Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/reports/unabomber.manifesto.reply

Internet Message Format | 1995-08-09 | 90KB

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08344;
          9 Aug 95 16:57 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23389 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:57 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23383; Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:55 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 03:08:55 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Reader Responses to Unabomber


About a week ago I participated with many in the print media by publishing
some of the Manifesto submitted by Unabomber. He wanted everyone to read
it, and I trust now everyone who wants to has done so.

There were a large number of responses. Here are several I received.
Generally unattributed quotes, i.e. ">" marks reference Unabomber's
text unless it is stated that a quote is something I said in the preface.


From: [e-mail] (Richard W. Kreutzer)

> The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for
> the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of
> us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society, have
> made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led
> to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suff-
> ering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The
> continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will cer-
> tainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater
> damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to greater social disrup-
> tion and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
> suffering even in 'advanced' countries ...

I am no expert on history, but if I am not mistaken, human suffering
and indignities against mankind have been far worse in the past
several hundred years.  I would argue that technology, particularly
technology which widens the scope of communication, reduces the
incidence of autocratic injustice.  In fact it appears to me that the
less a government is able to control the media (communication) the
more it is likely to engage in behaviors against the interests of the
"people"

> We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This
> revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or
> it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We
> can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way
> the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take
> in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of
> society. This is not to be a *political revolution*.  Its object
> will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological
> basis of the present society ...

I'll bet you could get your message out faster with technology.  It
seems a bit of an irony to be reading this at my computer.

> For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only
> slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security.
> In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than
> the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
> technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

I expect that very few societies, through out history, have lived in a
stable secure framework in the natural world.  Suffering from war,
natural disaster, disease, and famine have all been greater historicaly
than today, in the trird world or otherwise.  If this is correct, what
other than technology has improved the human condition.

> The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional
> values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and
> economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make
> rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society
> without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as
> well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional
> values ...

Values are good.

> We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
> reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
> the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that
> can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of
> freedom we are concerned with.

With increased communication comes increased freedom.  Repression is
more often accomplished in a closed society.  Eventually, technology
will link even the most underdeveloped locations.  The technology to
accomplish this will become so cheap in relation to it's value to the
individual that it is bound to happen sooner or later, especially if
progress continues to increase at exponential rates.

> By 'freedom' we mean 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 organization. Freedom means being in control (either as
> an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death
> issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against
> whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having
> power; not the power to control other people but the power to control
> the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone
> else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how
> benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.
> It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.  ...

Again, communication (with the resulting information it provides) brings
power, to the individual or otherwise.

> "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will
> conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy
> and happy."  Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago.
> The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody
> happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. ...

I bet in over all terms, this is incorrect.  Global suffering is
probably a fraction of what it was, on a per capita basis, two hundred
years ago.

> The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
> own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
> systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it
> is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite
> will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will
> no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden
> on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm-
> inate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or
> other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate
> until the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the
> elite.  Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide
> to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They
> will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all
> children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that
> everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
> may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'.
> Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be
> biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need
> for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power
> into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy
> in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ...

The Internet (or it's replacement) will become a great paradox.  It will
be at one time the largest (yet the most individual) of all machines.
One massively parallel computer with a common (and individual)
consciousness uniting the entire world.  IMHO

> The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the
> unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress
> is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think
> it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it
> can be stopped ...

Who is to say that the Universe itself, along with evolution, is not an
"utterly reckless ride into the unknown".  Technology is an enevitable
part of evolution.  Why are technophiles any different than anyone else?
Certainly there are good technophiles and bad technophiles.  Why is
technology to blame?  Aren't people to blame, regardless of their career
choices?

> Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction
> of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal.

I can't see that this is going to help.  Before technology, there was
much suffering and many bad people.  All things considered, it appears to
me that technology ends up more of a plus than a minus.

I think could say the same thing about religion.  :)

Regards,

Dick


From: Arthur Chandler <[e-mail]>

  I want to register a strong disagreement with TELECOM DIGEST for
publishing this manifesto.

  Let me tell you about a man named Dr. Epstein. He is humane, married to
another MD, and engaged in research he believes will help humanity. His
daughter JoAnna studied flute with my wife. An accomplished amateur, Dr.
Epstein often accompanied his daughter on his cello. He would usually sit
in on her lessons, and smiled with obvious pleasure as her heard his
daughter progress on the flute.

  One day JoAnna found a package on the doorstep of their house. She
brought it in and set it on the table for her father.

  An hour later, JoAnna heard a terrific explosion, and screams from her
father. She rushed in to see her father covered in blood, his hands blown
to bits.

  He will never play the cello again.

  JoAnna still wakes up screaming with the scene welling up in her
nightmares. She wil never get over it.

  Does the man who caused this agony have a right to a platform from
which he can lecture Americans about the evils of society? Does the
fabricator of that bomb have the authority to pontificate to us about
the evils of technology?

    "He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars:
  General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer."
            --  William Blake


From: "Jon M. Taylor" <[e-mail]>

Preamble:

    I work at the California Forestry Association, the target of the
Unabomber's most recent attack.  I am just a computer tech and am not
involved in to "politics" of that Association, but I knew and respected
Gil Murray, who lost his life to that bomb.  In addition, I came very
close to losing my father as well - he handled the bomb mere seconds
before it exploded.

    I am ambivalent about trying to "argue" against points made by
someone who feels that violence is a legitimate tactic to use in order to
convince others of the merits of their views, but I feel that I owe it to
Gil to do my best to repudiate the "logic" used in the missive below.

In article <[e-mail]>,
TELECOM Digest Editor  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The person who has become widely known in recent months as Unabomber
> has written a manifesto explaining his beliefs and conduct. He first
> contacted the {New York Times} and the {Washington Post} requesting
> that they publish the manifesto.

> Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to
> readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his
> message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach
> the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic
> medium such as this network.

    I hope that he doesn't think that he will find a very receptive
audience for his views here....

> I must say I do not find myself completely in disagreement with Unabomber's
> message.

    Well, perhaps I was mistaken.

> I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to
> use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system'
> of which he speaks.
> But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the
> dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not
> change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks.

    It will not change, even with this.  The system is here for a
reason, and that is that most people want what it provides and feel that
they are better off with it than without it.  If the Unabomber was
actually seriously interested in trying to bring people around to his
ideas, he would not be engaging in acts of violence.  His messages
indicate that he is intelligent enough to realize the futility of his
actions, so I am forced to conclude that he is merely just another mass
murderer, but one who happens to be driven by a "cause" rather than voices
in his head (apologies if he actually *does* hear voices).

> Perhaps ... but his message is worth our consideration, and I am pleased
> to be one conduit by which it can be disseminated on the Internet.  For
> what should be obvious reasons, I have *no method of contacting Unabomber*
> and cannot forward replies nor can I respond to personal replies. I'm sure
> he will see them. In about a week I will publish the best replies here.

              ---------------------------------

> The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for
> the human race.

    Do tell.  We live longer, infant mortality rates have plunged,
overall health has skyrocketed, and in general living standards have
increased across the board.  We are as successful a species as any I can
think of.

> They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of
> us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society,

    One: You have the mistaken notion that the current state of
society is here to stay.  This is very much incorrect.  The current
state of rapid growth in both technology and human population size is
the inflection point of a sigmoid curve and *must* eventually level
off.  See "World Population and Human Values" (Salk & Salk, 1980) for
a detailed treatment of this very topic.

    Two: Why is destabilization a bad thing?  Sure, the average
joe these days will moan about how hectic and stressful the world is
today, but put him to work plowing a field with a horse-drawn plow for
16 hours a day and he'd be *begging* to return to our modern world.
Change can be gotten used to be those of us that are adaptable enough.

> have made life unfulfilling,

    I'd like to know where you get your information on how
"fulfilling" life was before the IR (Industrial Revolution).  It is a
common assertion of technology's foes that life was pleasant and
pastoral before all the nasty icky bad industrialists mucked things
up.  Well I'm sorry, but this is a bunch of BS.  If you brought the
average agrarian peasant from 300 years ago to today's world and told
him that someone dearly wished to destroy it and return to his
previous lifestyle, I guarantee you he or she would agree that this
person was off their rocker.  I would dearly love to be able to send
you back to the time period you apparently love so the you could see
how badly life sucked back then compared to now.

> have subjected human beings to indignities,

    Indignities?  Like not having to have half your kids die
before maturity?  Like being able to live for around 70 years instead
of around 40?  Like antibiotics, modern surgery, guaranteed
non-contaminated food, educational opportunities beyond the dreams of
the world's elite 300 years ago, women's rights, democracy, etc. etc.
etc.?

> have led to widespread psychological suffering

    It is only today that people have the luxury of considering this
sort of thing as anything other than part of one's lot in life.

> (in the Third World to physical suffering as well)

    Tak a *real* close look at the third world, buddy.  That's
what life was like for virtually everyone before the IR.  Ask a poor
African peasant whether they would prefer the life of a poor welfare
mother in the US, and I give you one guess as to what the answer would
be.  We only think of the condition of the third world as "suffering"
in comparison to what we in the first world enjoy.  We of course
should try our best to help the third world to lift itself out of the
mire of poverty and squalor.

> and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

    True, but the operative word here is "have" (past tense).  The
first world is MUCH better off environmentally than 20 years ago, and
the impovements continue apace.  We now plant far more trees than we
cut down, industrial air and water pollution have been slashed from
1960s-era levels, new energy technologies that generate very little
pollution are taking shape all over the place, and in general we
humans are getting our environmental act together at a pace that, in
historical terms, is extremely rapid.

    As for the third world's environmental problems, they are caused
by overpopulation, and the single best way to get people to have less
kids is to raise their level of education and their standard of living.
Guess what does that?  Technology!

> The >continued development of technology will worsen the situation.

    Tsk, tsk.  Someone hasn't done their homework very well.  This
sort of blanket statement is quite often seen from the dogmatic,
religious fringe of the environmental movement.  What it indicates is
that you haven't thought deeply enough about the issue to realize that
the environmentally harmful phase of industrial/technological
advancement is just that, a phase.  We are already approaching the end
of it in the first world, and the third world is sure to follow.

> It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and
> inflict greater >damage on the natural world.

    Stating things in absolutes using "certainly" and the like does
not confer any more validity on your "arguments", guy.

> It will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological
> suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in
> 'advanced' countries ...

    Where's your evidence for this?  If it is just linear
extrapolation from today's trends (the situation has been worsening
for a while now, therefore it will automatically continue to worsen in
the future), that is ridiculously simplistic.

> We advocate a revolution against the industrial system.

    For some reason, I don't think that this will happen anytime
soon.  Face it, guy - if anyone out there agreed with you, you
wouldn't *have* to kill people to get attention!  You are going to
have to face up to something, and that is that PEOPLE LIKE THINGS THE
WAY THEY ARE.  No one will claim that things are perfect by any means,
but they are nevertheless good and getting better.

> This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be
> sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few
> decades. We can't predict any of that.

    How about "I will continue to kill people until I get caught
and then I will be executed and people will forget all about me and my
jihad against technology almost immediately"?  See, you may or may not
have caught on to this, but you have trapped yourself.  You *can't*
stop killing people (not that I think you'd stop anyway) even after
this manifesto is published, because if you do, the media will turn
its back on you completely (you won't be news anymore, after all).
All that will happen is that a bunch of people will read the
manifesto, think "what a nutbar!" and then go back to the sports page
and forget all about it.

    So, you will shortly find yourself being completely ignored
once again.  What to do?  I very much doubt that you'd be able to let
this thing drop - after all, you are a celebrity now!  Besides, the
revolution will continue to not occur.  So, at some point you'll miss
the limelight enough to kill again, perhaps demanding the publishing
of some more of your "wisdom".  No one will do it, because you will
have broken your earlier promise to not kill again.  If you then
return to bombings, you *will* eventually get caught.  My personal
opinion is that you are going to get caught anyway, because you were
*way* too talkative after the CFA bombing.  Getting frustrated at the
pace the revolution is moving at, are we?

> But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who
> hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way
> for a revolution against that form of society.

    You should have started this whole thing in the sixties,
because you have missed the period of history when you had a chance of
gaining more of a following than a few random nuts.  You missed the
boat, guy.

> This is not to be a *political revolution*.
> Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and tech-
> nological basis of the present society ...

    Attempting to overthrow a particular government would be
infinitely easier than what you are trying to accomplish.  In fact,
your use of violence is almost certainly *harming* your cause.  I have
had many people tell me that they now feel ashamed to hold even
nonviolent anti-technological views because of the stigma that has
been lent to those views by you.  Smooth move.

> For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only
> slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security.

    Why are changelesness and "security" so important to you?
Most people I know would gladly trade those for today's assurances
that their child will live to maturity.

> In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than
> the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
> technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

    True.  So?  Your assertion that stability is the absolutely
most important characteristic for a society to have is by NO means
shared by everyone.

> The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional
> values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and
> economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make
> rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society
> without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as
> well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional
> values ...

    I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100% on
this.  Of course, I am not a conservative and I think that change is
good.  Did it ever occur to you that you are the ultimate conservative?

> We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
> reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
> the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that
> can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of
> freedom we are concerned with.

> By 'freedom' we mean 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 organization.

    Yawn.  Another armchair anarchist who can't tell the difference
between coercive and non-coercive hierarchies.

> Freedom means being in control (either as
> an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death
> issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against
> whatever threats there may be in one's environment.

    Did it ever occur to you that people may not *want* to have to
deal with all of this themselves?  It is a hell of a lot easier to
specialize in the clothing part, have someone else specialize in the
food part, and trade your surplus for theirs rather than do it all
yourself.  The sort of small groups you describe are not stable - they
WILL continue to specialize, they WILL settle down in one spot, they
WILL compete to build a better mousetrap, and someone WILL eventually
hire their muscle out as a protection service - and that's the
beginning of governments.  Today's situation is inevitable, given the
innate characteristics of human beings.  You'd have to artificially
hold people down at a certain technological level to get the society
you want, which is impossible.

> Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people
> but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life.

    OK so far....

> One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large
> organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,
> tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.  It is
> important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.  ...

    What you are describing is classical, extremely simplistic
anarchy, and it is FAR more unstable than today's society (which you
criticize for it's instability).  People develop power structures and
hierarchies.  It just happens that way.

> "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will
> conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy
> and happy."  Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago.

    Guess what?  **IT HAPPENED**.  It's *still* happening.  Did
they say it would all be paradise instantly?

> The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody
> happy, etc.

    No it wasn't.  It was supposed to make people money.  It worked.
The benefits we have seen have been a by-product of that.  That doesn't
make those benefits any less real or imply that they will cease to accrue.

> The actual result has been quite different. ...

> The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
> own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
> systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite

    You, of course, have some evidence to back this up.  No?  Wow,
big surprise there. For your information, the rise of democracy is
almost entirely due to one piece of technology - the firearm.  The
personal computer is placing control of technology in the hands of
more individuals than ever before, and the internet is poised to
become the greatest tool of individual empowerment (free flows of
information) in the history of mankind.

> -- just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved
> techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and
> because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be
> superfluous, a useless burden on the system.

    Somebody's been reading 1984 too much.  Think about it: what
are the reasons people try to control one another?  Control over
resources (food, power, sex), mostly.  By increasing the total amount
of resources available to society, technology has *reduced* the need
for people to dominate each other.  Now, this process is of course
still a while from completion, but how often do you see one town
raiding another for food or women these days?

> If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm-
> inate the mass of humanity.

    Why?  This may be a bit hard for you to grasp, but most people
don't *like* to kill each other!

> If they are humane they may use propoganda or other psychological or
> biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the masses of
> humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the elite.

    Again, why?  Also, when people are well-off, they tend to have
less children *anyway*.  If it weren't for immigration, the US and
most of Western Europe would have NEGATIVE population growth now.

> Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide
> to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They
> will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all
> children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that
> everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
> may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'.

    I can see that the primary thrust of all this is that you fear
that this will be done to *you*.  You overestimate your own
importance, buddy.  If you weren't trying to kill people, we wouldn't
be "treating" you, we'd be *ignoring* you.

> Of course, life will be so purposeless

    Why?  As long as there is a book to write, a program to code, a
better mousetrap to build, a painting to paint or a song to write, people
will have places to go to find purpose in their life.  Of course, the
people that find purpose in initiating force against others (like you)
might just find life purposeless and be "treated", but in this case you'll
pardon me if I don't shed a tear.  You are the problem here, not the
solution.

> that people will have to be biologically or psychologically
> engineered wither to remove their need for the power process or to
> make them 'sublimate' their drive for power into some harmless hobby.

    This may very well happen, but it will most likely be a
popular step with society as a whole.  Most likely, though, this will
only be done to those primitives whose agressive drives lead them to,
say, mail bombs to people, as opposed to those who can channel their
energies into creative, rather than destructive, patterns.

> These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but
> they most certainly will not be free. ...

    If your definition of "freedom" includes the "right" to
initiate force against others, then I will feel no remorse at all over
taking that "right" away from you by whatever means are necessary.

> The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the
> unknown.

    Yep, and I *love* it.  The continuous stream of miracles that
we are swimming in today is one of the things that make my life worth
living.  I'm not afraid of the unknown like some primitive caveman
huddling in his cave and cringing in fear at the noises in the night -
instead, I start a fire, light a torch, grab my spear, and go out to
find out what's making the noise.  You can remain in the cave and
cringe in fear at the dark, but I choose not to.

> Many people understand something of what technological progress
> is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think
> it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it
> can be stopped ...

    Yes, well, you are mistaken.

> Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction
> of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal.

    The train is leaving the station, buddy.  You can hop on and
get ready for the ride of your life into the great unknown, or you can
remain at the station all by yourself.  Just don't bother trying to
stop the train, because we'll run right over you and never even notice
the bump.

>      ------  end text of Unabomber message ------

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unabomber's reference above to 'FC' is
> to the Freedom Club. The number of members in the 'club' is unknown,
> however the US Federal Bureau of Investigation believes membership
> consists of only one person, Unabomber himself and no others.

    Most likely.  It is virtually impossible to keep something
like this quiet if more than one person knows about it.  He keeps
claiming that there is more than one person in "FC", but that is
almost certainly an attempt to add the weight of numbers to his
"arguments".

> Since 1978, Unabomber is credited with killing three people and injuring
> 23 others with a series of bombs directed primarily at university
> researchers and their employees. Some bombs have been directed to
> airlines and other 'high-tech' industries.

> The first bombs attributed to Unabomber were in 1978 in the Chicago area
> at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicagp.
> The FBI believes Unabomber moved to the Salt Lake City area in 1980, and
> then to northern California in 1981, where he had 'some sort of contact'
> with the University of California at Berkeley, where two bombs were
> placed. For many years Unabomber chose to remain silent following his
> attacks, leading investigators to believe his attacks were simply random
> in nature.  PAT]

    Every time that I read about a new invention, discovery,
process, or any other manifestation of technological growth, I think
and will continue to think, "gee, I'll bet that this would really piss
the Unabomber off!  That makes me really happy!" |->.  I hope that
they catch this guy and stick him in a jail cell for the rest of his
life, so that he can watch the kind of world he hates continue to grow
and evolve.  That, too, would make me very happy.  I hope they give
him a TV in his cell that is stuck on the discovery channel and can't
be turned off |->.

************ Jon Taylor *************************************************
* "For something that has spread with all the forethought of kudzu, the *
* Internet isn't half bad." - Newsweek, 2/27/95 *************************
************************************ [e-mail] **********


From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)


At the risk of being 'flamed' by others in this group I have chosen to
respect the views attributed to you about yourself and the FC.  I
reply to you as the spokesman for the FC, regarding the small portion
of the manifesto published in TELECOM Digest, and media reports of
other portions.

In a TELECOM Digest mailing Patrick Townsend wrote:

> Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to
> readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his
> message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach
> the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic
> medium such as this network.

I would very much like to see the entire Unabomber manifesto from the
FC.  I am annoyed that the government seems to be holding it back from
publication.  I hope that one of the people the FBI distributes it to
will publish it.  If the entire text is already on the net somewhere,
I would appreciate a pointer (URL, Gopher or Anonymous FTP).

I understand that others may use terror to get their message
published, but violence was never nessisary.  Users of the net publish
many differing views.  The FC's views could have been published
without the violence or secrecy.  (Unless the manifesto is an
offspring of violence, instead of violence being an offspring of the
beliefs in the manifesto.)

 From what the FBI tells us, you began the violent part of your crusade
against technology in 1978.  I assume that your views have developed over
the past 17 years and the manifesto is 'current' expressing complaints
against 1995 technology as well as the 1978 technology the FC originally
struck out against.

It is amazing to me that the very system the FC hates is the one that
gives the most freedom to express the FC's views, and to close the gap
between 'the elite' and 'the rest of us'.  Since 1978 the Internet has
grown from a private educational research network to a worldwide
system used for government, business, and entertainment information
interchange.  It could be argued that 'only the elite will have
control' but there are too many teens with $15 per month (or less)
connections WITH THE SAME ACCESS PRIVILIGES as large companies paying
hundreds of $$$ per month.

The idea that the elite outside the net would rule the world is also
being attacked by technology.  In the past few days (the beginning of
August) we have had two large mergers in the television industry.  The
Westinghouse-CBS merger makes 15 TV stations 'owned' by a single
company.  Currently that is not allowed and they will have to sell off
a few of their stations.  Even if the government changes its rules and
allows Westinghouse-CBS to keep all 15 stations they still will only
have direct influence over 30% of the US audience.  Acess to the rest
of the US is subject to the whims of individual stations who can pick
and choose their own programming.  Network affiliation contracts are
easily preempted for local sports and taste, Affiliations can also be
canceled or changed by any independent station.

The spirit of humanity, as you mention, is to fight.  Unless the elite
can quickly brainwash a few billion people into not fighting their
battle is lost.  No matter how hard it is, with or without government
help, individuals will grow and assert their independence.  The elite
may be able to convice or pay congress to cut off support for small
businesses, but the individuals will still fight.

Years ago there was no government protection for small businesses, and
yet they survived.  Many of those small businesses went on to create
the technology the FC seems to hate.  Should we take away the freedom
of the small companies that continue to create technological advances
for the elite to control with?  Or is that just another way for the
elite to take over?

Freedom created technology.  Killing the technology (and the
technologists) will not return freedom, we still have it.  Maybe the
rest of the FC/Unabomber manifesto explains it better than the expcets
I had access to.

Keep sending your manifesto to responsible publishers.  I hope one of
them will find the space to publish it.  Don't forget your audience on
the Internet too.  Full disclosure of the manifesto may even encourage
others to join with the FC.

Please continue to fight with words and not explosives.  Realize that your
mailings of the manifesto have put you in a more positive public light,
winning more people who agree with you, than the bombings.  Your continued
non-violence IS apreciated.


James E. Bellaire
Twin Kings Communications


From: Henry Wysmulek <[e-mail]>

This person is a total regect left over from the failed socialist
revolution that never transpired. Now like a lot of his comrades he
has been left adrift on an empty sea of disillusionment.  These
loonies have now seized upon the enviromental banner in place of the
old socialist manifesto as their new god. Man was never meant to be
controlled by nature, but to tame the planet. This does not mean total
destruction of our enviroment that is taking place because of the
unleased and uncontrolled immorality of our present society. The
revolution will never occur, the freedom of which he or she speaks
will be lost and the enviroment will be destroyed, but the Bible
teaches that Christ will return and force us to clean up our lives and
live in real harmony with ourselevs and with nature.  If you are tired
of being an empty shell of a human being try turning back to God.
I hope the police do catch you, try you and then execute you for
the malicious murders that you have commited!


H. WYSMULEK     [e-mail]
MODEM: [phone]   BLUE SKY FREENET


From: [e-mail]

[The text I refuse to reprint]

This is indeed a low point when the messianic ramblings of a liar,
murderer, and blackmailer are allowed to be presented on a moderated
digest on Telephony.  Why did we give in to this blackmail? Please
tell me.


[e-mail]  Rudy Rawlins, Nortel, Toronto Lab.


From: [e-mail]

".... that  everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that
anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his
'problem'."

Are you kidding me?!?!  As I sat down to my terminal this morning, I
thought this subject heading was a joke from a friend of mine.  When I
figured out just what this message was, I was appalled that Telecom
Digest would have any part in distributing this, for lack of a better
word, crap.

The Unibomber wants everyone to have a "wholesome hobby"?  Correct me
if I am wrong, but I was brought up to believe that threatening an
entire country with random bombs and scares did not fall into the
category of "wholesome" as a past time.  And the last part about
"treatment" and "problem" seems to be reminscent of the manipulative
language used by Nazis.

However, I did laugh as I thought about how ironic and ambigous this
whole thing is.  The Unibomber is attacking the very technology which
he has obviously found helpful in sending out his disturbing messages.
If it it weren't for the Industrial Revolution, the Unibomber would
have very little means to convey his thoughts on a large scale and
would be left only with the Pony Express.  Yes, I believe strongly in
the First Amendment, but I don't think we need to help out this sick
individual by circulating this.  All he wants us to do is talk about
him and he obviously succeeding.


Sue


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (inserted at the time rebuttals were
published). I am not defending Unabomber, but I believe he said the
government or the 'elite who run things' will arrange for everyone to
have a 'wholesome hobby'. I don't think he said he wants that, in
fact I think he dislikes the idea.   PAT]


From: [e-mail] (Tom Davidson)

I notices that you posted excerpts from the Unabomber Manifesto, why
dont you post the entire thing? I'd like to read ALL his writings and
not have someone else choose for me what I get to read.

Please post the complete, un-censored writings of the Unabomber.

Thanks, Tom Davidson


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (posted at the time rebuttals were
printed).  I printed *everything* I got. I did not edit it, I did
not modify it or shorten it. What I got, you saw. My feed was to
me courtesy of the {New York Times} and they chose to send out what
they did. Like yourself, I would like to see it all.   PAT]


From: [e-mail]


> I must say I do not find myself completely in disagreement with Unabomber's
> message. I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to
> use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system'
> of which he speaks. But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the
> dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not
> change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks.


Please take note of something I've been saying for a long time;

We see the press, and many on the left (A redundancy) gleefully
labeling people as right wing terrorists. But notice; have any of them
labeled this idiot as a /left/-wing terrorist?  Political pre-disposition,
perhaps?


From: rossix!amber.dnet![e-mail] (L. Boyd Norris)

I would invite the Unabomber to spend a month or more in the People's
Republic of China, as I have done.  He might come back with a better
sense of what freedom means, or at least - how fortunate we are in
this country to live under a system where personal expression is
possible and the rights of the individual are not repressed
continually by the government.  Technological progress would not be
possible without the hand of God, and even the finest machine is
subject to error and operational failure. Afterall, they are made by
man.  For the Unabomber to carry out his rampage and kill and maim
innocent victims, I would like to nominate him for Charter Membership
in the Cultural Revolutionaries' Hall of Fame. Chairman Mao would have
been proud.

Boyd Norris


From: Name Withheld by Request (but identified/verified by Editor).

Hello Pat, I enjoy keeping up with the comp.dcom.telecom user's group,
and appreciate the technical competence and maturity exhibited there
(which is often lacking in other groups!).  I have a few comments
about the Unibomber essay you published, however I expect you to keep
my response anonymous or private, out of consideration for my personal
safety (as we have seen that the essay's author has little or no
regard for pain and suffering of individuals other than himself, and
of "society" in a general sense).  I am 31 years old, and writing from
an engineering background (BSEE) with other education as well (I was 3
classes short of Minor in History, with concentration on ancient &
european history).

> The industrial revolution and its consequences have
> been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the
> life expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but
> they have destablized society, have made life unfulfilling, have
> subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread
> psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering
> as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

Okay, let's start here.  Stating that the industrial revolution was a
"disaster" is a moot judgment.  There are arguments to support or
refute this claim which could fill several text books.  The author's
claims of "destabilized society", "life unfulfilling", "indignities",
"psychological suffering", and "severe damage on the natural world"
due to the industrial revolution are also questionable.  For example,
one might argue that mankind has been inflicting "severe damage on the
natural world" throughout history, and that this has continued through
all phases of mankind's societal development.

To support this statement, I offer the following current-day example
of a society mostly untouched by the changes which the essay's author
seeks to destroy.  Most Amazon tribes today have not yet entered any
stage of industrialism, and are still agrarian (farming) societies.
Yet they continually burn many acres of rain forest to clear farmland,
where the soil is depleted and washed away within 2-3 years.  Then a
new piece of the rain forest is permanently destroyed to create new
farmland.  If left alone, process will continue until there is no more
arable land and then these people will need to find a new way to
survive, or else perish.  In the meantime, this small portion of the
human population is doing irreparable harm to the environment
world-wide without having gone through an industrial revolution.

With regard to the allegations of suffering, indignity,
destabilization, and unfulfilled life...if you were to read the works
of Shakespeare (a well known early- or pre-industrial revolution
author, depending on how you date the beginning of that period) and
other authors (Chaucer, Dante, etc.), you can find clear examples
lamenting the same conditions in their contemporary societies.  Has
life gotten better or worse...?  Only time-travel could tell us for
certain, all else is open to personal interpretation.  However, one
fact is certain: the industrial revolution had not yet begun during
many of these men's lifetimes, so attributing these specific societal
problems to the industrial revolution is erroneous.

> The continued development of technology will worsen the situation.
> It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and
> inflict greater damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to
> greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may
> lead to increased physical suffering even in 'advanced' countries ...

A paragraph of judgments and prophesies, without historical or social
basis-in-fact.

> We advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This
> revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it
> may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't
> predict any of that.  But we do outline in a very general way the
> measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in
> order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of
> society. This is not to be a *political revolution*.  Its object will
> be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological
> basis of the present society ...

Look carefully...the theme of the essay is buried here.  The essay is
not a scholarly study, but rather an editorial by "those who hate the
industrial system" and seek to "overthrow...present society".  Society
is built upon many pillars, such as government and economics, which
provide its foundation.  Destroying one or more of these pillars does
not simply change society - it removes a major supporting structure
and induces partial or total collapse.  This is clearly demonstrated
in any comparative study of a society before, during, and after civil
war (for a current example, examine Bosnia).  What the author calls
for is destruction of the current society, in hope that its
replacement will be more to his liking (of course, there will be even
greater suffering, destabilization, etc. in the accelerated process of
moving from one social structure to the next - especially if the means
entail only violence!).

> For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only
> slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security.

It is doubtful that the caveman felt secure in a world filled with
predators, otherwise he probably would have not developed tools for
killing.  How many farmers feel secure that the weather will provide
them with a good harvest from year to year?  Security is something
which the individual must provide himself, if he cannot get it well
enough from society.  The caveman developed hunting tools, the farmer
developed irrigation, and today's man develops his knowledge
(education/job skills) and finances (retirement savings).  The man in
any age who did not acquire the requisite means for security resorted
to scavenging (from cavemen), begging (from farmers), or social
security/unemployment payments (from today's man).  For women, the
sources of security were often different from men (usually marriage
was the best option) but there was always a means for increasing their
security, if they chose to do so.

> In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than
> the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
> technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

Equating rapid change with instability appears plausible - but at what
point is society changing too fast and the system considered unstable?
There is no definite answer.  There are people who will adapt and
prosper regardless of the rate of change, and others who simply cannot
or will not adapt - no matter how slow change might be.  To ensure
that *everyone* prospers, society must be restricted to the lowest
common denominator - and then where do we draw the line?  Must change
be slowed down enough so that people with learning disabilities feel
secure - or do we leave them behind?  or force them to change their
lives faster so we don't have to wait?  Or does one nation (or race)
attempt to stop the entire world from changing at all?

> The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional
> values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and
> economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make
> rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society
> without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as
> well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional
> values ...

One must note that "traditional values" are based on *tradition*,
which in a social context is a repeated or common behavior developed
over a period of time.  When there is rapid change, there may not be
enough time for something "traditional" to develop.  But also note
that throughout history, various behaviors based on tradition have
mutated (e.g. Thanksgiving holiday) or disappeared altogether (in the
middle ages, you did not eat at night - you waited until sunrise to
"break" your "fast" = breakfast).

> We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
> reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
> the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that
> can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of
> freedom we are concerned with.

> By 'freedom' we mean 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 organization. Freedom means being in control (either as
> an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death
> issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against
> whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having
> power; not the power to control other people but the power to control
> the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone
> else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how
> benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.
> It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.  ...

There is an additional unwritten thought in this "definition" of
freedom.  It presumes that freedom can only be manifested through
physical interactions.  Intellect and emotion are not included.  This
definition lends itself nicely to justification for violence,
characterized by irrational and dispassionate destruction of lives and
property, as exercising of your personal freedom.

> "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will
> conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy
> and happy."  Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago.
> The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody
> happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different.

Every social group (e.g. technophiles, pacifists, preservationists,
etc.)  advances predictions of the benefits they will provide to
society.  Some benefits are realized, while others are not.
Condemning one group is not justified - can the author *guarantee*
that if his group were to succeed then there would be no ill effects?
Of course not.

> The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
> own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
> systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it
> is today, but with two differences.

There are many arguments that society is actually headed in exactly
the opposite direction.  The Internet is a huge "machine" which will
have profound effects on our present society (it's already started!),
but there is no "tiny elite" controlling it.  If it were to fall under
such control, the technophiles (who the apparently author despises)
would quickly find an alternate means for communication.  The author
fails to identify any large systems of machines which are "in the
hands of a tiny elite" and which rob individuals of their freedom.  If
he tell us what they are, maybe a peaceful and compassionate means
could be found to change them?

> Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over
> the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the
> masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the
> elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of
> humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or other
> psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until
> the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the elite.
> Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to
> play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They
> will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all
> children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that
> everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
> may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'.
> Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be
> biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need
> for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for
> power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be
> happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ...

These ideas are not new, but it's probably the first time people have
been killed or maimed because of them.  Has anyone read George Orwel's
"1984"?  It's a classic.  And there are other books with a similar
futurist theme (movies too).

> The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the
> unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress
> is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think
> it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it
> can be stopped ...

By the statement "...technophiles are taking us all on an utterly
reckless ride...", the author has revealed that he feels powerless and
confused.  He has identified a target (the technophiles) and has
exerted his power (bombings) in an effort to regain control over his
surroundings.  The author's solution is not to learn, adapt, or
adjust...but rather to destroy.

> Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction
> of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal.

I wrote this lengthy response because the editor of this newsgroup
included a remark indicating that the essay deserves consideration.
Unfortunately, I find that the essay is ill-grounded and un-original.
I would recommend going to your local library and checking out a few
good books.

As a side note: It is also interesting to note that America is now
well-past the industrial revolution, and entering into the "knowledge
revolution".  The author clearly does not see further than the recent
past.  A new revolution has already begun, one which he does not even
recognize yet he is a part of it through his actions and the attention
of the media (TV, newspapers, Internet, etc.).  The days of factories,
machines, assembly lines, etc. in the U.S. are fading.  Compare this
to developing countries which are now having their own industrial
revolutions (China, Vietnam and Indochina for example).  This is
stressful to a sizable portion of the U.S. population (especially in
the central and mid-western states) because there is no way to compete
with these newly industrialized peoples.

In the future, happiness and prosperity in the U.S. will come not to
the factory worker, but to the knowledge worker with the ability to
acquire, understand, and apply information.  The old tools (hard work
on the assembly line and life-long loyalty to the employer) won't work
so well anymore.


From: [e-mail] (Richard Dickson)

A view from the UK side of the pond.

This guy sounds like a loser who has blamed the 'system' for his
inability to achieve.  He therefore wants to destroy this system
because he feels that without it he will be able to blossom into an
achiever.  Obviousley even if he got his way, he would not achieve,
because he is one of natures inadequates and would just then find
something else to blame for his failures.

During the industrial revolution we had 'Luddites' in the UK who went
about trying to destroy the machines.  We have also had a king, in
ancient times who tried to order the sea to retreat. This guy is just
another case in a long line of deluded fools.

On a positive note, look into the face of a child in the third world
who has just had laser surgery on his eye cateracts and can now see
again, and ask yourself if technology freed or imprisoned him ?  Now
look at the list of dead and injured from the unabomber and ask if he
liberated or destroyed those lives?


R. F. Dickson   [e-mail]


From: [e-mail] (J. Scott Bushey)

Some thoughts on the Unabomber's Message...

> We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
> reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
> the sphere of human freedom

> Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member
> of a *small* group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence: food,
> clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in
> one's environment.

The Unabomber fails to see that while technology and industry may aid
in limiting our control over these "life and death" issues, it also
frees us from those responsibilities.  This morning I didn't have to
go out and kill a deer and forage for some berries.  I slept rather
well because I didn't waste time setting up a lean-to last night.
It's raining outside and I'm nice and dry.  This frees me to advance
my mind, and thus contribute to the expansion of the human experience.
As technology frees us from such binding tasks as finding food,
shelter, and clothing, we have more time to devote to the pursuit of
knowledge, wisdom, spirituality, and love.


J. Scott Bushey
Computer Consultant


From: Martin McCormick <[e-mail]>

    In Oklahoma, we have had our fair share of discussions and
debates on terrorism, especially since the Federal Building bombing.
The Unabomber's manifesto has the same chilling paranoid tone that one
hears from the people who believe that conspiracies are everywhere and
black helicopters spy on us.

    Those who truly believe this should take time out from
marching around like clowns in the desert with their fake army
uniforms and get a taste of the real world.  Try to correct a mistake
on a tax form.  Try to see how much shouting it takes to correct a
snafu on a health-insurance form.

    If you still haven't got the picture, study some of the
government contracts with large defense-related companies and look at
the mix-ups and cost-overruns.

    I am not saying that nothing ever works right and that people
never do their job, but I just don't see any evidence of any
government operation that works well enough to pull off the kind of
Orwellian monitoring that some claim is going on.  Oh yes.  I almost
forgot about the UN and its control over the whole world.  First, they
have this little problem of Bosnia.

    I am a lot more worried about people like the Unabomber and
the person or persons who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma city
than I am about governmental misconduct.  We are all a little less
free and a little more anxious than we used to be.  Fear is the
ultimate tyranny.


Martin McCormick WB5AGZ  Stillwater, OK 36.7N97.4W  in Tornado Ally
OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group


From: [e-mail] (Heather L. Hallett)

> Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make
> rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society
> without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as
> well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional
> values ...                                  - Text of Unabomber Manifesto

> Since 1978, Unabomber is credited with killing three people and injuring
> 23 others with a series of bombs directed primarily at university
> researchers and their employees. Some bombs have been directed to
> airlines and other 'high-tech' industries.  - Patrick Townson

> And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
> demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will
> demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
                                              - Genesis 9:5 (NIV)
> You shall not murder.                       - Exodus 23:13 (NIV)
> Cursed is the man who kills his neighbor secretly." Then all the
> people shall say, "Amen!"                   - Deuteronomy 27:24 (NIV)

Seems to me that values built upon a solid foundation haven't
collapsed with the growth in technology.  These have remained through
Hebrew law to be passed to us, and Jesus confirmed their validity.  Is
what this man did considered murder?  I see no others supporting his
actions, even those he claims to be freeing.

> I repudiate the violent method of expression he has chosen to
> use, favoring instead a continuing dialogue with the 'industrial system'
> of which he speaks. But I suppose Unabomber would say that after all the
> dialogue has been given; after all is said and done, the system will not
> change without the violent overthrow of which he speaks.  - Pat

This 'revolutionary' would have sufficient argument to support his
thesis, that industrialization has had negative effect on humanity and
our environment.  Yet, it is doubtful that his 'method of expression'
will be either effective or accepted.


    Heather L. Hallett            Rural Datification Participant
                                    [e-mail]



From: David B. Horvath, CDP <[e-mail]>

PAT Wrote:

> Unabomber has also requested that his manifesto be made available to
> readers of the Internet/Usenet newsgroups, and some excerpts from his
> message are printed here. I think he believes his message will reach
> the 'technophiles' whom he condemns with publication in an electronic
> medium such as this network.

I went out and bought the NY Times to read their summary/excerpts of
the manifesto.  I would like to be able to read the entire document -
is there a FTP or WWW site to grab it?  Please publish the address in
the digest PAT.

I am certainly one of those 'technophiles' or members of the elite
mentioned further on; I am certainly not about to become a modern day
Luddite and use violence to destroy the new looms.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (written at time rebuttals were published).
So far as I know, neither the {New York Times} nor the {Washington Post}
has made the full text available to anyone. Why, I don't know.   PAT]


>             -----  begin text of Unabomber message -----

> The industrial revolution and and its consequences have been a disaster for
> the human race. They have greatly increased the life expectancy of those of
> us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destablized society, have
> made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led
> to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suff-
> ering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The
> continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will cer-
> tainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater
> damage on the natural world. It will probably lead to greater social disrup-
> tion and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical
> suffering even in 'advanced' countries ...

The industrial revolution certainly have changed the human race
(actually, the society that we humans belong to) - we've changed from
an agrarian economy where most people worked the land to one where
people are working in buildings; from decentralization of people to
centralization in large cities.  Is this a destabilization?  Quite
possibly - people are very mobile and become separated by large
geographic distances from other members of their family and are
therefore, less "connected" with people around them who are moving
around.  But *technology* is actually reducing the problem of distance
and mobility - I can communicate with friends in Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, Europe, and down the street with equal ease via
telephone.  In fact, I often get better telephone connections to
Australia than I do calling down the street.

With technology like answering machines, voice mail and
e-mail/Internet, keeping in touch with more people (having a larger
"family") is even easier.  This note may be read by hundreds or
thousands of people, I am writing this using word processor software
on a PC - prior to the industrial revolution ("PIR"), it would require
writing long hand, manual copying or Gutenburg-style printing press,
and then distribution.  Something that takes a half-hour or an hour
(most of which is thinking time) today would require weeks or months
without the technology.  I prefer to communicate quickly.

Personally, I find my life to be very fulfilling, do not feel that I
am subjected to indignities and have not suffered very much.  In fact,
I probably suffer less (due to technology) than if I had lived PIR - I
am in my early- thirties, all of my siblings, my parents, and some of
my grandparents are alive.  I personally know of no one who has died
in childbirth, as the result of hunger, or due to smallpox.  All due
to technology.  Simple technologies like Air Conditioning has averted
a lot of physical (and resulting psychological) suffering and has
saved lives.  The "Third World" is designated as such because it has
not had the advances that technology has brought to the "First World."
The "Third World" has always suffered physically, what has changed is
the countries that belong in the modern definition of that term.

One point I must agree with is that the Industrial Revolution has
inflicted severe damage to Mother Earth.  That in itself is bad.  But
to put it in perspective, PIR there was massive deforestation,
repetitive crop farming, and poor sanitation.  As the ecological
repercussions of industrial behavior have been recognized, movement
has occurred to correct past poor practices (cleaning up toxic waste
dumps, for example) and prevent them in the future.

Continued technological advancement *could* cause additional harm to
the society if used improperly.  Technology, in itself, is neither
good nor bad - it is the application of that technology that requires
moral or ethical measurement.  Genetic engineering may be able to cure
a child with Cystic Fibrosis, the same technology could be used to
produce only children with blond hair and blue eyes.

> We advocate a revolution against the industrial system.
> [rest of paragraph deleted]

> For primative societies the natural world (which usually changes only
> slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security.
> In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than
> the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to
> technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

The natural world does not always change slowly - think about Mount
Vesubia (Pompeii), earthquakes and other natural disasters.  These
caused much physical and psychological suffering.  The real difference
is that natural disasters are periodic and usually unpredictable;
technology is more ongoing and, if not predictable, at least is
foreseeable.  Man has consistently tried to dominate nature in one
form or another.  From the scraps of flint that the caveman hunted
with to the high powered rifles and mechanized farming of today - all
are tools and technological advances of their own time.  Change is
constant; technology causes change and change promotes technology.

> The conservatives are fools:

This point is open to debate on many topics!  There are certain values
that are independent of the technological level of a society.  What
varies is the adherence to those values.  As technology has advanced,
free time has increased; no longer must every waking moment be devoted
toward survival.  Recreation or idle time has increased with increased
mechanism.  Members of society are finding that they have *too* much
free time and are violating the generally accepted values (or mores)
of the society.

> We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be
> reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing
> the sphere of human freedom. But, because 'freedom' is a word that
> can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of
> freedom we are concerned with.

> By 'freedom' we mean 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 organization. Freedom means being in control (either as
> an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the life-and-death
> issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against
> whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having
> power; not the power to control other people but the power to control
> the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone
> else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how
> benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.
> It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness.  ...

In small groups, there is often less freedom than in larger groups
because the actions of one can have much more of an affect on the
survival of the others.  If one person in a small group does not pull
their weight or hogs resources, then the other members are more likely
to suffer than the same situation in a larger group.  One lazy hunter
in a group of five may mean a twenty percent reduction in yield, one
lazy individual on public assistance with one hundred thousand workers
supporting them may mean a 0.001 percent reduction in yield.

In addition, technology has increased the leverage (or yield) of each
working individual.  PIR it would take days or weeks for a treatise to
be typeset and the first set published, today it is taking little more
than my thinking time.

There are still many opportunities to be the captain of ones fate, but
it requires sacrifices and the willingness to take risks.  The risks
include failure, financial ruin, hunger, societal ostracism, and even
death.  Inexpensive technology is making it easier for the lone
entrepreneur to start a business, compete successfully with the large
organizations, and take control of their lives.  But many people
choose not to follow this avenue because of the risks; it is often
psychologically and emotionally easier to give up some freedom for
security.

> "Oh!", say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will
> conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy
> and happy."  Yeah, sure. That's what they said two hundred years ago.
> The industrial revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody
> happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. ...

Science will not fix anything; it just provides solutions.  It is up
to society to determine which solutions are appropriate and then
behave accordingly.  Science has drastically improved the food yield
of land in the United States and many other countries but hunger has
not been conquered - why not?  Because population continues to grow
even as food production productivity increases.  There is technology
to grow more food and limit pregnancy but segments of the world's
societies have chosen not to use the technology properly.

External forces cannot *make* one happy - happiness and contentment
*must* come from within.  In general, the standard of living has
increased for most of the world population since the Industrial
Revolution.

> The average man may have control over certain private machines of his
> own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large
> systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it
> is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite
> will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will
> no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden
> on the system.

Who are these elite?  Who are the masses?  Although the need for
physical labor has been reduced drastically by technology, this has
been occurring for thousands of years - the domestication and taming
of animals like the horse and elephant reduced the need for physical
carrying.  Steam engines and farm equipment made slaves economically
unfeasible in the Southern states.  Computers reduce the need for
rooms of clerks moving numbers from one column to another book.

> If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterm-
> inate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propoganda or
> other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate
> until the masses of humanity become extinct, leaving the world to the
> elite.  Or if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide
> to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They
> will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all
> children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that
> everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who
> may become dissatisfied undergoes 'treatment' to cure his 'problem'.

Reducing the birthrate - of the "masses" or "elite" is to the benefit
of society and the world in general.  Over population (too many
births) has been one of the driving forces behind science and
technology - attempting to solve the problem of keeping the people
fed, clothed and housed.  For the needs, let alone the wants, of the
people to be met, economic growth must keep up with population growth;
for the state to improve, economic growth must exceed the that of the
population.  Without technology, the "masses" (and the "elite") would
cease to exist because the population has far exceed the ability and
availability of land to feed it.

> Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be
> biologically or psychologically engineered wither to remove their need
> for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power
> into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy
> in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. ...

Why bother?  By developing the technology to severely limit or
eliminate the birth rate of the masses, the problem of the "masses"
would go away within a generation.  Unfortunately, the desire to
compete (drive for power) in many segments of the American society is
on the decline replaced with the desire to be cared for by the
government.  In some segments, attempts to do well in school are
viewed as treason to ones race - this is the problem in the society -
not technology, not some elite trying to make competitive eunuchs out
of the "masses," it is those "masses" wanting to be cared for and not
take care of themselves!

> The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the
> unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress
> is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think
> it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it
> can be stopped ...

> Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction
> of that system must be the revolutionaries' *only* goal.

The path into the future is *always* unknown - that is the nature of
the beast.  Properly managed, technology is an asset rather than a
liability.  Wreck the industrial system behind the society and
suffering will increase.  Hunger, early death, widespread disease, and
a general crumbling of the standard of living will be the result.



David B. Horvath, CCP                             [e-mail]
Consultant, Adjunct Professor, International Lecturer


From: Jay Hill <[e-mail]>

Patrick Townson and Unabomber,

    I am writing in response to a recent posting of Unabomber's
Manifesto where I learned that he/she/it has resorted to violence to
attempt to solve problems that he/she/it cannot comprehend or agree
with.  I too, feel the squeeze of the Industrial Revolution on the
"values" issue, but have come to the personal conclusion that it is
human nature for these things to happen.

    For as long as there have been humans, there has been a
portion of their personalities called greed.  This trait is more
developed and noticeable in some people and is quite well controlled
in others.  No matter what, though it is in each of us and that fact
cannot be denied.  The difference in values is what each of us decides
to do with that greed.  Many of the people that helped the industrial
revolution on its way had very sincere and honest intentions of
helping mankind. Unfortunately, the statement exists: "The Road to
Hell is Paved With Good Intentions" I honestly believe in mankind and
its ability to change both for the good and the bad If we have become
so bad/dangerous/violent that we cannot take the time to help one
another correct our own problems, then maybe we should let the natural
world destroy us.  I personally believe however, that mankind CAN and
WILL make a change for the better.  There is evidence of this
everywhere I look.  Many do not see this evidence as they are not
looking for it.

    I STRONGLY AGREE with Unabomber's statement: "By 'freedom' we
mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals,
not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without
interferences, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially
from any large organization.  Freedom means being in control (either
as an individual or as a member of a *small* group) of the
life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter, and
defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment."
I would, however, like to point out that this freedom (in MY opinion)
is earned by NOT interfering with other people's rights and decisions
to obtain their own freedom by whatever means they see fit.  There are
a lot of people that have "bought into" the Industrial Revolution as a
way to obtain their freedom.  It does not matter that the system they
have chosen may not help them achieve their goals.  What *DOES* matter
is the fact that they choose to be part of the system.  For those that
feel they do NOT want to be part of the system and are looking for a
way to either exit the system or change it to the point where they can
have an individual life, then it is time for them to get off their
backsides and get involved in the world.  No change can be made
without effort being put towards it.  Their freedom can be obtained by
the mere activity involved in looking for it.  Until ALL people learn
to respect the dreams, goals, desires, independence, and freedom of
ALL other individuals on the face of the Earth, then there will be
struggles and problems.

    I would like to encourage Unabomber's attempts to get people
to wake up and take notice of their own existence in the world, but I
would like to state that I personally do NOT approve of the method he
suggests to give people their freedom.  If they want it, they should
take action to achieve it.  Believe it or not, some people actually
feel better knowing that their life is somewhat controlled and
regulated.  They are scared to death of what might happen to them if
their "society" crumbled around them.  Those people should also have
the right to maintain their "freedom" by being allowed to maintain
their "society".  I direct response to the statement concerning the
elite vs. the masses of humanity, I would like to present an idea that
is not mine originally, but is very familiar to a large number of
individuals.  The statement says that 10% of the people/population
control 90% of the world/s resources and money.  If all the money in
the world was divided equally among all the people of the world, then
the people that had most of it before would have it all again in less
that five years.  I propose that this same theory would apply to any
Industrial Revolution, "society", or level of "freedom" anywhere in
the world.  Those that enjoy the comfortable feeling of their
"society" would create another to live in.  Those that enjoyed their
freedom of speech, religion, and life would constantly be telling
those in a "society" that they could have it so much better if they'd
leave.  Those that seek planetary conquest, violence, money, or power,
would convince others that their cause was justified and very
important.  All in all, people are people the same as "parts is parts"
and the only changes that take place in our lives are the ones that 1)
we allow to happen because we are too lazy to do something about it,
or 2) what we choose to change.

    Personally, I have found great pleasure in being able to be an
individual in the midst of the "great society" that so many people
love to hate and hate to love.  My freedom exists in the fact that I
can help others make decisions to make a change in the world, to be
somebody, and to realize that we are all here together; whether we
want to be or not.  I have also found great pleasure in respecting
other people's existence as they tend to respect mine even more.  I am
truly sad for those that must FORCE their opinions on others.  Please
consider the possibility that Unabomber's own actions are a product of
the environment that he/she/it so despises.  Rather ironic, don't you
think?  He/she/it DEMANDS to be recognized a as an individual with
freedom, but infringes on the freedom of others in order to make his
point.  Once again, in MY opinion, this is NOT the most effective
means of making an impact on a problem.  Unfortunately, *I* am not an
expert on what is MOST effective.  I only know what has worked for me
and that is to let people know there is a way out of the system if
that's what they choose, and if they need help or support that there
are many other people that feel the same way that would be glad to
talk to them about it.  No matter what happens, it is still up to the
INDIVIDUAL to make the decision to change.  If you feel the need for a
change, then make the decision to make the change happen.  If you like
the way life is then by all means let people know that when they
attack your way of life.  It is just important to stand up for what
you've got as it is to stand up for what you want!  So.....stand up
for yourself, whatever it is that you want out of life.  And remember,
if I ever run for President, be sure to vote for me.  (By the way,
that is supposed to be totally hilarious pun so please take it that way.)
Have a Nice Day!  :)


From: [e-mail] (boo)

While certainly not claiming to *know*, I *think* and *feel* very
strongly that this Unabomber person underestimates the good to bad
ratio of technological effects.  This may indeed be a generational
thing, e.g. I grew up in the age of personal free speech via
USENET/Internet/mailing lists, whereas this Unabomber (I'm guessing)
grew up in the age of TeleVision; I grew up with the fear of AIDS and
the stigmas it comes with and a hope for an eventual cure, and he
(again I'm guessing) grew up with chemical warfare.

              ===================================

So there you have several of the replies. I printed all of the Manifesto
that I got.

I too can see the 'squeeze on values' discussed by a couple of the
writers. I may be mistaken on this, but I think part of the problem
 -- and perhaps a big part of the problem -- has to do with the way
so many people think about computers.

The most powerful computers in the world cannot accomplish one percent
of what the human brain can accomplish. If people would only realize
that computers are *GREAT TOOLS* for repetitive work. They are lousy
at making value judgments. I also get angry at technology at times,
yet I would not be without my computers and terminals for a minute.

I talk with a neighbor frequently who absolutely hates computers. He
wants nothing to do with them. I happened to notice that he had a
small pocket calculator on his desk. I asked him if he hates computers
so much, why does he use that little calculator?

Oh, he says, that's a labor saving device when I am balancing my
checkbook. I told him the computer was a labor saving device for me
when I sent out my newsletter several times per week.  Perhaps it
is because small calculators have been around long enough that people
no longer expect much out of them except to perform repetitive tasks
involving math.

I told him, and I try to tell all Luddites:

   The computer is not my personal savior. The computer is
   my electronic servant.

Unfortunatly there are still too many of the 'it is in the computer
and the computer can't be wrong' type of people in the world. And
because to them the computer cannot be wrong and yet they so detest
the answers the computer is giving, they are miserable. I wonder if
Unabomber falls in this category.

For this I hold the 'technophiles' guilty. It is true that the techies
often times speak in their own language, their own mumbo-jumbo, in an
almost reverent way about technology, and while its fine to do that
among themselves, I think while the techies are making promises to cure
all the ills in the world as Unabomber claims they have done and are
doing, they need to recognize the serious communications gap which
exists between themselves and the rest of the world.

We definitly need to place much less reliance on having the computer
doing our thinking for us and instead use the computer to do our
labor for us.

Like one person wrote, I enjoy the 'wild ride' the techies are taking
us on ... I really do. But somehow, no matter how difficult it may seem
to be, we need to not only integrate the new and old technologies for
a smoother ride, we also need to offer truthful assurances to the general
public about where we are at and where we are going. Again, I think the
techies have failed us in this respect. Just as we now have books on the
topic "XX for Dummies", maybe we need somehow to communicate with the
Luddites and the Unabombers laying in wait and others of the public
and really make an effort to make them comfortable and at ease with the
new technology, i.e. "Life in the 21st Century for Dummies".

Well, this is already longer than I intended it to be so I will close
with my thanks to the many of you who wrote responses and the thoughtful
consideration you gave.


PAT