The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/uxu/uxu_294.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 11.2 KB | 212 lines

                                ###     ###
                                 ###   ###
                      ###   ####  ### ###  ###   ####
                      ###    ###   #####   ###    ###
                      ###    ###    ###    ###    ###
                      ###    ###   #####   ###    ###
                      ##########  ### ###  ##########
                                 ###   ###
                                ###     ###

                         Underground eXperts United

                                 Presents...

         ####### ## ##      #######     # #   ####### ####### ##   ##
         ##      ## ##      ##         #####       ## ##   ## ##   ##
         ####    ## ##      ####        # #   ####### ####### #######
         ##      ## ##      ##         #####  ##           ##      ##
         ##      ## ####### #######     # #   ####### #######      ##

       [ Comments To The Unabomber Manifesto ] [ By Phearless/The GNN ]


    ____________________________________________________________________
    ____________________________________________________________________



                      Comments to the Unabomber Manifesto.
                          by PHEARLESS and THE GNN


Even though it was quite a while ago that the 'Unabomber Manifesto' showed
up, we decided to comment on it. Thoughts never goes out of style, better
late than never. Baha, who cares anyway?


 <------------------------------------------------------------------------>


PHEARLESS: 'Unabomber - who or what are you trying to preserve?'

In your manifesto, you thoroughly explain your fear that the communists will
take over the world. You tell us that you want to save humankind from
extinction, or maybe just save life on earth itself. Your theory is that
technology will be the end of everything as we know it (as if anyone didn't
already know...), and your mission is to have it stopped.

   Yes, we would get rid of many problems if we all just went back to the
caves, or perhaps that is too hi-tech. Let's get back to the trees, where we
all really belong. No. Why don't we all just crawl back to the sea, the
birthplace of all forms of life?
   Of course this is against nature, because we are the nature! We're even
more than just the "plain old" nature! It isn't the way it used to be,
nothing is!

   You must understand this, dear Unabomber, no matter what happens, life
will continue on earth! Maybe (most likely) it won't host any humans, but
there will be life in one form or the other! Life that undoubtedly will
evolve and create the new standards of nature. No technology can ever stop
that fact! There is even a chance that what we call intelligent life will
evolve and rule the planet as humans do today. It may become worse, or it
may be not.

   There is one exception of course. If Earth itself seized to exist, life on
it would too - whether it's an asteroid collision or the Sun running out of
gas. But if this becomes the case, we wouldn't have any problems adapting to
it, on a molecular level.

   It doesn't matter if the ozone layer completely vanishes, and all the ice
of the poles makes the sea level rise beyond imagination. It doesn't matter
if every country in the world attacks all the others with thermo nuclear
missiles in a single strike. It doesn't matter if HIV becomes airborne and
kills all human life! Call it fate or bad luck, anyway there's no way to
stop it. And why should anyone try to?
   Life has always been evolving, why would it stop now? From where we are
now, technology is an important part of our evolution, for better and for
worse, as with everything else. Could we actually change this fact? In
theory, yes. In reality, never.

   If your goal is to make humankind survive in the future, why blame
technology? We all know that our brain is the one to blame. It's too big to
be any good. Evolution gave us this equipment, and as long as we can think
beyond reproduction, food and sleep, we will eventually _do_ something
beyond that as well.

   Now we could discuss, for fun, what was the first mistake human race did,
which put us where we are now? Here are some things that might pop into your
mind. Was it when we learned to; control fire? hunt? control animals?
control others? make clothes? ...actually learn? No matter what, it's thanks
to our big grey blob between our ears. If you want the biggest chance of
succeeding you must eliminate it's capacity. Now that's Big Brother fantasies
for you! What serious politician wouldn't want an army of drooling
vegetables at his command?

   I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I'm saying that it won't get
you anywhere near your goals. Since you are in the country of opportunities,
try running for president. That will surely help. If Nixon and Reagan could,
you certainly could too.
   If your only intention were some attention, you've certainly succeeded!

   Finally, generalizing is not the solution.


 <------------------------------------------------------------------------>


THE GNN: 'What is the Technological Threat?'

I know that I am drunk when ideas takes form in my mind on how to form a
terrorist group. I will not say "I don't know why" because I know perfectly
well why. The answer makes it easier for me to understand radical groups
that have existed through times. The Unabomber is (as we know) not a group,
only a single individual, but it is the same thing in this context. The
intense frustration one might experience when people constantly works
against you, the feeling that the masses around you are ignorant and cannot
understand what you are trying to say, is for sure hard. When words are not
enough, it is easy to rely upon a few bombs. It is sure a good way to get
the attention.

    After killing a few people, however, it would be quite unusual if the
population appreciated your work. Terrorism seems to seldom succeed in the
long run. But nor does much else, think about it. For a change, we are able
to actually read the justifications one terrorist has for his deeds. It is
in The Unabomber Manifesto. In this short text, I will comment on that.

    Mr. Unabomber seems to be a rather intelligent individual when you
encounter the manifesto for the first time. It is well-written and does not
contain anything that might be regarded as simple emotions. However, a
closer look reveals that the manifesto is way too long. It contains the
same thing over and over again, dressed in different words. The arguments
are to a certain extent emotional, even though they are well hidden. As
all terrorists, Mr. Unabomber is not trying to reach his goal through the
actual act of killing. It is just a way to draw attention. His goal, which
can be put into one single sentence is: 'Technology is a threat that must
be destroyed'. Mr. Unabomber blames the 'lefties' (i.e the communists) for
the technological threat, something that is so utterly stupid that it will
not be discussed in this text. I will just concentrate on the question if
technology-in-itself (not what technology does) can be seen as a threat.

   (If the problem was only what technology does, the problem would be very
different. Then we could just say that we ought to use it more wisely. But
since Mr. Unabomber seems to believe that technology is dangerous just
because it is technology, we will find ourselves in another league.)

   If you look around you, you will notice technology everywhere.
Intellectual laymen often claims that technology is only a threat when it
harms people, not just because it exists. A micro-wave oven in the kitchen
cannot possible be seen as a threat, they say. The latest a-bomb, however,
is a dangerous technology. It is also said that 'you cannot stop progress'
even though those who say that are unable to define what the concept
'progress' means. In this lies the problem.

   'Progress' today means 'progress in science'. Progress in science means
progress in technology. That is all. Too many scientists in the world works
just for the sake of technology. There is nothing left to other values that
constitutes the good life. Those who values thoughts, culture, human nature
and the like are seen as mere entertainers who might present a nice thought
now and then - but nothing more. To ponder about the meaning of life is
regarded as something that ought to be just a hobby. Progress in technology,
however, is the 'hard reality' that must come first. This is not a healthy
way of living, it turns the humans into machines that are served by
machines. It oppresses the human mind, it keeps it away from the good life.
Of cause, the disease is too spread to be noticed. People believe that
more and more advanced technology will make them happy.

   Man has destroyed the religious dogmas, which is a good thing. Dogmas
oppresses free thinking. But the result has not became the opposite. God
has been replaced by scientific progress. To serve God is no longer of
value, but to serve, trust and obey science is 'good'. In fact, it is the
same thing. To say that technological progress is a good thing is to express
a dogma - nothing more, nothing less.

    To 'stop technology' is not to end progress. I would not, and I guess
nor would anyone else, like to live without the modern technology. But
what is of utmost importance is to stop the cult around it. Man is a free
individual that ought to be happy. Values that really constitutes a good
life, intellectual thoughts that expands our mind and knowledge, cannot be
reached by technology alone. A micro-wave oven or an a-bomb will not
increase our knowledge concerning the meaning of life.

    What is most important? To know how, or to understand? To understand.
What kind of understanding do we reach with the help of technology-in-
itself? Not much. We learn how to do things, that is all. Technology makes
our lives more comfortable, it makes communication easier. So, we ought
to have a lot of free time to spend with the real questions. But since
scientific progress comes first, we never dare to work with those questions.
It is here that we must change. We must understand that technology comes at
second place, and that cardinal human values and intellectual work comes
first. After that, we will be able to be really free.

    Yes, technology is a threat, but not in the usual context. It is not the
visible results of technology (like pollution or wars) that is the main
problem. It is technology-in-itself (how we consider it), not the effects-
of-technology that is a problem.  Mr. Unabomber understands this. But will
terrorism help? Perhaps, perhaps not. There will probably be no obvious
results from his bombs. People will not hear and bang and then come to the
above conclusions. But when words are not enough nor listened to, I can
understand why some people see radical actions as the only solution.


 <------------------------------------------------------------------------>


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 uXu #294              Underground eXperts United 1996              uXu #294
               Call DEMON ROACH UNDERGROUND -> [phone]
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------