

KK on Unabomber: pounce on [technology] when it is down and kill it before it rises again - jjguy
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/02/the_unabomber_w.php

======
endtime
A lot of this seems to be gibberish:

 _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.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_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.

~~~
jcl
_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?

~~~
mechanical_fish
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.

~~~
jcl
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_. :)

------
cpr
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.)

~~~
alan-crowe
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.

------
wallflower
> 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.

~~~
JacobAldridge
I don't know if I make the connection as clearly as you have, but I can share
how happy I am making the decision to leave Facebook late last year.

They still have my data, sure, but they don't compromise on my life through a
constant urge to 'check my page' anymore.

------
msie
@endtime: "But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in
agreement with his general ideas."

It seems that many have not read to the end of the blog entry where KK argues
against the Unabomber's most basic premise of his manifesto.

~~~
wmf
msie, please learn how to reply properly on HN; we use threading, not @.

~~~
ahpeeyem
it's amusing that someone called 'msie' would ignore standards ;)

------
jacquesm
that's quite the read, thank you for that link.

The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with
much of the Unabombers premises, even if I can't agree with his conclusion.

~~~
tokenadult
_The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with
much of the Unabombers premises_

What have you studied about economics? I asked once here on HN for
recommendations of economics books

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683>

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.

~~~
jacquesm
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).

