MAT 200A | Fall 2011

Technological Anarchism

Yoon Chung Han MAT Ph.D student

Introduction

“Technology reduces people to gears in a machine, it takes away our autonomy and our freedom."

This was the immediate response when Ted Kaczynski heard about the question “why did you personally come to be against technology?” during an interview few years ago. The most insane, super intelligent but extremely dangerous anarchist was the formal scientist, mathematician and professor Ted Kaczynski. He developed the negative attitude to technological society in his early life, decided to escape to the wildness, and developed his own weapon to destroy the modern society. His aggressive activity resulted in killing three people and hurt twenty-three people. What made him to against techno-industry society? Has the technology really been destroyed the human mind and society? What are the positive and negative effects of technology on the society throughout the development of all kinds of technology? What will be the perfect “Utopia” that Ted Kaczynski dreamed and other technological anarchists have been eager? And what would be the aftereffects of high- techno-industrial system and remedies to cure the problems? After I watched the movie “Das Netz” directed by Lutz Dammbeck, the most intriguing question for me was whether Ted Kaczynski’s argument was really acceptable in improvement of society and what can support his view on the irredeemably corrupt technology. Furthermore, as an artist and designer, I wondered if digital technology, new device, computational system and digital culture ruin and degrade human mind and society. In the following essay, I examine the relationship between technology, anarchism, society and utopia. Based on the Ted Kacyznski’s opinion, I will discuss the merits and weakness of technological anarchism, aftereffects of digital technology, and modern digital utopia.

1. Ted Kazinski

In his early life, Ted Kazinski showed his great talents in academia as scientist, Mathematician, researcher, and professor. One probably cannot imagine that he changed his passion as a terrorist and achieved the nickname, “Unabomber” after he left academia, entered to wilderness and tried to kill intelligent scholars. After he felt dissatisfaction on technology and society, he started developing a series of letter bombs, resulting in a string of minor or moderate injuries. The meaning of Unabomber came from a computer abbreviation of the words “universities” and “airlines.” He basically asserted that technology is a totalitarian force, consuming and degrading all aspects of society, and destroying the global environment. Human should live without any effect from technology since they are based on nature and non-technology background. Here are the Ted’s arguments1:

- Humans evolved under primitive, low-tech conditions. Our bodies and minds are designed to live and thrive under precisely these conditions. - Present technological society is radically different than our natural state, and imposes unprecedented stresses upon us. - Technologically-induced stress will only continue to worsen. Humanity will either be utterly debilitated, or reconstructed and transformed to meet the demands of the system. - Such an outcome is undignified, abhorrent, and profoundly dehumanizing. - It is impossible to reform the system so as to avoid this nightmare future.

He inserted that human should live without any complicated technological system, and should be independent and survive as they were born in primitive age. Somehow the reality in present time showed some negative aspects of technology as Ted argued. The human being keep growing and non-human species are destroyed at the same time. The human being is dependent and vulnerable without help from technology and machine. Since the human being is too fragile and intellectual to survive in the competitive society, digital technology have become a great tool to expand the living boundaries, protective weapons and social communication method. Technology have

1 Skrbina, David. “Technological Anarchism: Reconsidering the Unabomber”, “Chromatikon V” p.194 made it possible to realize the human dream such as computerized environment, fast transportation, creation of artificial food, or wireless communication but along with destruction of nature at the same time. However, unlike Ted’s negative opinion, in this digital era, our body has been evolved throughout the development of technology, and it’s no more co-existed in nature and non-technological environment in reality. It’s clear to see that human have gotten used to handle all kinds of digital devices and atmosphere very quickly. The speed to adjust to new technology and system is getting faster and faster. Human mind in this present society is clearly different from one in ancient time, and a newly evolved system affects to create positive stress to each one’s improvement. Dehumanization based on new technological system and demands of the system may turn out the new characteristic of human mind in digital society, and create new kind of human mind and body that brings new humanity. Thus, the technological system may evolve along with human evolution. The Ted’s argument does not have sufficient grounds and his reaction could be too aggressive to express his inadequate assertion to society. However, there is no right answer here. The significant part is that Ted chose the unnecessarily aggressive and relentless method to against the modern society. The way of expressing his argument as murder and injury cannot be acceptable and it contradicts his fundamental theory that every human is natural-born, primitive, and non-technological entity. The weapon and bomb he used for murder is an artificial creature and high technology is required to create it. The contradiction between his philosophy and method was shown through an interview with professor who was injured and lost his hand by Ted’s letter bomb. Ted attempted to kill him and changed the world, however the only remaining result was to hurt the human mind and deliver the most tragic experience to individual. So the most people argued that Ted is an insane terrorist, however based on his philosophy, he can be called as a technological anarchist who contradicts the technology and its effect on society and human mind.

2. Technological Anarchism

The definition of Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.2 There are many types and traditions of anarchism, and it includes the boundary between extreme individualism and complete collectivism. In this case, the philosophy of Ted is close to the individualism, and so called “Technological anarchism.” Instead of avoiding the government, law, social rule, or it’s ruthless power, technological anarchists attempt to get rid of technology in their lives. Some anarchists see information technology as the way to replace hierarchy, defeat monopoly, and prevent war, and support culture jamming in particular as a way to do so.3 Their utopia assembles an eco-friendly group, non-technology society, and non- systemized world. What made technology ruin the society? And why do anarchists see the negative aspects of technology and why haven’t anarchists tried to solve the problem in a realistic way? Anarchists said, “Human have always had to deal with problems of technology. We have to save the “good” parts and eliminate the “bad” parts of the system.” Speaking words is much easier than done. Also, destruction of society by using weapons and bomb is not the best idea. Turning back to the original state and starting over may occur the same process of technology development with the same side effects. The ways of improving society by anarchists cause another uncertain, potential negative effects on society and human mind. Human have already been adjusted by use of technology, and if they are required to change their lives, many side effects will be expected. Have technology affected the evolution of human being, or downgraded the human society, culture, and hierarchy? It’s the most controversial topic in these days. For examples, Internet changed human’s life incredibly fast. It contains the biggest resource of information in the entire world. With the interactive mechanism, one can obtain the information and instantly communicate each other. However, the Internet explicitly propagates and implicitly spreads western democratic values. By using audio and visual elements in the Internet, the western democratic values are focused and intrigued with great appeal and attractiveness. Also, Internet encourages dominant cultures and homogenize small and invaluable cultures in the world. Every

2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism 3 http://eng.anarchopedia.org/technological_anarchism cultures become resemble each other without any characteristics. People lose their insight and ability to judge the difference of culture. Also, the Internet corrupts people’s minds, influences and changes people’s moral perspectives and ethical values. Anonymity in the Internet world allows people to hide and change their personalities in radical way. Thus, Internet have brought many kinds of negative effects on human and society, and there will be possible solutions for each problem and it will be changed slowly. As the system of Internet has been grown up slowly, the side effects of Internet will be cured at the same slow speed, and it will not be the same to the methods technological anarchist suggested. The free software movement4 is an example of an emergent movement of technological anarchist. Without infinite competition and market economy, one can share the information for free. The information can be used very widely and can open up the infinite possibility of creation and invention. However, the results of use of the free software may take profit, or the free software can be made on non-free environment such as Windows or Mac OS. For instance, the creative commons5 allows people to share contents, and broaden their creativity and productivity. The rule of creative commons is not to create profit, but everything else is totally free. However the most negative consequences come from publishing your contents (photos, movies, software, etc) online in the first place. Others have access to them, can copy them, and use it for identity theft purposes, which is illegal. It can start with the anarchistic perspective and intention, however if the consequences create the individual profit and license theft problem, then it will cause serious aftereffects which is not very much different from the usual society’s infinite profit competition and profit war. In order to cure the corrupt society and hierarchy, the careful solutions should be encouraged based on the characteristics of technology.

4 http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Free_Software_movement 5 http://creativecommons.org/ 3. Utopia in industrial society

Most anarchists have dreamed to create their own utopia. There are many kinds of utopia, and the utopia that technological anarchists have dreamed will be the place without any technology’s effect. In the movie “Das Netz,” the director, Lutz Dammbeck, received a letter from a technological anarchist.

Florence, Colorado, Feb 28

Dear Mr Dammbeck

I believe that “utopias” are crazy and dangerous. Especially the utopia of technical society. Technology is a totally willful and extremely dangerous force that will lead us where it must inevitably lead us. This will not be determined by chance, nor by the despotism of arrogant bureaucrats, politicians or scientist, the technological system need merely adapt human behavior to its own demands. This is necessary in order that it can function and continue to expand itself.6

The utopia of technical society is opposite of the anarchist’s utopia. Every technology in the utopia makes people convenient, comfortable, fast and accurate in human’s lives. The opposite assertion is to eliminate technology, and back to the nature, primitive, and natural environment where people can focus on their instinct and intuition. According to Ted’s argument, technology have become more than tools, and catalysts to change everything homogenous. It pollutes human mind and cause illusion that technology improves human’s life. As a result, human cannot control technology, and technology control and rules human and structure of society. The book “Brave new world” by A. Huxley depicted that society controls people by inventing the drug soma, spreading it, and delivering emotional satisfaction to people to avoid disobedience. Society and government rule the human life, mind, emotion, and even behavior with pseudo-effect. For ted, technology is like the drug soma.

6 Dammbeck, Lutz. “Das Netz,” 2003. What would be the real utopia? Are human’s right and freedom necessary to create utopia? Or do people happier if government controls everything and people follow the rule? In history, many communist societies were called as “utopia” by their citizens. However, capitalist countries were considered as infinite competitive places and unhappy place for their citizen even though they are richer and possess more wealth and fame than communist. For instance, in North Korea, poverty and corrupt politics have been serious problems for many years, however the public have never complained about the issue but only admired Kim Jong-il, the leader of North Korea. Adolf Hitler, the former leader in Germany and Nazi, ruled the country with empowered philosophy and racism; He spread his beliefs in racial “purity” and in the superiority of the “Germanic race” he controlled the country by killing the Jews and other races. The strong political act and agenda didn’t allow people to consider different kinds of society, and made them surrender to society. In these kinds of severe consequences, the public regarded the strongly ruled society as their ideal utopia. Technological anarchists consider that the level of technology is quite similar to the one of the former ways in communists to rule the country. Is technology really serious like that? If the public lose technology and back to the nature, will it be happier than now? The state of out of control may deliver various after effects. Also, in order to change into an ideal utopia, it will take time and effort to adjust to the new world and life. Also, there should be a rule or law to control the minimum of human’s behavior; totally freedom will cause severe problem such as lack of ethics, out of order, and even lack of minimum of authority. The answer is still not decided yet. It may depend on the criteria of happiness. The University of Michigan's World Values Surveys (WVS) has compiled data on the happiest countries in the world for over twenty years.7 The happiest country was Nigeria with highest percentage of happy people. But factors that make people happy may vary from one country to the next with personal success and self-expression being seen as the most important in the US, hile in Japan, fulfilling the expectations of family and society is valued more highly. The survey appears to confirm the old adage that money and fame cannot buy happiness. Thus, the criteria of utopia can be relative, and it should not cover the existence of technology itself.

7 http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm Conclusion

Technology is a particularly insidious force. It attacks our dignity, our morals, our compassion, and our sensitivity to nature. It truly debilitates the mind. However, it also delivers convenience, usefulness, and fast and accurate communication to human society. Ted Kaczynski calls on us to overthrow technology and he chose the aggressive methods. He was truly a technological anarchist who hoped the better society rather than terrorist or insane scientist. His message has impact on modern society and its path currently, and this should be reconsidered to improve our society. The movie “Das Netz” chose the interview formed documentary and tried to hear as many voices and point of view from other people as possible. Yet, it’s inconclusive since it opened up the final decision to viewers. Like this movie, the answer to choose either technology or anti-technology is all up to human. By the 1860s Samuel Butler insisted that “every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species.”8 More recently, computer expert Bill Joy argued that we should literally relinquish our most dangerous technologies.9 And yet we, collectively, have stifled these voices and chosen to serve the demands of the system rather than reassert our inborn sense of dignity, autonomy, and freedom. As technology infinitely has been evolved, human should take off and choose which way to go and how to act to the movement. The consequence will bring new utopia in human’s life as we have dreamed.

8 Mumford, Lewis.”Technics and the nature of man” The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1965 9 “Why the future doesn't need us” Wired. April 2000 Reference

Publications

1. Skrbina, David. “Technological Anarchism: Reconsidering the Unabomber”, “Chromatikon V” p.194

2. Mumford, Lewis.”Technics and the nature of man” The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1965

3. “Why the future doesn't need us” Wired. April 2000

Websites

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

2. http://eng.anarchopedia.org/technological_anarchism

3. http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Free_Software_movement

4. http://creativecommons.org/

5. http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm

Movie

1. Dammbeck, Lutz. “Das Netz,” 2003.