What Can We Learn from the Unabomber?: Nothing.

What can we learn from the Unabomber?

What can we learn from the Unabomber?

Nothing.

But…

But…

This doesn’t mean our technological system is benign.

and…

and…

This doesn’t mean radical measures aren’t called for.

It means…

It means…

The Unabomber is not the go to guy for answers.

The Plan

The Plan

1) Why the Unabomber Manifesto is Weak

The Plan


2) Why the Unabomber Manifesto is Wrong

The Plan



3) What is a Better Critique?

The Plan



3) What is a Better Critique?

4) Why are we *Really* Here?

1. Why the Unabomber Manifesto is Weak

1. Why the Unabomer Manifesto is Weak

1). The bulk of the argument is an ad hominem attack


1). The bulk of the argument is ad hominem attack

2). The argument relies on the genetic fallacy


1). The bulk of the argument is ad hominem attack

2). The argument relies on the genetic fallacy

3). The argument from evolution is NOT SOUND

On the ad hominem and genetic fallacies


What role do they play in the manifesto?


What role do they play in the manifesto?

The Unabomber uses them to dismiss arguments that we can use government or activism to restrain technology.


The ad hominem fallacy:



Argument to the person



Argument to the person

The genetic fallacy:



Argument to the person.

The genetic fallacy:

Thinking that showing the source of a belief falsifies the belief.

The Unabomber on “leftists”

7. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization.”

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. …They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Masochist?

Masochists?

Reviewing so far…

Reviewing so far…

• These attacks are ad hominem

Reviewing so far…


• They play a role in the genetic fallacy

Reviewing so far…


• They play a role in the genetic fallacy

• In any case, the psychological claims are unsupported and very likely false.

The Core Argument

(1) Humans evolved under primitive, low-tech conditions, over the past 2 million years.

(2) Lived in small autonomous groups (25-50), amidst vast wilderness.

(3) Modern technological society is radically different than this, and imposes unprecedented stress on humanity and nature.

Core Argument (cont.)

(4) Technological stress will only continue to worsen: The environment will become simplified,

manipulated, and contaminated. Humanity will become either enslaved, genetically-

modified, or eliminated.

(5) Such a condition is undignified, abhorrent, and profoundly dehumanizing.

(6) It is impossible to fix or reform the system, so as to avoid these disastrous outcomes.

Core Argument (cont.)

THEREFORE: The system must end.

In fact, we have a moral obligation to end it.

This argument is not sound.

The argument is not sound.

The fact that a situation is abhorrent does not mean we have a moral obligation to exterminate billions of people to end it.


Furthermore, from the claim that people are metaphorically “enslaved”, it does not follow that the enslavement should end at any cost.


Furthermore, from the claim that people are metaphorically “enslaved”, it does not follow that the enslavement should end at any cost.

From the fact that the species is at risk it doesn’t follow that any action is justified.

For example

If we are going to starve if we don’t kill and eat someone it doesn’t follow that we should kill and eat someone.

For example

If we are going to starve if we don’t kill and eat someone it doesn’t follow that we should kill and eat someone.

It certainly doesn’t follow that we have a moral obligation to kill and eat someone.

In addition…

There is also a missing premise in the step from this premise:

“[if we don’t return to the conditions under which we evolved] Humanity will become either enslaved, genetically-modified, or eliminated.”

to the conclusion.

The system must end. In fact, we have a moral obligation to end it.

Two missing premises.


1) Evolution optimizes for freedom, dignity, genetic stability, and survival of the species.


1) Evolution optimizes for freedom, dignity, genetic stability, and survival of the species.

2) The only way to stay optimized is by being in the conditions in which we evolved.

missing premise 1

Evolution optimizes for freedom, dignity, genetic stability, and survival of the species,

so if we return to the conditions under which we evolved we optimize for all these.

But that premise is false:

Evolution doesn’t optimize for freedom, dignity, genetic stability, and survival of the species.



Evolution only cares about reproductive success.




1) It doesn’t care about freedom and dignity





2) It doesn’t promise genetic stability





2) It doesn’t promise genetic stability

3) It doesn’t promise survival of the species

Missing premise 2

Is returning to the original evolving conditions the only way to optimize?

Missing premise 2


No, because that is what human factors engineering is for. We engineer for people as they are evolved.

Missing premise 2


No, because that is what human factors engineering is for. We engineer for people as they are evolved.

And there are other ways…

KU’s Steve Illardi

How to reproduce hunter-gatherer psychology

1) omega-3 fatty acids

2) Exercise

3) Light exposure

4) Sleep

5) Social connectedness

6) Anti-ruminative behavior

Is the background assumption true?

Is the background assumption true?

Background assumption: human technology is alien to us as human beings.

Perhaps we evolved to be technological creatures.

beavers

spiders

humans

3. What is a Better Critique?


An Anarchist critique:



Perhaps we are only alienated by technology when those in power seize control of it.



Perhaps we are only alienated by technology when those in power seize control of it.

We are not alienated by technology

We are alienated from technology


A hacktivist critique:


A hacktivist critique:

We become alienated when the ability is to be technological is kept from us!

We become alienated from technology when we aren’t allowed to see and understand how it works

We become alienated from technology when we aren’t allowed to see and understand how it works

–that is, alienation occurs when the ability to understand and hack technology is withheld from us.

How do we fix the misuse of technology?


Put control of technology back in the hands of everyone (not just those in power).


Put control of technology back in the hands of everyone (not just those the powerful).

Information wants to be free. Liberate it!

4. So, Why are We *Really* Here?

The toll…

The toll…

• 16 bombs

The toll…

• 16 bombs

• 3 killed

The toll…

• 16 bombs

• 3 killed

• 13 maimed

one victim

Thomas J. Mosser

• Advertising exec

• North Caldwell, NJ

• Age 50

• Wife, Susan

• Daughter, age 13

• Daughter, 15 months

From the NYT

Some neighbors said yesterday that it was only luck that others were not injured by the bomb. Mr. McKay said that he held a party for the neighborhood on Friday night and that several children wandered from the party to the Mossers' house.

From the NYT

"They had half a dozen kids there with the bomb sitting on the table," Mr. McKay said. "His wife signed for the package on Friday and left it on the table."

From the NYT

Robin xxx, 13, stayed over for the night and was in the house with the Mossers and their daughters when the explosion occurred. She said she took the Mossers' daughter Kelly next door after the blast.

Robert Kusmirowski, Unacabine, 2008

Unabomber Cabin at the Newseum

Newseum

• “Probe the Unabomber Cabin: Explore a mad hermit’s life with videos and an interactive [sic].”

Jeffrey Dahmer’s Spoon

What Can We Learn from the Unabomber?: Nothing.

Technology

Transcript of What Can We Learn from the Unabomber?: Nothing.