but that he (Kelly) disagrees with what to do about it.
Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology.
Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them.
For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)
Kelly's page lacks historical depth. My short essay http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html could serve as a wake-up call, alerting people to the need to read older books and learn enough of the history of technology to appreciate the depth of its roots in human society.
> It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises.
Reminds me of Facebook's encroachment into (most) of our lives.
Sorry, it was a brain-fart on my part.
I was trying to comment on a general trend I was seeing in the comments and then I quoted what was mentioned in one comment to preface my comment.
yes! I thought the same when reading, and had to share.
Incidentally, Kelly has been posting on "The Technium" for a while now. I added him to my blog roll because I respect his experience and have really enjoyed many of the things his written in the past.
He's allegedly using The Technium to help develop his thoughts for his next book. Many of his early posts were a little too cerebral for my tastes, but he must be getting a lot closer to pulling his book together -- his more recent posts have been more grounded.
That, or I'm just in one of those moods. (shrug) Either way, he's not leaving my blogroll.
but didn't get as many replies as I expected. I think a lot of the Unabomber's ideas are characteristic of one kind of thinking by people unacquainted with economics, but perhaps you are more acquainted with economics than I am.
I don't think it has anything to do with economics.
The passages that strike me as somehow right have very little to do with economics, more with ecology and ethics.
What makes the Unabomber a scary individual is that he's a reasonably smart guy.
I don't know if this rings a bell or not but there is a movie called 'falling down', I have the exact same feeling about the main character in that movie. Of course then they have to graft on some typical hollywood ending and spoil it all, but roughly 3/4 of the movie you totally sympathize with the guy. (or at least I did).
The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why?
Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further. Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean?
This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics. Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow.
Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it. What system?
Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed. Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming...
Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse. If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement...
Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again. Again, nonsense.
I know, Unabomber, of couse he's crazy. But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas. Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.