Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08344; 9 Aug 95 16:57 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23389 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:57 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23383; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:55 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508090808.DAA23383@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: Reader Responses to Unabomber About a week ago I participated with many in the print media by publishing some of the Manifesto submitted by Unabomber. He wanted everyone to read it, and I trust now everyone who wants to has done so. There were a large number of responses. Here are several I received. Generally unattributed quotes, i.e. ">" marks reference Unabomber's text unless it is stated that a quote is something I said in the preface. From: rwk@AmeriCom.com (Richard W. Kreutzer) > The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for > the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of > us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society, have > made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led > to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suff- > ering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The > continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will cer- > tainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater > damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to greater social disrup- > tion and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical > suffering even in 'advanced' countries ... I am no expert on history, but if I am not mistaken, human suffering and indignities against mankind have been far worse in the past several hundred years. I would argue that technology, particularly technology which widens the scope of communication, reduces the incidence of autocratic injustice. In fact it appears to me that the less a government is able to control the media (communication) the more it is likely to engage in behaviors against the interests of the "people" > We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This > revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or > it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We > can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way > the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take > in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of > society. This is not to be a *political revolution*. Its object > will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological > basis of the present society ... I'll bet you could get your message out faster with technology. It seems a bit of an irony to be reading this at my computer. > For primative 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 expect that very few societies, through out history, have lived in a stable secure framework in the natural world. Suffering from war, natural disaster, disease, and famine have all been greater historicaly than today, in the trird world or otherwise. If this is correct, what other than technology has improved the human condition. > 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 ... Values are good. > We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be > reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing > the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that > can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of > freedom we are concerned with. With increased communication comes increased freedom. Repression is more often accomplished in a closed society. Eventually, technology will link even the most underdeveloped locations. The technology to accomplish this will become so cheap in relation to it's value to the individual that it is bound to happen sooner or later, especially if progress continues to increase at exponential rates. > By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, > with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and > without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially > from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as > an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death > issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against > whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having > power; not the power to control other people but the power to control > the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone > else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how > benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised. > It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness. ... Again, communication (with the resulting information it provides) brings power, to the individual or otherwise. > "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will > conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy > and happy." Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago. > The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody > happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. ... I bet in over all terms, this is incorrect. Global suffering is probably a fraction of what it was, on a per capita basis, two hundred years ago. > The average man may have control over certain private machines of his > own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large > systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it > is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite > will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will > no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden > on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm- > inate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or > other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate > until the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the > elite. Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide > to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They > will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all > children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that > everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who > may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'. > Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be > biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need > for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power > into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy > in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ... The Internet (or it's replacement) will become a great paradox. It will be at one time the largest (yet the most individual) of all machines. One massively parallel computer with a common (and individual) consciousness uniting the entire world. IMHO > The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the > unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress > is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think > it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it > can be stopped ... Who is to say that the Universe itself, along with evolution, is not an "utterly reckless ride into the unknown". Technology is an enevitable part of evolution. Why are technophiles any different than anyone else? Certainly there are good technophiles and bad technophiles. Why is technology to blame? Aren't people to blame, regardless of their career choices? > Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction > of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal. I can't see that this is going to help. Before technology, there was much suffering and many bad people. All things considered, it appears to me that technology ends up more of a plus than a minus. I think could say the same thing about religion. :) Regards, Dick From: Arthur Chandler I want to register a strong disagreement with TELECOM DIGEST for publishing this manifesto. Let me tell you about a man named Dr. Epstein. He is humane, married to another MD, and engaged in research he believes will help humanity. His daughter JoAnna studied flute with my wife. An accomplished amateur, Dr. Epstein often accompanied his daughter on his cello. He would usually sit in on her lessons, and smiled with obvious pleasure as her heard his daughter progress on the flute. One day JoAnna found a package on the doorstep of their house. She brought it in and set it on the table for her father. An hour later, JoAnna heard a terrific explosion, and screams from her father. She rushed in to see her father covered in blood, his hands blown to bits. He will never play the cello again. JoAnna still wakes up screaming with the scene welling up in her nightmares. She wil never get over it. Does the man who caused this agony have a right to a platform from which he can lecture Americans about the evils of society? Does the fabricator of that bomb have the authority to pontificate to us about the evils of technology? "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars: General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer." -- William Blake From: "Jon M. Taylor" Preamble: I work at the California Forestry Association, the target of the Unabomber's most recent attack. I am just a computer tech and am not involved in to "politics" of that Association, but I knew and respected Gil Murray, who lost his life to that bomb. In addition, I came very close to losing my father as well - he handled the bomb mere seconds before it exploded. I am ambivalent about trying to "argue" against points made by someone who feels that violence is a legitimate tactic to use in order to convince others of the merits of their views, but I feel that I owe it to Gil to do my best to repudiate the "logic" used in the missive below. In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The person who has become widely known in recent months as Unabomber > has written a manifesto explaining his beliefs and conduct. He first > contacted the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post} requesting > that they publish the manifesto. > Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to > readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his > message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach > the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic > medium such as this network. I hope that he doesn't think that he will find a very receptive audience for his views here.... > I must say I do not find myself completely in disagreement with Unabomber's > message. Well, perhaps I was mistaken. > I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to > use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system' > of which he speaks. > But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the > dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not > change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks. It will not change, even with this. The system is here for a reason, and that is that most people want what it provides and feel that they are better off with it than without it. If the Unabomber was actually seriously interested in trying to bring people around to his ideas, he would not be engaging in acts of violence. His messages indicate that he is intelligent enough to realize the futility of his actions, so I am forced to conclude that he is merely just another mass murderer, but one who happens to be driven by a "cause" rather than voices in his head (apologies if he actually *does* hear voices). > Perhaps ... but his message is worth our consideration, and I am pleased > to be one conduit by which it can be disseminated on the Internet. For > what should be obvious reasons, I have *no method of contacting Unabomber* > and cannot forward replies nor can I respond to personal replies. I'm sure > he will see them. In about a week I will publish the best replies here. --------------------------------- > The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for > the human race. Do tell. We live longer, infant mortality rates have plunged, overall health has skyrocketed, and in general living standards have increased across the board. We are as successful a species as any I can think of. > They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of > us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society, One: You have the mistaken notion that the current state of society is here to stay. This is very much incorrect. The current state of rapid growth in both technology and human population size is the inflection point of a sigmoid curve and *must* eventually level off. See "World Population and Human Values" (Salk & Salk, 1980) for a detailed treatment of this very topic. Two: Why is destabilization a bad thing? Sure, the average joe these days will moan about how hectic and stressful the world is today, but put him to work plowing a field with a horse-drawn plow for 16 hours a day and he'd be *begging* to return to our modern world. Change can be gotten used to be those of us that are adaptable enough. > have made life unfulfilling, I'd like to know where you get your information on how "fulfilling" life was before the IR (Industrial Revolution). It is a common assertion of technology's foes that life was pleasant and pastoral before all the nasty icky bad industrialists mucked things up. Well I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of BS. If you brought the average agrarian peasant from 300 years ago to today's world and told him that someone dearly wished to destroy it and return to his previous lifestyle, I guarantee you he or she would agree that this person was off their rocker. I would dearly love to be able to send you back to the time period you apparently love so the you could see how badly life sucked back then compared to now. > have subjected human beings to indignities, Indignities? Like not having to have half your kids die before maturity? Like being able to live for around 70 years instead of around 40? Like antibiotics, modern surgery, guaranteed non-contaminated food, educational opportunities beyond the dreams of the world's elite 300 years ago, women's rights, democracy, etc. etc. etc.? > have led to widespread psychological suffering It is only today that people have the luxury of considering this sort of thing as anything other than part of one's lot in life. > (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) Tak a *real* close look at the third world, buddy. That's what life was like for virtually everyone before the IR. Ask a poor African peasant whether they would prefer the life of a poor welfare mother in the US, and I give you one guess as to what the answer would be. We only think of the condition of the third world as "suffering" in comparison to what we in the first world enjoy. We of course should try our best to help the third world to lift itself out of the mire of poverty and squalor. > and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. True, but the operative word here is "have" (past tense). The first world is MUCH better off environmentally than 20 years ago, and the impovements continue apace. We now plant far more trees than we cut down, industrial air and water pollution have been slashed from 1960s-era levels, new energy technologies that generate very little pollution are taking shape all over the place, and in general we humans are getting our environmental act together at a pace that, in historical terms, is extremely rapid. As for the third world's environmental problems, they are caused by overpopulation, and the single best way to get people to have less kids is to raise their level of education and their standard of living. Guess what does that? Technology! > The >continued development of technology will worsen the situation. Tsk, tsk. Someone hasn't done their homework very well. This sort of blanket statement is quite often seen from the dogmatic, religious fringe of the environmental movement. What it indicates is that you haven't thought deeply enough about the issue to realize that the environmentally harmful phase of industrial/technological advancement is just that, a phase. We are already approaching the end of it in the first world, and the third world is sure to follow. > It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and > inflict greater >damage on the natural world. Stating things in absolutes using "certainly" and the like does not confer any more validity on your "arguments", guy. > It will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological > suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in > 'advanced' countries ... Where's your evidence for this? If it is just linear extrapolation from today's trends (the situation has been worsening for a while now, therefore it will automatically continue to worsen in the future), that is ridiculously simplistic. > We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. For some reason, I don't think that this will happen anytime soon. Face it, guy - if anyone out there agreed with you, you wouldn't *have* to kill people to get attention! You are going to have to face up to something, and that is that PEOPLE LIKE THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE. No one will claim that things are perfect by any means, but they are nevertheless good and getting better. > This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be > sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few > decades. We can't predict any of that. How about "I will continue to kill people until I get caught and then I will be executed and people will forget all about me and my jihad against technology almost immediately"? See, you may or may not have caught on to this, but you have trapped yourself. You *can't* stop killing people (not that I think you'd stop anyway) even after this manifesto is published, because if you do, the media will turn its back on you completely (you won't be news anymore, after all). All that will happen is that a bunch of people will read the manifesto, think "what a nutbar!" and then go back to the sports page and forget all about it. So, you will shortly find yourself being completely ignored once again. What to do? I very much doubt that you'd be able to let this thing drop - after all, you are a celebrity now! Besides, the revolution will continue to not occur. So, at some point you'll miss the limelight enough to kill again, perhaps demanding the publishing of some more of your "wisdom". No one will do it, because you will have broken your earlier promise to not kill again. If you then return to bombings, you *will* eventually get caught. My personal opinion is that you are going to get caught anyway, because you were *way* too talkative after the CFA bombing. Getting frustrated at the pace the revolution is moving at, are we? > But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who > hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way > for a revolution against that form of society. You should have started this whole thing in the sixties, because you have missed the period of history when you had a chance of gaining more of a following than a few random nuts. You missed the boat, guy. > This is not to be a *political revolution*. > Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and tech- > nological basis of the present society ... Attempting to overthrow a particular government would be infinitely easier than what you are trying to accomplish. In fact, your use of violence is almost certainly *harming* your cause. I have had many people tell me that they now feel ashamed to hold even nonviolent anti-technological views because of the stigma that has been lent to those views by you. Smooth move. > For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only > slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. Why are changelesness and "security" so important to you? Most people I know would gladly trade those for today's assurances that their child will live to maturity. > 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. True. So? Your assertion that stability is the absolutely most important characteristic for a society to have is by NO means shared by everyone. > 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 ... I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100% on this. Of course, I am not a conservative and I think that change is good. Did it ever occur to you that you are the ultimate conservative? > We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be > reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing > the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that > can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of > freedom we are concerned with. > By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, > with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and > without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially > from any large organization. Yawn. Another armchair anarchist who can't tell the difference between coercive and non-coercive hierarchies. > Freedom means being in control (either as > an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death > issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against > whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Did it ever occur to you that people may not *want* to have to deal with all of this themselves? It is a hell of a lot easier to specialize in the clothing part, have someone else specialize in the food part, and trade your surplus for theirs rather than do it all yourself. The sort of small groups you describe are not stable - they WILL continue to specialize, they WILL settle down in one spot, they WILL compete to build a better mousetrap, and someone WILL eventually hire their muscle out as a protection service - and that's the beginning of governments. Today's situation is inevitable, given the innate characteristics of human beings. You'd have to artificially hold people down at a certain technological level to get the society you want, which is impossible. > Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people > but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. OK so far.... > One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large > organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, > tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised. It is > important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness. ... What you are describing is classical, extremely simplistic anarchy, and it is FAR more unstable than today's society (which you criticize for it's instability). People develop power structures and hierarchies. It just happens that way. > "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will > conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy > and happy." Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago. Guess what? **IT HAPPENED**. It's *still* happening. Did they say it would all be paradise instantly? > The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody > happy, etc. No it wasn't. It was supposed to make people money. It worked. The benefits we have seen have been a by-product of that. That doesn't make those benefits any less real or imply that they will cease to accrue. > The actual result has been quite different. ... > The average man may have control over certain private machines of his > own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large > systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite You, of course, have some evidence to back this up. No? Wow, big surprise there. For your information, the rise of democracy is almost entirely due to one piece of technology - the firearm. The personal computer is placing control of technology in the hands of more individuals than ever before, and the internet is poised to become the greatest tool of individual empowerment (free flows of information) in the history of mankind. > -- just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved > techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and > because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be > superfluous, a useless burden on the system. Somebody's been reading 1984 too much. Think about it: what are the reasons people try to control one another? Control over resources (food, power, sex), mostly. By increasing the total amount of resources available to society, technology has *reduced* the need for people to dominate each other. Now, this process is of course still a while from completion, but how often do you see one town raiding another for food or women these days? > If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm- > inate the mass of humanity. Why? This may be a bit hard for you to grasp, but most people don't *like* to kill each other! > If they are humane they may use propoganda or other psychological or > biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the masses of > humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Again, why? Also, when people are well-off, they tend to have less children *anyway*. If it weren't for immigration, the US and most of Western Europe would have NEGATIVE population growth now. > Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide > to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They > will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all > children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that > everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who > may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'. I can see that the primary thrust of all this is that you fear that this will be done to *you*. You overestimate your own importance, buddy. If you weren't trying to kill people, we wouldn't be "treating" you, we'd be *ignoring* you. > Of course, life will be so purposeless Why? As long as there is a book to write, a program to code, a better mousetrap to build, a painting to paint or a song to write, people will have places to go to find purpose in their life. Of course, the people that find purpose in initiating force against others (like you) might just find life purposeless and be "treated", but in this case you'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear. You are the problem here, not the solution. > that people will have to be biologically or psychologically > engineered wither to remove their need for the power process or to > make them 'sublimate' their drive for power into some harmless hobby. This may very well happen, but it will most likely be a popular step with society as a whole. Most likely, though, this will only be done to those primitives whose agressive drives lead them to, say, mail bombs to people, as opposed to those who can channel their energies into creative, rather than destructive, patterns. > These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but > they most certainly will not be free. ... If your definition of "freedom" includes the "right" to initiate force against others, then I will feel no remorse at all over taking that "right" away from you by whatever means are necessary. > The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the > unknown. Yep, and I *love* it. The continuous stream of miracles that we are swimming in today is one of the things that make my life worth living. I'm not afraid of the unknown like some primitive caveman huddling in his cave and cringing in fear at the noises in the night - instead, I start a fire, light a torch, grab my spear, and go out to find out what's making the noise. You can remain in the cave and cringe in fear at the dark, but I choose not to. > Many people understand something of what technological progress > is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think > it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it > can be stopped ... Yes, well, you are mistaken. > Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction > of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal. The train is leaving the station, buddy. You can hop on and get ready for the ride of your life into the great unknown, or you can remain at the station all by yourself. Just don't bother trying to stop the train, because we'll run right over you and never even notice the bump. > ------ end text of Unabomber message ------ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unabomber's reference above to 'FC' is > to the Freedom Club. The number of members in the 'club' is unknown, > however the US Federal Bureau of Investigation believes membership > consists of only one person, Unabomber himself and no others. Most likely. It is virtually impossible to keep something like this quiet if more than one person knows about it. He keeps claiming that there is more than one person in "FC", but that is almost certainly an attempt to add the weight of numbers to his "arguments". > Since 1978, Unabomber is credited with killing three people and injuring > 23 others with a series of bombs directed primarily at university > researchers and their employees. Some bombs have been directed to > airlines and other 'high-tech' industries. > The first bombs attributed to Unabomber were in 1978 in the Chicago area > at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicagp. > The FBI believes Unabomber moved to the Salt Lake City area in 1980, and > then to northern California in 1981, where he had 'some sort of contact' > with the University of California at Berkeley, where two bombs were > placed. For many years Unabomber chose to remain silent following his > attacks, leading investigators to believe his attacks were simply random > in nature. PAT] Every time that I read about a new invention, discovery, process, or any other manifestation of technological growth, I think and will continue to think, "gee, I'll bet that this would really piss the Unabomber off! That makes me really happy!" |->. I hope that they catch this guy and stick him in a jail cell for the rest of his life, so that he can watch the kind of world he hates continue to grow and evolve. That, too, would make me very happy. I hope they give him a TV in his cell that is stuck on the discovery channel and can't be turned off |->. ************ Jon Taylor ************************************************* * "For something that has spread with all the forethought of kudzu, the * * Internet isn't half bad." - Newsweek, 2/27/95 ************************* ************************************ taylorj@gaia.ecs.csus.edu ********** From: bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) At the risk of being 'flamed' by others in this group I have chosen to respect the views attributed to you about yourself and the FC. I reply to you as the spokesman for the FC, regarding the small portion of the manifesto published in TELECOM Digest, and media reports of other portions. In a TELECOM Digest mailing Patrick Townsend wrote: > Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to > readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his > message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach > the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic > medium such as this network. I would very much like to see the entire Unabomber manifesto from the FC. I am annoyed that the government seems to be holding it back from publication. I hope that one of the people the FBI distributes it to will publish it. If the entire text is already on the net somewhere, I would appreciate a pointer (URL, Gopher or Anonymous FTP). I understand that others may use terror to get their message published, but violence was never nessisary. Users of the net publish many differing views. The FC's views could have been published without the violence or secrecy. (Unless the manifesto is an offspring of violence, instead of violence being an offspring of the beliefs in the manifesto.) From what the FBI tells us, you began the violent part of your crusade against technology in 1978. I assume that your views have developed over the past 17 years and the manifesto is 'current' expressing complaints against 1995 technology as well as the 1978 technology the FC originally struck out against. It is amazing to me that the very system the FC hates is the one that gives the most freedom to express the FC's views, and to close the gap between 'the elite' and 'the rest of us'. Since 1978 the Internet has grown from a private educational research network to a worldwide system used for government, business, and entertainment information interchange. It could be argued that 'only the elite will have control' but there are too many teens with $15 per month (or less) connections WITH THE SAME ACCESS PRIVILIGES as large companies paying hundreds of $$$ per month. The idea that the elite outside the net would rule the world is also being attacked by technology. In the past few days (the beginning of August) we have had two large mergers in the television industry. The Westinghouse-CBS merger makes 15 TV stations 'owned' by a single company. Currently that is not allowed and they will have to sell off a few of their stations. Even if the government changes its rules and allows Westinghouse-CBS to keep all 15 stations they still will only have direct influence over 30% of the US audience. Acess to the rest of the US is subject to the whims of individual stations who can pick and choose their own programming. Network affiliation contracts are easily preempted for local sports and taste, Affiliations can also be canceled or changed by any independent station. The spirit of humanity, as you mention, is to fight. Unless the elite can quickly brainwash a few billion people into not fighting their battle is lost. No matter how hard it is, with or without government help, individuals will grow and assert their independence. The elite may be able to convice or pay congress to cut off support for small businesses, but the individuals will still fight. Years ago there was no government protection for small businesses, and yet they survived. Many of those small businesses went on to create the technology the FC seems to hate. Should we take away the freedom of the small companies that continue to create technological advances for the elite to control with? Or is that just another way for the elite to take over? Freedom created technology. Killing the technology (and the technologists) will not return freedom, we still have it. Maybe the rest of the FC/Unabomber manifesto explains it better than the expcets I had access to. Keep sending your manifesto to responsible publishers. I hope one of them will find the space to publish it. Don't forget your audience on the Internet too. Full disclosure of the manifesto may even encourage others to join with the FC. Please continue to fight with words and not explosives. Realize that your mailings of the manifesto have put you in a more positive public light, winning more people who agree with you, than the bombings. Your continued non-violence IS apreciated. James E. Bellaire Twin Kings Communications From: Henry Wysmulek This person is a total regect left over from the failed socialist revolution that never transpired. Now like a lot of his comrades he has been left adrift on an empty sea of disillusionment. These loonies have now seized upon the enviromental banner in place of the old socialist manifesto as their new god. Man was never meant to be controlled by nature, but to tame the planet. This does not mean total destruction of our enviroment that is taking place because of the unleased and uncontrolled immorality of our present society. The revolution will never occur, the freedom of which he or she speaks will be lost and the enviroment will be destroyed, but the Bible teaches that Christ will return and force us to clean up our lives and live in real harmony with ourselevs and with nature. If you are tired of being an empty shell of a human being try turning back to God. I hope the police do catch you, try you and then execute you for the malicious murders that you have commited! H. WYSMULEK xhp195@freenet.mb.ca MODEM: (204) 254-5716 BLUE SKY FREENET From: rawlir@tor.nt.com [The text I refuse to reprint] This is indeed a low point when the messianic ramblings of a liar, murderer, and blackmailer are allowed to be presented on a moderated digest on Telephony. Why did we give in to this blackmail? Please tell me. rudy@bnr.ca Rudy Rawlins, Nortel, Toronto Lab. From: OA-BRGTP@cahners.com ".... that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'." Are you kidding me?!?! As I sat down to my terminal this morning, I thought this subject heading was a joke from a friend of mine. When I figured out just what this message was, I was appalled that Telecom Digest would have any part in distributing this, for lack of a better word, crap. The Unibomber wants everyone to have a "wholesome hobby"? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was brought up to believe that threatening an entire country with random bombs and scares did not fall into the category of "wholesome" as a past time. And the last part about "treatment" and "problem" seems to be reminscent of the manipulative language used by Nazis. However, I did laugh as I thought about how ironic and ambigous this whole thing is. The Unibomber is attacking the very technology which he has obviously found helpful in sending out his disturbing messages. If it it weren't for the Industrial Revolution, the Unibomber would have very little means to convey his thoughts on a large scale and would be left only with the Pony Express. Yes, I believe strongly in the First Amendment, but I don't think we need to help out this sick individual by circulating this. All he wants us to do is talk about him and he obviously succeeding. Sue [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (inserted at the time rebuttals were published). I am not defending Unabomber, but I believe he said the government or the 'elite who run things' will arrange for everyone to have a 'wholesome hobby'. I don't think he said he wants that, in fact I think he dislikes the idea. PAT] From: tomd@risc.sps.mot.com (Tom Davidson) I notices that you posted excerpts from the Unabomber Manifesto, why dont you post the entire thing? I'd like to read ALL his writings and not have someone else choose for me what I get to read. Please post the complete, un-censored writings of the Unabomber. Thanks, Tom Davidson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (posted at the time rebuttals were printed). I printed *everything* I got. I did not edit it, I did not modify it or shorten it. What I got, you saw. My feed was to me courtesy of the {New York Times} and they chose to send out what they did. Like yourself, I would like to see it all. PAT] From: Eric_Florack@mc.xerox.com > I must say I do not find myself completely in disagreement with Unabomber's > message. I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to > use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system' > of which he speaks. But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the > dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not > change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks. Please take note of something I've been saying for a long time; We see the press, and many on the left (A redundancy) gleefully labeling people as right wing terrorists. But notice; have any of them labeled this idiot as a /left/-wing terrorist? Political pre-disposition, perhaps? From: rossix!amber.dnet!boydno@openlink.openlink.com (L. Boyd Norris) I would invite the Unabomber to spend a month or more in the People's Republic of China, as I have done. He might come back with a better sense of what freedom means, or at least - how fortunate we are in this country to live under a system where personal expression is possible and the rights of the individual are not repressed continually by the government. Technological progress would not be possible without the hand of God, and even the finest machine is subject to error and operational failure. Afterall, they are made by man. For the Unabomber to carry out his rampage and kill and maim innocent victims, I would like to nominate him for Charter Membership in the Cultural Revolutionaries' Hall of Fame. Chairman Mao would have been proud. Boyd Norris From: Name Withheld by Request (but identified/verified by Editor). Hello Pat, I enjoy keeping up with the comp.dcom.telecom user's group, and appreciate the technical competence and maturity exhibited there (which is often lacking in other groups!). I have a few comments about the Unibomber essay you published, however I expect you to keep my response anonymous or private, out of consideration for my personal safety (as we have seen that the essay's author has little or no regard for pain and suffering of individuals other than himself, and of "society" in a general sense). I am 31 years old, and writing from an engineering background (BSEE) with other education as well (I was 3 classes short of Minor in History, with concentration on ancient & european history). > The industrial revolution and its consequences have > been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the > life expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but > they have destablized society, have made life unfulfilling, have > subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread > psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering > as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. Okay, let's start here. Stating that the industrial revolution was a "disaster" is a moot judgment. There are arguments to support or refute this claim which could fill several text books. The author's claims of "destabilized society", "life unfulfilling", "indignities", "psychological suffering", and "severe damage on the natural world" due to the industrial revolution are also questionable. For example, one might argue that mankind has been inflicting "severe damage on the natural world" throughout history, and that this has continued through all phases of mankind's societal development. To support this statement, I offer the following current-day example of a society mostly untouched by the changes which the essay's author seeks to destroy. Most Amazon tribes today have not yet entered any stage of industrialism, and are still agrarian (farming) societies. Yet they continually burn many acres of rain forest to clear farmland, where the soil is depleted and washed away within 2-3 years. Then a new piece of the rain forest is permanently destroyed to create new farmland. If left alone, process will continue until there is no more arable land and then these people will need to find a new way to survive, or else perish. In the meantime, this small portion of the human population is doing irreparable harm to the environment world-wide without having gone through an industrial revolution. With regard to the allegations of suffering, indignity, destabilization, and unfulfilled life...if you were to read the works of Shakespeare (a well known early- or pre-industrial revolution author, depending on how you date the beginning of that period) and other authors (Chaucer, Dante, etc.), you can find clear examples lamenting the same conditions in their contemporary societies. Has life gotten better or worse...? Only time-travel could tell us for certain, all else is open to personal interpretation. However, one fact is certain: the industrial revolution had not yet begun during many of these men's lifetimes, so attributing these specific societal problems to the industrial revolution is erroneous. > The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. > It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and > inflict greater damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to > greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may > lead to increased physical suffering even in 'advanced' countries ... A paragraph of judgments and prophesies, without historical or social basis-in-fact. > We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This > revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it > may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't > predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the > measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in > order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of > society. This is not to be a *political revolution*. Its object will > be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological > basis of the present society ... Look carefully...the theme of the essay is buried here. The essay is not a scholarly study, but rather an editorial by "those who hate the industrial system" and seek to "overthrow...present society". Society is built upon many pillars, such as government and economics, which provide its foundation. Destroying one or more of these pillars does not simply change society - it removes a major supporting structure and induces partial or total collapse. This is clearly demonstrated in any comparative study of a society before, during, and after civil war (for a current example, examine Bosnia). What the author calls for is destruction of the current society, in hope that its replacement will be more to his liking (of course, there will be even greater suffering, destabilization, etc. in the accelerated process of moving from one social structure to the next - especially if the means entail only violence!). > For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only > slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. It is doubtful that the caveman felt secure in a world filled with predators, otherwise he probably would have not developed tools for killing. How many farmers feel secure that the weather will provide them with a good harvest from year to year? Security is something which the individual must provide himself, if he cannot get it well enough from society. The caveman developed hunting tools, the farmer developed irrigation, and today's man develops his knowledge (education/job skills) and finances (retirement savings). The man in any age who did not acquire the requisite means for security resorted to scavenging (from cavemen), begging (from farmers), or social security/unemployment payments (from today's man). For women, the sources of security were often different from men (usually marriage was the best option) but there was always a means for increasing their security, if they chose to do so. > 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. Equating rapid change with instability appears plausible - but at what point is society changing too fast and the system considered unstable? There is no definite answer. There are people who will adapt and prosper regardless of the rate of change, and others who simply cannot or will not adapt - no matter how slow change might be. To ensure that *everyone* prospers, society must be restricted to the lowest common denominator - and then where do we draw the line? Must change be slowed down enough so that people with learning disabilities feel secure - or do we leave them behind? or force them to change their lives faster so we don't have to wait? Or does one nation (or race) attempt to stop the entire world from changing at all? > 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 ... One must note that "traditional values" are based on *tradition*, which in a social context is a repeated or common behavior developed over a period of time. When there is rapid change, there may not be enough time for something "traditional" to develop. But also note that throughout history, various behaviors based on tradition have mutated (e.g. Thanksgiving holiday) or disappeared altogether (in the middle ages, you did not eat at night - you waited until sunrise to "break" your "fast" = breakfast). > We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be > reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing > the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that > can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of > freedom we are concerned with. > By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, > with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and > without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially > from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as > an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death > issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against > whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having > power; not the power to control other people but the power to control > the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone > else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how > benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised. > It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness. ... There is an additional unwritten thought in this "definition" of freedom. It presumes that freedom can only be manifested through physical interactions. Intellect and emotion are not included. This definition lends itself nicely to justification for violence, characterized by irrational and dispassionate destruction of lives and property, as exercising of your personal freedom. > "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will > conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy > and happy." Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago. > The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody > happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. Every social group (e.g. technophiles, pacifists, preservationists, etc.) advances predictions of the benefits they will provide to society. Some benefits are realized, while others are not. Condemning one group is not justified - can the author *guarantee* that if his group were to succeed then there would be no ill effects? Of course not. > The average man may have control over certain private machines of his > own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large > systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it > is today, but with two differences. There are many arguments that society is actually headed in exactly the opposite direction. The Internet is a huge "machine" which will have profound effects on our present society (it's already started!), but there is no "tiny elite" controlling it. If it were to fall under such control, the technophiles (who the apparently author despises) would quickly find an alternate means for communication. The author fails to identify any large systems of machines which are "in the hands of a tiny elite" and which rob individuals of their freedom. If he tell us what they are, maybe a peaceful and compassionate means could be found to change them? > Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over > the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the > masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the > elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of > humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or other > psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until > the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the elite. > Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to > play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They > will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all > children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that > everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who > may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'. > Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be > biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need > for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for > power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be > happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ... These ideas are not new, but it's probably the first time people have been killed or maimed because of them. Has anyone read George Orwel's "1984"? It's a classic. And there are other books with a similar futurist theme (movies too). > The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the > unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress > is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think > it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it > can be stopped ... By the statement "...technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride...", the author has revealed that he feels powerless and confused. He has identified a target (the technophiles) and has exerted his power (bombings) in an effort to regain control over his surroundings. The author's solution is not to learn, adapt, or adjust...but rather to destroy. > Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction > of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal. I wrote this lengthy response because the editor of this newsgroup included a remark indicating that the essay deserves consideration. Unfortunately, I find that the essay is ill-grounded and un-original. I would recommend going to your local library and checking out a few good books. As a side note: It is also interesting to note that America is now well-past the industrial revolution, and entering into the "knowledge revolution". The author clearly does not see further than the recent past. A new revolution has already begun, one which he does not even recognize yet he is a part of it through his actions and the attention of the media (TV, newspapers, Internet, etc.). The days of factories, machines, assembly lines, etc. in the U.S. are fading. Compare this to developing countries which are now having their own industrial revolutions (China, Vietnam and Indochina for example). This is stressful to a sizable portion of the U.S. population (especially in the central and mid-western states) because there is no way to compete with these newly industrialized peoples. In the future, happiness and prosperity in the U.S. will come not to the factory worker, but to the knowledge worker with the ability to acquire, understand, and apply information. The old tools (hard work on the assembly line and life-long loyalty to the employer) won't work so well anymore. From: dq23@cityscape.co.uk (Richard Dickson) A view from the UK side of the pond. This guy sounds like a loser who has blamed the 'system' for his inability to achieve. He therefore wants to destroy this system because he feels that without it he will be able to blossom into an achiever. Obviousley even if he got his way, he would not achieve, because he is one of natures inadequates and would just then find something else to blame for his failures. During the industrial revolution we had 'Luddites' in the UK who went about trying to destroy the machines. We have also had a king, in ancient times who tried to order the sea to retreat. This guy is just another case in a long line of deluded fools. On a positive note, look into the face of a child in the third world who has just had laser surgery on his eye cateracts and can now see again, and ask yourself if technology freed or imprisoned him ? Now look at the list of dead and injured from the unabomber and ask if he liberated or destroyed those lives? R. F. Dickson dq23@cityscape.co.uk From: sbushey@freenet.columbus.oh.us (J. Scott Bushey) Some thoughts on the Unabomber's Message... > We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be > reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing > the sphere of human freedom > Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member > of a *small* group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, > clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in > one's environment. The Unabomber fails to see that while technology and industry may aid in limiting our control over these "life and death" issues, it also frees us from those responsibilities. This morning I didn't have to go out and kill a deer and forage for some berries. I slept rather well because I didn't waste time setting up a lean-to last night. It's raining outside and I'm nice and dry. This frees me to advance my mind, and thus contribute to the expansion of the human experience. As technology frees us from such binding tasks as finding food, shelter, and clothing, we have more time to devote to the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, spirituality, and love. J. Scott Bushey Computer Consultant From: Martin McCormick In Oklahoma, we have had our fair share of discussions and debates on terrorism, especially since the Federal Building bombing. The Unabomber's manifesto has the same chilling paranoid tone that one hears from the people who believe that conspiracies are everywhere and black helicopters spy on us. Those who truly believe this should take time out from marching around like clowns in the desert with their fake army uniforms and get a taste of the real world. Try to correct a mistake on a tax form. Try to see how much shouting it takes to correct a snafu on a health-insurance form. If you still haven't got the picture, study some of the government contracts with large defense-related companies and look at the mix-ups and cost-overruns. I am not saying that nothing ever works right and that people never do their job, but I just don't see any evidence of any government operation that works well enough to pull off the kind of Orwellian monitoring that some claim is going on. Oh yes. I almost forgot about the UN and its control over the whole world. First, they have this little problem of Bosnia. I am a lot more worried about people like the Unabomber and the person or persons who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma city than I am about governmental misconduct. We are all a little less free and a little more anxious than we used to be. Fear is the ultimate tyranny. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W in Tornado Ally OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group From: hhallett@dialin.ind.net (Heather L. Hallett) > 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 ... - Text of Unabomber Manifesto > Since 1978, Unabomber is credited with killing three people and injuring > 23 others with a series of bombs directed primarily at university > researchers and their employees. Some bombs have been directed to > airlines and other 'high-tech' industries. - Patrick Townson > And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will > demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will > demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. - Genesis 9:5 (NIV) > You shall not murder. - Exodus 23:13 (NIV) > Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly." Then all the > people shall say, "Amen!" - Deuteronomy 27:24 (NIV) Seems to me that values built upon a solid foundation haven't collapsed with the growth in technology. These have remained through Hebrew law to be passed to us, and Jesus confirmed their validity. Is what this man did considered murder? I see no others supporting his actions, even those he claims to be freeing. > I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to > use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system' > of which he speaks. But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the > dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not > change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks. - Pat This 'revolutionary' would have sufficient argument to support his thesis, that industrialization has had negative effect on humanity and our environment. Yet, it is doubtful that his 'method of expression' will be either effective or accepted. Heather L. Hallett Rural Datification Participant hhallett@dialin.ind.net From: David B. Horvath, CDP PAT Wrote: > Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to > readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his > message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach > the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic > medium such as this network. I went out and bought the NY Times to read their summary/excerpts of the manifesto. I would like to be able to read the entire document - is there a FTP or WWW site to grab it? Please publish the address in the digest PAT. I am certainly one of those 'technophiles' or members of the elite mentioned further on; I am certainly not about to become a modern day Luddite and use violence to destroy the new looms. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (written at time rebuttals were published). So far as I know, neither the {New York Times} nor the {Washington Post} has made the full text available to anyone. Why, I don't know. PAT] > ----- begin text of Unabomber message ----- > The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for > the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of > us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society, have > made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led > to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suff- > ering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The > continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will cer- > tainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater > damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to greater social disrup- > tion and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical > suffering even in 'advanced' countries ... The industrial revolution certainly have changed the human race (actually, the society that we humans belong to) - we've changed from an agrarian economy where most people worked the land to one where people are working in buildings; from decentralization of people to centralization in large cities. Is this a destabilization? Quite possibly - people are very mobile and become separated by large geographic distances from other members of their family and are therefore, less "connected" with people around them who are moving around. But *technology* is actually reducing the problem of distance and mobility - I can communicate with friends in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Europe, and down the street with equal ease via telephone. In fact, I often get better telephone connections to Australia than I do calling down the street. With technology like answering machines, voice mail and e-mail/Internet, keeping in touch with more people (having a larger "family") is even easier. This note may be read by hundreds or thousands of people, I am writing this using word processor software on a PC - prior to the industrial revolution ("PIR"), it would require writing long hand, manual copying or Gutenburg-style printing press, and then distribution. Something that takes a half-hour or an hour (most of which is thinking time) today would require weeks or months without the technology. I prefer to communicate quickly. Personally, I find my life to be very fulfilling, do not feel that I am subjected to indignities and have not suffered very much. In fact, I probably suffer less (due to technology) than if I had lived PIR - I am in my early- thirties, all of my siblings, my parents, and some of my grandparents are alive. I personally know of no one who has died in childbirth, as the result of hunger, or due to smallpox. All due to technology. Simple technologies like Air Conditioning has averted a lot of physical (and resulting psychological) suffering and has saved lives. The "Third World" is designated as such because it has not had the advances that technology has brought to the "First World." The "Third World" has always suffered physically, what has changed is the countries that belong in the modern definition of that term. One point I must agree with is that the Industrial Revolution has inflicted severe damage to Mother Earth. That in itself is bad. But to put it in perspective, PIR there was massive deforestation, repetitive crop farming, and poor sanitation. As the ecological repercussions of industrial behavior have been recognized, movement has occurred to correct past poor practices (cleaning up toxic waste dumps, for example) and prevent them in the future. Continued technological advancement *could* cause additional harm to the society if used improperly. Technology, in itself, is neither good nor bad - it is the application of that technology that requires moral or ethical measurement. Genetic engineering may be able to cure a child with Cystic Fibrosis, the same technology could be used to produce only children with blond hair and blue eyes. > We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. > [rest of paragraph deleted] > For primative 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. The natural world does not always change slowly - think about Mount Vesubia (Pompeii), earthquakes and other natural disasters. These caused much physical and psychological suffering. The real difference is that natural disasters are periodic and usually unpredictable; technology is more ongoing and, if not predictable, at least is foreseeable. Man has consistently tried to dominate nature in one form or another. From the scraps of flint that the caveman hunted with to the high powered rifles and mechanized farming of today - all are tools and technological advances of their own time. Change is constant; technology causes change and change promotes technology. > The conservatives are fools: This point is open to debate on many topics! There are certain values that are independent of the technological level of a society. What varies is the adherence to those values. As technology has advanced, free time has increased; no longer must every waking moment be devoted toward survival. Recreation or idle time has increased with increased mechanism. Members of society are finding that they have *too* much free time and are violating the generally accepted values (or mores) of the society. > We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be > reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing > the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that > can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of > freedom we are concerned with. > By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, > with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and > without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially > from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as > an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death > issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against > whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having > power; not the power to control other people but the power to control > the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone > else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how > benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised. > It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness. ... In small groups, there is often less freedom than in larger groups because the actions of one can have much more of an affect on the survival of the others. If one person in a small group does not pull their weight or hogs resources, then the other members are more likely to suffer than the same situation in a larger group. One lazy hunter in a group of five may mean a twenty percent reduction in yield, one lazy individual on public assistance with one hundred thousand workers supporting them may mean a 0.001 percent reduction in yield. In addition, technology has increased the leverage (or yield) of each working individual. PIR it would take days or weeks for a treatise to be typeset and the first set published, today it is taking little more than my thinking time. There are still many opportunities to be the captain of ones fate, but it requires sacrifices and the willingness to take risks. The risks include failure, financial ruin, hunger, societal ostracism, and even death. Inexpensive technology is making it easier for the lone entrepreneur to start a business, compete successfully with the large organizations, and take control of their lives. But many people choose not to follow this avenue because of the risks; it is often psychologically and emotionally easier to give up some freedom for security. > "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will > conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy > and happy." Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago. > The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody > happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. ... Science will not fix anything; it just provides solutions. It is up to society to determine which solutions are appropriate and then behave accordingly. Science has drastically improved the food yield of land in the United States and many other countries but hunger has not been conquered - why not? Because population continues to grow even as food production productivity increases. There is technology to grow more food and limit pregnancy but segments of the world's societies have chosen not to use the technology properly. External forces cannot *make* one happy - happiness and contentment *must* come from within. In general, the standard of living has increased for most of the world population since the Industrial Revolution. > The average man may have control over certain private machines of his > own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large > systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it > is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite > will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will > no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden > on the system. Who are these elite? Who are the masses? Although the need for physical labor has been reduced drastically by technology, this has been occurring for thousands of years - the domestication and taming of animals like the horse and elephant reduced the need for physical carrying. Steam engines and farm equipment made slaves economically unfeasible in the Southern states. Computers reduce the need for rooms of clerks moving numbers from one column to another book. > If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm- > inate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or > other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate > until the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the > elite. Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide > to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They > will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all > children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that > everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who > may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'. Reducing the birthrate - of the "masses" or "elite" is to the benefit of society and the world in general. Over population (too many births) has been one of the driving forces behind science and technology - attempting to solve the problem of keeping the people fed, clothed and housed. For the needs, let alone the wants, of the people to be met, economic growth must keep up with population growth; for the state to improve, economic growth must exceed the that of the population. Without technology, the "masses" (and the "elite") would cease to exist because the population has far exceed the ability and availability of land to feed it. > Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be > biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need > for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power > into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy > in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ... Why bother? By developing the technology to severely limit or eliminate the birth rate of the masses, the problem of the "masses" would go away within a generation. Unfortunately, the desire to compete (drive for power) in many segments of the American society is on the decline replaced with the desire to be cared for by the government. In some segments, attempts to do well in school are viewed as treason to ones race - this is the problem in the society - not technology, not some elite trying to make competitive eunuchs out of the "masses," it is those "masses" wanting to be cared for and not take care of themselves! > The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the > unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress > is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think > it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it > can be stopped ... > Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction > of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal. The path into the future is *always* unknown - that is the nature of the beast. Properly managed, technology is an asset rather than a liability. Wreck the industrial system behind the society and suffering will increase. Hunger, early death, widespread disease, and a general crumbling of the standard of living will be the result. David B. Horvath, CCP dhorvath@goldey.gbc.edu Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer From: Jay Hill <76333.1613@compuserve.com> Patrick Townson and Unabomber, I am writing in response to a recent posting of Unabomber's Manifesto where I learned that he/she/it has resorted to violence to attempt to solve problems that he/she/it cannot comprehend or agree with. I too, feel the squeeze of the Industrial Revolution on the "values" issue, but have come to the personal conclusion that it is human nature for these things to happen. For as long as there have been humans, there has been a portion of their personalities called greed. This trait is more developed and noticeable in some people and is quite well controlled in others. No matter what, though it is in each of us and that fact cannot be denied. The difference in values is what each of us decides to do with that greed. Many of the people that helped the industrial revolution on its way had very sincere and honest intentions of helping mankind. Unfortunately, the statement exists: "The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions" I honestly believe in mankind and its ability to change both for the good and the bad If we have become so bad/dangerous/violent that we cannot take the time to help one another correct our own problems, then maybe we should let the natural world destroy us. I personally believe however, that mankind CAN and WILL make a change for the better. There is evidence of this everywhere I look. Many do not see this evidence as they are not looking for it. I STRONGLY AGREE with Unabomber's statement: "By 'freedom' we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals, not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interferences, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter, and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment." I would, however, like to point out that this freedom (in MY opinion) is earned by NOT interfering with other people's rights and decisions to obtain their own freedom by whatever means they see fit. There are a lot of people that have "bought into" the Industrial Revolution as a way to obtain their freedom. It does not matter that the system they have chosen may not help them achieve their goals. What *DOES* matter is the fact that they choose to be part of the system. For those that feel they do NOT want to be part of the system and are looking for a way to either exit the system or change it to the point where they can have an individual life, then it is time for them to get off their backsides and get involved in the world. No change can be made without effort being put towards it. Their freedom can be obtained by the mere activity involved in looking for it. Until ALL people learn to respect the dreams, goals, desires, independence, and freedom of ALL other individuals on the face of the Earth, then there will be struggles and problems. I would like to encourage Unabomber's attempts to get people to wake up and take notice of their own existence in the world, but I would like to state that I personally do NOT approve of the method he suggests to give people their freedom. If they want it, they should take action to achieve it. Believe it or not, some people actually feel better knowing that their life is somewhat controlled and regulated. They are scared to death of what might happen to them if their "society" crumbled around them. Those people should also have the right to maintain their "freedom" by being allowed to maintain their "society". I direct response to the statement concerning the elite vs. the masses of humanity, I would like to present an idea that is not mine originally, but is very familiar to a large number of individuals. The statement says that 10% of the people/population control 90% of the world/s resources and money. If all the money in the world was divided equally among all the people of the world, then the people that had most of it before would have it all again in less that five years. I propose that this same theory would apply to any Industrial Revolution, "society", or level of "freedom" anywhere in the world. Those that enjoy the comfortable feeling of their "society" would create another to live in. Those that enjoyed their freedom of speech, religion, and life would constantly be telling those in a "society" that they could have it so much better if they'd leave. Those that seek planetary conquest, violence, money, or power, would convince others that their cause was justified and very important. All in all, people are people the same as "parts is parts" and the only changes that take place in our lives are the ones that 1) we allow to happen because we are too lazy to do something about it, or 2) what we choose to change. Personally, I have found great pleasure in being able to be an individual in the midst of the "great society" that so many people love to hate and hate to love. My freedom exists in the fact that I can help others make decisions to make a change in the world, to be somebody, and to realize that we are all here together; whether we want to be or not. I have also found great pleasure in respecting other people's existence as they tend to respect mine even more. I am truly sad for those that must FORCE their opinions on others. Please consider the possibility that Unabomber's own actions are a product of the environment that he/she/it so despises. Rather ironic, don't you think? He/she/it DEMANDS to be recognized a as an individual with freedom, but infringes on the freedom of others in order to make his point. Once again, in MY opinion, this is NOT the most effective means of making an impact on a problem. Unfortunately, *I* am not an expert on what is MOST effective. I only know what has worked for me and that is to let people know there is a way out of the system if that's what they choose, and if they need help or support that there are many other people that feel the same way that would be glad to talk to them about it. No matter what happens, it is still up to the INDIVIDUAL to make the decision to change. If you feel the need for a change, then make the decision to make the change happen. If you like the way life is then by all means let people know that when they attack your way of life. It is just important to stand up for what you've got as it is to stand up for what you want! So.....stand up for yourself, whatever it is that you want out of life. And remember, if I ever run for President, be sure to vote for me. (By the way, that is supposed to be totally hilarious pun so please take it that way.) Have a Nice Day! :) From: ulmo@netcom.com (boo) While certainly not claiming to *know*, I *think* and *feel* very strongly that this Unabomber person underestimates the good to bad ratio of technological effects. This may indeed be a generational thing, e.g. I grew up in the age of personal free speech via USENET/Internet/mailing lists, whereas this Unabomber (I'm guessing) grew up in the age of TeleVision; I grew up with the fear of AIDS and the stigmas it comes with and a hope for an eventual cure, and he (again I'm guessing) grew up with chemical warfare. =================================== So there you have several of the replies. I printed all of the Manifesto that I got. I too can see the 'squeeze on values' discussed by a couple of the writers. I may be mistaken on this, but I think part of the problem -- and perhaps a big part of the problem -- has to do with the way so many people think about computers. The most powerful computers in the world cannot accomplish one percent of what the human brain can accomplish. If people would only realize that computers are *GREAT TOOLS* for repetitive work. They are lousy at making value judgments. I also get angry at technology at times, yet I would not be without my computers and terminals for a minute. I talk with a neighbor frequently who absolutely hates computers. He wants nothing to do with them. I happened to notice that he had a small pocket calculator on his desk. I asked him if he hates computers so much, why does he use that little calculator? Oh, he says, that's a labor saving device when I am balancing my checkbook. I told him the computer was a labor saving device for me when I sent out my newsletter several times per week. Perhaps it is because small calculators have been around long enough that people no longer expect much out of them except to perform repetitive tasks involving math. I told him, and I try to tell all Luddites: The computer is not my personal savior. The computer is my electronic servant. Unfortunatly there are still too many of the 'it is in the computer and the computer can't be wrong' type of people in the world. And because to them the computer cannot be wrong and yet they so detest the answers the computer is giving, they are miserable. I wonder if Unabomber falls in this category. For this I hold the 'technophiles' guilty. It is true that the techies often times speak in their own language, their own mumbo-jumbo, in an almost reverent way about technology, and while its fine to do that among themselves, I think while the techies are making promises to cure all the ills in the world as Unabomber claims they have done and are doing, they need to recognize the serious communications gap which exists between themselves and the rest of the world. We definitly need to place much less reliance on having the computer doing our thinking for us and instead use the computer to do our labor for us. Like one person wrote, I enjoy the 'wild ride' the techies are taking us on ... I really do. But somehow, no matter how difficult it may seem to be, we need to not only integrate the new and old technologies for a smoother ride, we also need to offer truthful assurances to the general public about where we are at and where we are going. Again, I think the techies have failed us in this respect. Just as we now have books on the topic "XX for Dummies", maybe we need somehow to communicate with the Luddites and the Unabombers laying in wait and others of the public and really make an effort to make them comfortable and at ease with the new technology, i.e. "Life in the 21st Century for Dummies". Well, this is already longer than I intended it to be so I will close with my thanks to the many of you who wrote responses and the thoughtful consideration you gave. PAT