cj#266> Bennahum: Ballad of the Unabomber


Richard Moore

ate: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 17:35:03 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: •••@••.••• (David S. Bennahum)
Subject: MEME 1.04

meme: (pron. 'meem') A contagious idea that replicates  like a virus,
passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses
do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact
between people.  Derived from the word "memetics," a field of study which
postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples
of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases.

MEME 1.04


I returned from France last Monday, intending to write about the Gallic
reaction to Internet and its impact on France's national computer network,
Minitel.  That will have to wait until the next Meme.  This issue is
dedicated to the Unabomber and this meme in his manifesto:

"As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex, and
as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make
more and more of their decisions for them.  Eventually a stage may be
reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be
so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them
intelligently.  At that stage machines will be in effective control....If
man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially
re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long a painful
process of natural selection...

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

--Unabomber, a.k.a. FC, from Tuesday, September 19, 1995, in a special
supplement to the Washington Post titled "Industrial Society and its

The Unabomber wants to get us out of this supposed mess by returning us to
nature.  ("That is WILD nature...free of human interference and control."
Par. 183)  What happens when 5.5 billion people go back to nature is that
most of us die, because without technology the Earth cannot support all of
us.  This would be a very short, very brutal "painful process of natural
selection" to say the least.  It is also not going to happen.  So, apart
from the Unabomber's absurd prescription for saving the human race from
mechanical enslavement, does he have a point?

The Unabomber's real importance, in the long-term, goes beyond the fact
that he killed 3 people and injured 23 others in 16 attacks over 17 years.
It goes beyond the fact that he essentially blackmailed the New York Times
and Washington Post into reprinting his manifesto.  The Unabomber is
important because his argument against technology is destined to become the
mainstream argument against our wired world in the next century.  The fear
that technology will erase something fundamental that defines us as human
beings is old, as old as technology -- see Prometheus or the tower of
Babel.  So if this is an old argument, why aren't we technophiles doing a
better job of addressing it, as opposed to mocking it?  Last Tuesday we got
a sneak preview of the next decade's battle-lines.

The Global SuperOrganism

I've noticed that many of us technological sophisticates are also
uncomfortable with some of the goals of our peers.  I wince when I read in
the latest issue of Wired that "by 2040 robots will be as smart as we are.
Then they'll displace us as the dominant form of life on Earth."  This
isn't a problem though, it is presented as a form of human transcendence,
the binary version of getting closer to the perfection of God.  Should this
be taken seriously?  When I first saw that article I thought it was a joke,
a sort of send-up on the cooks.  Unfortunately it is dead-serious.  It is
also similar in logic to the Unabomber's conclusions about where technology
is headed.  The only difference is in their conclusions: one thinks it is
cool, the other thinks it is not.

I was surprised how up-to-date the Unabomber is on the fusion of man and
machines.  He must have read such paragons of the genre as Bruce Mazlish's
"The Fourth Discontinuity: the co-evolution of humans and machines," (Yale
University Press, 1993); "Metaman: the merging of humans and machines into
a global superorganism," (Simon & Schuster, 1993) and the seminal text "Out
of Control: the rise of neo-biological civilization", by Kevin Kelly
(Addison Wesley, 1994).  These are all serious books by serious writers
published by serious publishers.  Yet they all argue the same thing: we are
merging with machines, becoming something more than human, and we should
embrace it.  The end of the individual is a blessing, the shedding of a
tired meat-cocoon.  What's troubling here is that we have two extremes
coming from the same root -- one calling for a return to wild nature, the
other calling for the destruction of what it means to be a human being.
Where is the alternative -- a humanistic vision technology that bolsters
both our individuality as humans and improves our ability to live together?

Technology with a Human Face

I got a computer at 12, went online then, and stayed online.  I learned to
program, learned to think the way a computer thinks.  I made money writing
programs for a while.  I love science fiction and get a thrill from
gadgets.  More importantly, I think the combination of computers and
communications can profoundly alter the nature of information by
decentralizing it and getting it into the hands of people who otherwise
would not be exposed to it.  I relish the Internet and everything it stands
for.  But I am worried.  I am worried that the folks writing these books
about the joys of fusing with machines have lost all compassion for human
beings.  I am worried that what was once nutty is becoming conventional
wisdom.  Consequently I am worried that for many people the anger of the
Unabomber will come to make sense.  I am worried that, in our love of
technology and gadgets and change we will at best ignore the silent
majority that do not understand what is happening and want to; at worst we
will mock them as hopelessly headed the way of the dodo bird.

Beware the Backlash

The initial euphoria of the digital revolution is over.  We get the jargon.
We get the possibilities.  It's time to start translating what's possible
for everyone else, or else we risk destroying the thing we're so proud of.
So long as technology is associated with free enterprise those that fear
technological change will be muffled.  This association has insulated many
technology firms from the rage out there in America -- the rage behind
credit reports, behind workplace automation, behind caller ID, bar codes
and all those other points where data gathering meets human flesh.  But the
rage is there, simmering.  The rage comes from confusion, from the fact
that so little effort is made to explain how these technologies work.  It
comes from the arrogance of those who think most people are too stupid to

If the changes before us in digital technology, nanotechnology and genetic
technology are as huge as I think they are, then expect a resistance equal
to the force behind these advances.  To expect anything less would be
foolish.  If we are going to deal with this basic fact of human nature
responsibly, then it is time to stop spouting jargon and start talking
clearly about what is to be lost and what is to be gained as we digitize
everything.  That way at least we can try to influence what is happening,
as opposed to believing it is an inevitable force of nature, unstoppable,
unchangeable.  If we can't have faith in our ability to define our future,
then we really are worthy of our supposed role as nothing more than
pollinating facilitators, nurturing some still-dormant machinic-species.
In such a world I would resist too.  To do otherwise would be insane.

Here is a quote from T.S. Eliot that I've had on my desk for awhile:

Where is the life we have
  lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have
  lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have
  lost in information?


The French government sees the Internet as an American Trojan horse, a
sneak attack on the world in America's latest phase of Information Age
Imperialism.  But some French don't agree with this argument, and they're
doing something about it.  Find out how Internet and Minitel, France's
national infobahn, are facing off and who the players are, in Meme 1.05.

The contents of Meme are (c) 1995 by David S. Bennahum.  Pass on the Meme
anywhere you want, including other discussion lists, just be sure to keep
this signature file at the end.

Meme propagates bi-weekly.  You can subscribe to Meme directly via email by
emailing me at •••@••.••• with a message that reads "subscribe Kim
Smith meme", where Kim is replaced by your first name and Smith by your
last name (do not include the quote symbols.)  Visit the WWW home of Meme
at Into the Matrix: http://www.reach.com/matrix/welcome.html.

Send comments to •••@••.•••.


 Posted by      Richard K. Moore <•••@••.•••>
                Wexford, Ireland (USA citizen)
                Editor: The Cyberjournal (@CPSR.ORG)

    World Wide Web (shared with cyber-rights):

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.  For
commercial re-use, contact the appropriate author.