From 1978 to 1995 a mysterious serial bomber dubbed the Unabomber terrorised the U.S. by sending explosives by mail to universities and airlines, killing 3 people and injuring 23. He demanded the publication of his manifesto in the New York Times, called Industrial Society and its Future, wherein he advocated a global revolution against modern day society and its reliance on technology, which he saw as a threat to human wellbeing. Despite the mad plan of total revolt, the analysis of technology outlined in the manifesto is sophisticated. Here, we will take a look at the anti-technology worldview driving these violent killings, without in any way condoning the acts of its author.
Central in the manifesto and in the Unabomber’s (UB) dissatisfaction with industrial society is his notion of the power process. He believes it is a fundamental human psychological characteristic that is essential to happiness and which is disrupted by today’s technology. This power process is divided into two elements. The first consists itself of three stages: goal-setting, striving towards the goal, and attainment of the goal. The second element concerns autonomy, the feeling of having control over your circumstances, not being controlled yourself by higher powers. The successful completion of the three stages in an autonomous way results in satisfaction. UB holds that this power process is only completely satisfied in hunter-gatherer societies that are challenged in securing basic human needs such as food and shelter. Modern humanity is said to have only surrogate activities that mirror the power process but poorly; examples are any and all hobbies or jobs such as becoming a good swimmer, becoming a scientist, collecting stamps, etc. It is technology that brought about the shift from the authentic power process to the surrogate activity. For the great majority of people securing basic necessities has become an activity requiring only minimal effort, mostly as menial labour under supervision. Together with the rise of large-scale organisations that control life, such as governments and corporations, themselves also brought about by progress of technology, autonomy has diminished. The rise of technology and with it industrial society is then the cause for a loss of freedom, which he defines as “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 organisation” (paragraph 94). The reason to escape industrial society is then to regain one's lost freedom and embrace a primitive lifestyle that occupies itself with securing basic needs.
When first published, the manifesto gathered quite a few supporters, in part due to this analysis of human nature and its disturbance by technological influences (in another part perhaps his critique of the left and political correctness). While convincing, it may be questioned how significant this power process is in achieving human happiness and why a surrogate activity might not fully satisfy this. Surely, satisfaction with life is not restricted to achieving goals. Contributing to the wellbeing of others, having meaningful relationships, and experiencing truth and beauty are all worthwhile activities. And if the only requirements for the power process lie in the autonomous setting, striving, and achieving of goals, many surrogate activities would seem to fit the bill, even if they are not in service of survival.
Most important, though, is the component of autonomy or freedom and its encroachment by industrial society and technological progress (UB calls himself part of the “Freedom Club”, FC, in the article, even though he was the sole author and perpetrator of the bombings). Each new introduction of a technological product is thought of as beneficial and fulfilling a need. As a result, new technologies become integrated in society and alter the economic, political, and social structures of everyday life. In order to keep functioning individuals are then forced to adopt the technology, now being less free to live in their preferred way. And eventually may find themselves having to accept an unexpected negative consequence: the disruption of their power process. UB gives the example of computers, saying the system as a whole is dependent on computers and requires individuals to be dependent on them as well. It’s true that today you will find it very difficult to live and work without computer technology.
Progress itself has become practically inevitable due to its institutionalisation in universities and companies. As such it is part of the power process as a surrogate activity for many. Both the scientist and the technologist attempt to satisfy their power process by doing science and engineering. UB scoffs at the commonly stated motivations of scientists and technologists as working for the greater good or curiosity. Saying it is rather the inherent need for satisfaction of the power process, shaped in part by social status and approval of others, that they engage in these activities. The progress that is observed in technology is then not the product of a rational mind that independently searches for truth, but rather the result of a primitive human drive.
At a sufficiently advanced stage this system keeps itself going and individuals are conformed to the system instead of the other way around. Psychological treatments are developed because people are depressed by their boring jobs and lack of purpose. Excessive laws and regulations are put in place to control dissident individuals and the technology of mass surveillance, long-distance communication, well-organised police forces, and information gathering make their enforcement possible. But while each step seems beneficial, the invasiveness of technology will only increase because the system now exists only for its own continuation. UB says: “control over human behaviour will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial” (paragraph 151). In the end, this analysis leads UB to the conclusion that only a global revolution that overthrows industrial society can return humanity to the apparently better state of nature.
While the conclusion of total revolution and especially UB’s murderous attempts to enact it makes this the work of a madman, the above analysis is certainly prescient and has much truth to it. It also resembles modern approaches in the philosophy and sociology of technology, like actor-network theory.
However, we can still question his claims about how technology diminishes our freedom. If freedom is defined by an adequate power process that is only fully satisfied by hunter-gathering activities, then yes, technology diminishes our freedom. If, however, we see technology as releasing us from the burdens of survival and instead as augmenting our powers to act, then one can claim it makes us more free. When taking account of the system level, we should acknowledge that the forces that determine the evolution of global society are mostly beyond our control, and it is certainly true that technological progress is a major factor in the long term. But how this will impact our freedom is still anyone’s guess. We can find examples of technology helping to decentralise our institutions, giving some autonomy back to the individual, like access to knowledge through the internet or energy independence through off-grid solar panels or (more controversially) decentralised currencies and contracts through blockchain technologies. A dark future is visible, too. One where corporations and states dominate individuals through the data provided by the internet and ever-present sensors and cameras, or where A.I. displaces human workers to the benefit of the owners, or where the wealthy have access to genetic technologies to transform the wealth gap into a biological gap.
However, we should not discount whatever agency we still have. Despite the totalising system he claims we live in, the Unabomber himself still believes a global revolution against industrial society to be within our possibilities. If that were to be the case, then surely it should be possible to instead steer toward a future where technology adds to our freedom, rather than detracts from it. Otherwise, we are left to choose between servitude or an endless cycle of revolts against the machine.
Reference
Theodore Kaczynski, “Industrial society and its future”, The New York Times, May 26, 1996, http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html.
