Unabomber Manifesto Industrial Society & Its Future
The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome.
In the mid 1960s, Kaczynski had been a graduate student in mathematics at the U of M. When his identity as the bomber was revealed, the anthropology professor who taught Kaczynski’s elective in human evolution remembered him as so brilliant he had received the only A+ this professor ever had awarded. An instructor myself, I couldn’t help but be reminded of all the brilliant but angry young men who had taken my own classes.
The reason states and organizations often take the position to not negotiate by policy, is because it encourages more terrorism, kidnappings and hostage situations. My main takeaway from the Unabomber Manifesto is that to give up is to fail. We only have one valid way out of this and that is using the tool set that got us into this mess to get us out of it.
It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn’t have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn’t have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. They can’t change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn’t have certain skills. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race.
This was written on a typewriter at a time when the internet was in its infancy, desktop computers were large, boxy affairs too expensive for most of us, and artificial intelligence was a fringe science, treated with derision by most. It was a surreal debate — 400 or 500 technorati packed into a room, eager to discuss the works of a man who thinks they’re causing the world’s demise. The content was there — cogent, academic pieces on how technology is alienating us from the natural world, psychically, psychologically and physiologically, damaging us, separating us from our evolutionary nature.
He argued for a complete reversal of technology to undo everything the bad and the good. He presents a world view where nature cares for all if only we could learn to live under it, and the idea that its technology that creates the conflict in the world. The fact that conflict existed before technology and out side of humans is never considered. The fact that the majority of people use technology for the greater good while only a minority of people choose to use technology to mail bomb is never considered. The problems of society are social, not technological.