Unabomber Manifesto Industrial Society & Its Future
Creating large-scale technology is still possible, but is very rare in human history. This control will not appear totalitarian, but as help for obvious problems (e.g. alcoholism, crime, non-technical education). The process will be collectively destructive of individual control and freedom, even though each part will appear as something good. Gene therapy to remove criminal traits is obviously good, but that same technology can remove other traits too, and those traits will inevitably be those that don’t benefit society. The disruption of the power process is the most significant cause, but by no means the only cause. One must also consider such factors as population density, isolation from nature, rapid social change, and the breakdown of family, village, and other small-scale communities.
Here technology is used like some sort of magic, a scapegoat for the violent, oppressive and destructive nature of society and the natural world that we live in. We eat or get eaten this is not a result of society or technology but the natural world. It’s also an ineffective way to change policy. If my actions can cause random strangers to mail bombs to me? Well, hell, that’s in the same risk radius as “I could walk out my front door and get hit by a truck.” I can influence strangers, but I ultimately can’t control the actions of strangers.
It becomes more repressive because of powerful people who find personal profit in organizing it in a repressive way. This I agree with there is no reason to read his manifesto as no understanding can be gained from it without first understanding the topic and if you know the topic there is no reason to read it because it doesn’t raise any new or interesting ideas in the topic. But in the manifesto, if read carefully, it shows he really wants to be free from control of the ‘elite’ and to return to having power over the entire abstract concept of life – by which I mean to be completely outwith the control of external actors.
In September 1995, The New York Times and The Washington Post published the Unabomber’s manifesto, which catalogued the destruction that technology and industrialization were wreaking on the natural world and the quality of human life. Calling for a revolution, the bomber urged readers to rise up and destroy computers and machines, factories, cars, even medical research facilities, after which everyone would return to a more meaningful life of subsistence farming. We must heighten social stress to encourage total breakdown or to weaken it for revolution. We must also propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial society to prevent its restoration. Global unification against industrial society requires a huge event to occur that has never been seen before to convince people worldly that technology is not progression. We cant even agree on a transcontiental global warming policy.
The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organizationdependent technology.
This however doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t push for a better world and that we shouldn’t hold people and nations responsible for their brutality. One can read the manifesto, but should always keep in mind that any conclusions it draws are conclusions that led a man to blow up his fellow human beings who didn’t even know who he was. I haven’t read the manifesto, just the article, but none of the major ideas or themes presented in it originate with the unabomber. I’ve read bits and pieces of these ideas from Buddhism, Bertrand Russel, Marshall McLuhan and Jared Diamond, among others. You can build a closet in the woods, but usually it doesn’t make much sense unless it’s accompanied by a house. You can interpret ideas while willfully obscuring other facts about the ideator, but usually it doesn’t make much sense unless it’s accompanied by the antecedents and consequences found among those obscurable facts.