11/1/2017 0 Comments TechnocracyMore than two decades ago, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials arrested Ted Kaczynski, also known as ‘The Unabomber’. His crime was killing three individuals and injuring twenty-three others in a series of letter bombs. He did it in an apparent revolt against ‘technocracy’ prevailing in the society. The meanings of the word ‘technocracy’ evolved over a period, initially meaning application of scientific knowledge for solving the problems in society, to the technology ruling the functioning of a society. The Unabomber meant the latter definition of this term and was opposed to it. He got his manifesto published in major newspapers in the United States after blackmailing them. This manifesto revealed his thoughts on toppling the technocratic system over. While the Unabomber was a student at Harvard, he participated in a study related to psychology and that deeply affected his social behavior. The study involved discussion of deep political views of an individual and then their torture by questioning their views. This study was not outside the laws during that time. However, such a study with human beings as subject is not allowed in today’s time. Ethically, such a study should not be carried out, even if it is at the expense of continued lack of knowledge in a subject. This is because experimenting with a human being psychologically is very unlikely to carry out as a mere ‘simulation’, as the subject is changed mentally. This authority to carry out a change in someone’s mind can also be used for unethical practices such as brainwashing. Hence, this type of study is unethical in view of the freedom of thoughts. Also, this study is likely partially responsible for Kaczynski to take such extreme actions. Kaczynsci, even though urged other people to abandon the technology in every form, used technology to carry out his plans. This is a contradiction that is clearly seen in his actions and needs further thoughts. Whether it was for the communication of his message to the broader public, or for the destruction he caused with his mail bombs, the use of technology was very crucial in his actions. However, in his manifesto he clearly mentioned what a technology should be used for, if one wants to overthrow the societal system that is built on the basis of technology. He says that one can easily be tempted to make use of all the technology available to accomplish their tasks. Although, this action will push someone in the technocratic system again. He argued that the use of technology should be bare minimum and should only be used for the purpose of destroying the larger technocratic system or to get spread the message in a faster way. In this case, I feel that his actions seem ironical when one looks at his ideologies. Because, his suggestion to use technology only when it is required, can also be followed without destroying the larger technocratic system. 'The Amish' is one such group which believes in the ideology of using technology to a minimum required level and living a pre-industrial life. Looking at all these things, the arguments of the Unabomber is largely weakened. The manifesto of the Unabomber was thoroughly studied by various people, in spite of him being a domestic terrorist. It can be argued that because of his actions, any of the ideas he wrote in that manifesto do not stand any moral authority to be taken seriously, however logical they may be. It is inevitable that any perception about the writer will cloud the judgement about the writing. However, the writing can always be studied objectively without connecting each piece of it to the writer’s life. Also, some people might be proven to be morally incorrect in one time and correct in some other. An example of this is Bhagat Singh, who was convicted during the freedom movement of India. He was a revolutionary who constantly carried out underground operations to protest against the British rule and gain freedom for the country. The British government had put a prize on Bhagat Singh and his associates after branding them as ‘domestic terrorists’. However, when he surrendered to the government, he narrated their intentions behind their actions in the court. These views were then made public by the media and the people got a chance to see the actions of Bhagat Singh and his associates from their own viewpoint. Hence, I believe that studying The Unabomber’s manifesto objectively or discussing the correctness of his ideas is not ethically incorrect. Because, each one has the right to communicate their ideas to the public, independent of their social or criminal status. The Unabomber strongly advocated a complete overthrow of the system in which technology rules almost everything that is related to a common person. He was opposed to a rapid advancement of industrialization and to any form of control of technology the civilization. He suggested that the economic and technological basis of today’s society is not sustainable for the earth and for human civilization. Hence, it must be destroyed and rebuilt. However, this argument also means that the current government runs using technology as one of their tools. However, he clearly mentioned that the revolution he was suggesting was not political. It is difficult for a government to change everything that it runs on. At the same time, it is not impossible. In many cases, the people in actual power are not the technocrats. They rely on people having a strong hold on technology to make decisions. If the politicians and beaurocrats take time and slowly end the ties of government with the people directing technology, then it is possible to replace it with another basis of economy, such as ‘individual farming’. Hence, it is possible to change the system of technological dominance without the government falling. In conclusion, the Kaczynski's case is as interesting to study as the manifesto written by him. From the communication of Prof. Skrbina with Kaczynski, the thoughts on radical environmentalism were evolved to a next level. I believe that sharing these thoughts, which have a merit of their own, is not unethical. As Prof. Skrbina mentioned, if someone has the intentions to carry out destruction, then that person will not wait for any motivation coming from these thoughts. Also, the merit of these thoughts dos not justify the actions of Kaczynski in any way. As there are environmental activists who were able to propagate their thoughts without resorting to violence, the Unabomber case remains an exceptional case, that should be looked at in a purely academic point of view. A technophobe's perspective If we look at technology in today's world with an objective point of view, we can see that it is rapidly becoming an integral part of our lives. It is not difficult to find a person around us who cannot live for a single day without being surrounded by technology. Technophobes, or the people fearing excessive dominance of technology in human lives, often talk about the problems associated with the use of technology in the society. The psychological problems with the technology can be in the form of alienation of a person from the society. For example, one who excessively depends on social media for the communication will face reduced social interaction and will become more self-involved. Such a drastic change in how humans used to interact will impair a human being's ability to be a good citizen. The physical problems with the technologies such as cellphones can be in the form of increased anxiety in the absence of the technology or change in the stimulus-response systems of the brain. For example, there are cases of people perceiving an itch as a vibration of their mobile phone. The moral problems of technology can be that, it works to replace the human workforce with machines. For example, in many industrial processes, robots and machines now do the work which human labor used to do. If the technology is not used carefully in this case, it will result in unemployment. That poses moral issues, as no one should suffer because of technological advancement of others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorVivek loves nature. He feels one with it. He wants to share his story. ArchivesCategories |