A lot of this seems to be gibberish:<p><i>The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms.</i> Why?<p><i>Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further.</i> Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean?<p><i>This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics.</i> Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow.<p><i>Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it.</i> What system?<p><i>Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed.</i> Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming...<p><i>Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse.</i> If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement...<p><i>Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again.</i> Again, nonsense.<p>I know, Unabomber, of couse he's crazy. But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas. Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.
Kelly's basic argument is that, yes, the Unabomber was fundamentally correct in his understanding of the tension involved in a technopoly (a society where technology is no longer a tool but actually driving the society--read Neil Postman's book of that name for a good read), but that he (Kelly) disagrees with what to do about it.<p>Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology.<p>Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them.<p>For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)
> It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises.<p>Reminds me of Facebook's encroachment into (most) of our lives.
@endtime:
"But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas."<p>It seems that many have not read to the end of the blog entry where KK argues against the Unabomber's most basic premise of his manifesto.
that's quite the read, thank you for that link.<p>The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with much of the Unabombers premises, even if I can't agree with his conclusion.