Unabombers Manifesto...

I might not agree with what he did ... 

But this makes SO MUCH FUCCIN SENSE!

   Unabomber's Manifesto           _________________________________________________________________       INTRODUCTION               1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster    for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of    those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have    destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected    human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological    suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have    inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued    development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly    subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage    on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social    disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased    physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.        2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break    down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of    physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a    long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of    permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to    engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore,    if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is    no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from    depriving people of dignity and autonomy.        3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very    painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the    results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had    best break down sooner rather than later.        4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system.    This revolution may or may not make use of violence: it may be sudden    or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We    can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the    measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in    order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of    society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be    to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis    of the present society.        5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative    developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological    system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore    altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments    as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our    discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention    or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are    well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written    very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild    nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.       THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM               6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled    society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of    our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can    serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern    society in general.        7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century    leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today    the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be    called a leftist. 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, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by    "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of    leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)        8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less    clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for    this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate    way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main    driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling    the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is    meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of    the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of    the 19th and early 20th century.        9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we    call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of    inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while    oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of    modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.       FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY               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.        11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said    about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that    he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is    pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong    to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are    hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms    "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an    Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory    connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents    of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been    attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal    rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and    insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist    anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about    primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.    They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem    almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive    culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that    primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the    hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)        12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"    terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,    abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of    whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from    privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold    among university professors, who have secure employment with    comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white    males from middle-class families.        13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of    groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American    Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists    themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit    it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely    because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with    their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE    inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).        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. The    reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not    correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West    because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so    forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in    primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he    GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points    out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in    Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the    leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates    America and the West because they are strong and successful.        16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",    "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and    leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,    pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,    take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense    of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy    his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of    competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.        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. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the    foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the    concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that    modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians    systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply    involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack    these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one    thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent    that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More    importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they    classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and    other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings    of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification    of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or    inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the    concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are    antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior    because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or    inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or    blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is    "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been    brought up properly.        19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of    inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,    a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith    in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but    he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,    and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant    behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings    of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as    individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the    leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization    or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.        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.        21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion    or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the    leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle    cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too    prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.    Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of    benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.    For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black    people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or    dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a    diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal    and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative    action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take    such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.    Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems    serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and    frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black    people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white    majority tends to intensify race hatred.        22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would    have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse    for making a fuss.        23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate    description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only    a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.       OVERSOCIALIZATION               24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the    process by which children are trained to think and act as society    demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and    obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning    part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists    are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.    Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such    rebels as they seem.        25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can    think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not    supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some    time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are    so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally    imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,    they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives    and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality    have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe    such people. [2]        26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of    powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means    by which our society socializes children is by making them feel    ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's    expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is    especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of    HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized    person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of    the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a    significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty    thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate    someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick    to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do    these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of    shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even    experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to    the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And    socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to    confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading    of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological    leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down    for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of    constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest    that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human    beings inflict on one another.        27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the    modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of    great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.    Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or    members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university    intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our    society and also the most left-wing segment.        28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his    psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually    he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of    society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in    conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes    an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses    mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial    equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed    to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to    animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve    society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All    these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of    its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are    explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the    material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and    the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the    oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but    justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of    truth) that society is not living up to these principles.        29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized    leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our    society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists    push for affirmative action, for moving black people into    high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more    money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they    regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into    the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just    like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the    last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white    man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in    what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It    can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food,    listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going    to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express    itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more    leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform    to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical    subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing    the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white.    They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs    to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the    industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what    kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what    religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a    respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,    is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it,    the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the    system and make him adopt its values.        30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the    oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our    society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have    gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important    principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,    violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by    committing violence they break through the psychological restraints    that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized    these restraints have been more confining for them than for others;    hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their    rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence    they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.        31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing    thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is    complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take    several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim    only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies    in the psychology of modern leftism.        32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our    society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and    defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially    noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And    today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any    previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to    exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.       THE POWER PROCESS               33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something    that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the    need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same    thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut    of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs    to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed    in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more    difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it    autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).        34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he    wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will    develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of    fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized.    Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that    leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of    fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power.    But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert    themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even    though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must    have goals toward which to exercise one's power.        35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical    necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are    made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains    these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.        36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are    physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals    is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals    throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.        37. Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human    being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a    reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.       SURROGATE ACTIVITIES               38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized.    For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent    hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he    became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to    satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for    themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same    energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put    into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the    Roman Empire had their literary pretentions; many European aristocrats    a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting,    though they certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have    competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few    aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.        39. We use the term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that    is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for    themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us    say, merely for the sake of the "fulfillment" that they get from    pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of    surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy    to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most    of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that    effort required him to use his physical and mental facilities in a    varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because    he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person's    pursuit of a goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito's studies in    marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is    pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at    interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of    life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn't know all about    the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the    pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity,    because most people, even if their existence were otherwise    satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without    ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But    pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can    be a surrogate activity.)        40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to    satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go through a training    program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on    time and exert very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only    requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence, and most of all,    simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from    cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take    physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of    mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is    full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic    achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation,    climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods    far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional    physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues    that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of    white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These    are not always pure surrogate activities, since for many people they    may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some    goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive    for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings,    militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue    them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For    example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the    "fulfillment" they get from their work is more important than the    money and prestige they earn.        41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less    satisfying than the pursuit of real goals ( that is, goals that people    would want to attain even if their need for the power process were    already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many    or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities    are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly    strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one    problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives    himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue    surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from    these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of    satisfying their biological needs, but that it is because in our    society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been    reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not    satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as    parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have    a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities. have    a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.       AUTONOMY               42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for    every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of    autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be    undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own    direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this    initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually    enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen    people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint    effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be    served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above    that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then    their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true    when decisions are made on a collective bases if the group making the    collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is    insignificant [5]        43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for    autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by    identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they    belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be    satisfied with a purely physical sense of power(the good combat    soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills    that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).        44. But for most people it is through the power process-having a goal,    making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining t the goal-that self-esteem,    self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not    have adequate opportunity to go throughout the power process the    consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power    process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem,    inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt,    frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism,    abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]       SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS               45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in    modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We    aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going    crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is    good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress    and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than    modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in    primitive societies. Abuse of women and common among the Australian    aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American    Indian tribes. But is does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of    problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less    common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.        46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern    society to the fact that that society requires people to live under    conditions radically different from those under which the human race    evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of    behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier    conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we    consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process    as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern    society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing    with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we    will discuss some of the other sources.        47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society    are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature,    excessive rapidity of social change and the break-down of natural    small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or    the tribe.        48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression.    The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from    nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial    societies were predominantly rural. The industrial Revolution vastly    increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that    lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible    for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did    before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because    it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a    variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles,    etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want    peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is    restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the    regulations... But if these machines had never been invented there    would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)        49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes    only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of    security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates    nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes    very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable    framework.        50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of    traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological    progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that    you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the    economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other    aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably    break down traditional values.        51.The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the    breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale    social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also    promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt    individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their    communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family    ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern    society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only    secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal    loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than    loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own    advantage at the expense of the system.        52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints    his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than    appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted    personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is    "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in    modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor    job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the    system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an    advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale    communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the    system. [7]        53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been    widely recognized as sources of social problems. but we do not believe    they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are    seen today.        54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their    inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems    to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are    uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban    areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas.    Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.        55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th    century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended    families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as    these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by    choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles,    that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to    have developed problems as a result.        56.Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and    deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach    of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he    arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in    an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper    change that that which typically occurs in the life of a modern    individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological    problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and    self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]        57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense    (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th    century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he    created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a    piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his    own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of    hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity    than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a    member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered    community. One may well question whether the creation of this    community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the    pioneer's need for the power process.        58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which    there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties    without he kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in    today's industrial society. We contend that the most important cause    of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact    that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power    process in a normal way. We don't mean to say that modern society is    the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably    most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power '    process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial    society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least    in its recent (mid-to-late -20th century) form, is in part a symptom    of deprivation with respect to the power process.       DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY               59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that    can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied    but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be    adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power    process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group.    The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is    frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.        60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be    pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to    consist increasingly of artificially created drives.        61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into    group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort.    But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to    everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs    are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the    effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in lower- to    middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of    obedience. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do    what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do    you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly    any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not    well served.)        62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group    2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual.    [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for    status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is    insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.        63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group    2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and    marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel    they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed    of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these    artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs    80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely    through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and    marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.        64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these    artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that    appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second    half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts    many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called    by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class vacuity.") We suggest    that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually a search for a sense    of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It    may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the    purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society    is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for the majority of    people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a    surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory    fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for    the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully    satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such    as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.        65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing    the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other    way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals    AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's employee as, as we    pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are    told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even most people who are    in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic    complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands    are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations    are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government    regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely    complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on    the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few    years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require    applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed    to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such    persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the    franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people    who most need autonomy.        66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them    or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what    they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down    by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system    provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with the rules    and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be    followed if there is to be a chance of success.        67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a    deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in pursuit of    goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that    fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no    matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for    security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have    no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the    people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few    people - maybe 500 or 1,00 - make the important decisions" - Philip B.    Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York    Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards    at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much    pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into    our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we    lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government    economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals    are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to    more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for    security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of    powerlessness.        68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure    than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence    modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity    that is normal for human beings. but psychological security does not    closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure    is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our    ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a    fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in    search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but    he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The    modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things    against which he is helpless; nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food,    environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his    privacy by large organizations, nation-wide social or economic    phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.        69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the    things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the    risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is    no one's fault, unless is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal    demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They    are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons    whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence.    Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.        70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own    hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group)    whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or    organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able    personally to influence them. So modern man's drive for security tends    to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter, etc.) his    security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in    other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly    simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough,    general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of    primitive man.)        71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessary    frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become    angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations    it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one    may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one    generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey    the traffic signals. One may want to do one's work in a different way,    but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by    one's employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped    down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that    frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power    process. Most of these regulations cannot be disposed with, because    the are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.        72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In    matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can    generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like    (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the    system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice    "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT.    But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate    our behavior.        73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only    by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect    coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by    organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole.    Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to    manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to    "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even    consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For    instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form    of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that    says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders.    Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild    like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But    in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room    in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners.    Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.        74. We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with    maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced    age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with    respect to the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a    symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly    common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.            75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs    and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no    particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man    goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for    sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food.    (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on    social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase having been    successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about    settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In    contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children    because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment." We    suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the    power process -- with real goals instead of the artificial goals of    surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children,    going through the power process by providing them with the physical    necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is    prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many    modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of    death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to    maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue    that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they    have never put their physical powers to any use, have never gone    through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is    not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical    purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who    has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car    to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been    satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of    that life.        76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say,    "Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through    the power process." For such people the value of the opportunity is    destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they    need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system    GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain    autonomy they must get off that leash.       HOW SOME PEOPLE ADJUST               77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from    psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied    with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people    differ so greatly in their response to modern society.        78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the    drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have    relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least    relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are    docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the    Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at "plantation darkies" of the Old    South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their    servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)        79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which    they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who    have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole    lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that    game.        80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing    techniques. Some people are so susceptible that, even if they make a    great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for    the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their    eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their    income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.        81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing    techniques. These are the people who aren't interested in money.    Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.        82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing    techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for    goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in    overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.) Thus material    acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not    necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have    insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of    following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g.,    security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in    paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire for material    acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing    industry. Of course it's not that simple.        83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying    themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An    individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization,    adopts its goals as his own, then works toward these goals. When some    of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal    efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of    the goals, feels (through his identification with the movement or    organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This    phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our    society uses it, too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was    an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded    Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). The U.S.    went through the power process and many Americans, because of their    identification with the U.S., experienced the power process    vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama    invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same    phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian    organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular,    leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy    their need for power. But for most people identification with a large    organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for    power.        84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power    process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs    38-40, a surrogate activity that is directed toward an artificial goal    that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he    gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal    itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building    enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a    complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society    devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp    collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and    therefore will more readily attack importance to a surrogate activity    simply because the people around them treat it as important or because    society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very    serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or    bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are    more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the    surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach    enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process    in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a    person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a    PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is    to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status    and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put    into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever    money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a    surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional    investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces    acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system,    with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131).    Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends    to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that is    deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment    (paragraphs 87-92).        85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern    society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or    lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need    for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place,    those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly    "hooked" or a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with    a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that    way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied    with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization    (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is    imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through    socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in    frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and    the necessity of restraining too many impulses.        86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were    well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of    society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to    fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities    or through identification with an organization, rather then through    pursuit of real goals.       THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS               87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of    surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by    "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on    highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal    curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an    entomologist curious about the properties of    isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious    about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry    is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the    appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That    question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested    in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the    chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to    obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their    abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit,    then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the    classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate    education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of    a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in    insurance matters but would have cared nothing about    isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into    the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that    scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the    scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.        88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better.    Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the    human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for    example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous    possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic    about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution.    Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional    involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement    stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr.    Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such    a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with    many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question    whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the    cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of    accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his    emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to    "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his    work and from seeing it put to practical use.        89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare    exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit    humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal    (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to    attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate    activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get    out of the work itself.        90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for    many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be    persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see    paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their    work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the    general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and    marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods    and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is    in large part a surrogate activity.        91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and    many scientists gratify their need for power through identification    with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).        92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real    welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to    the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government    officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for    research.       THE NATURE OF FREEDOM               93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot    be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively    narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But because "freedom" is a word    that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what    kind of freedom we are concerned with.        94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power    process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate    activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from    anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in    control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of    the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter    and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's    environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control    other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own    life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large    organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently,    tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is    important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see    paragraph 72).        95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a    certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are    not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that    exists in a society is determined more by the economic and    technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of    government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were    monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were    controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets    the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than out    society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient    mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern,    well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications,    no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of    average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.        96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of    freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it    is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power    and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly    exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of    very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass    media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are    integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have    something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some    such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of    material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect.    To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost    impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for    example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the    present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been    accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would    not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the    entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if    these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon    have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the    mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our    message before the public with some chance of making a lasting    impression, we've had to kill people.        97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not    serve to guarantee much more than what could be called the bourgeois    conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free"    man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a    certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are    designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of    the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom    because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press    because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders;    he has a rights to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of    the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the    attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if    they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the    bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of    freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese    Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the    philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is    granted rights because he is a member of society and his community    life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of    the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang    (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom    had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a    whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only    as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of    Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such    theorists is that they have made the development and application of    social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories    are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs    of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which    the theories are imposed.        98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be    assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has    enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological control of    which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas of what    constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by    their real needs. For example, it's likely that many leftists of the    oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves    are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized    leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of    socialization.       SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY               99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic    component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no    discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of    long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term    trends.        100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a    long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost    always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original    state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political    corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect;    sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The    level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain    constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society.    Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by    widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be    enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to    be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in    which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered    but only pushed a step ahead.        101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not    stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather    than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a    long-term trend at all.        102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large    to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter    the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which    all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any    important part without change all the other parts as well.        103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to    alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the    society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various    other societies have passed through the same change and have all    experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on    empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same    change will be like to experience similar consequences.)        104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on    paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance,    then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.        105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of    human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of    a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the    environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the    environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways;    and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to    be untangled and understood.        106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose    the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of    social evolution that are not under rational human control.        107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.        108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an    attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the    society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change    that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory    effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To    make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important    aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is    required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising    or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a    revolution never changes only one aspect of a society; and by the    third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by    the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or    utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.        109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The    American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word,    but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political    reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of    development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They    only freed the development of American society from the retarding    effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any    basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its    natural direction of development. British society, of which American    society was an off-shoot, had been moving for a long time in the    direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of    Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant    degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The    political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the    British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration,    to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very    important step. But it was a step along the road the English-speaking    world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its    colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British    descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially    similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost    their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our    way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe    we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had    a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.    No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a    counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.        110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles.    They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for    interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present    these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or    guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas    about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly    in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with    them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the    conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.       INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED               111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it    would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent    it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been    a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial    Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in    individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to    protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental    trend in the development of our society.        Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one -- soon    swamped by the tide of history -- or, if large enough to be permanent    would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and    second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way    that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would    be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in    favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would realized that    they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would    be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a    lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their    disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor    of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept    radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system.    In other words, by revolutionaries, not reformers.        112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed    benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of    society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the    fact that people who make suggestions seldom propose any practical    means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first    place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form    of society could be once established, it either would collapse or    would give results very different from those expected.        113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbably that    any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile    freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give    more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological    progress are incompatible.             RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY               114. As explained in paragraph 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped    down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on    the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot    influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of    arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any    technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human    behavior closely in order to function. At work, people have to do what    they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos.    Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any    substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would    disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to    differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their    discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be    eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by    large organizations is necessary for the functioning of    industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of    powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however,    that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by    psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires    of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health"    programs, etc.)        115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are    increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For    example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It    can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to    excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being    to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A    normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the    real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are    trained to do are in natural harmony with natural human impulses.    Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active    outdoor pursuits -- just the sort of things that boys like. But in our    society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which    most do grudgingly.        116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify    human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people    who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare    leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical    environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.        117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate    MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any    great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into    small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the    cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a    society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that    affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a    million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the    average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What    usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public    officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but    even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters    ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be    significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence    measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. Their is no    conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society.    The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make    people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if    this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel    better, it would be demeaning.        118 Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy."    Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes    less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with    and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer    networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern    health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that    technology applied in one location often affects people at other    locations far away. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may    contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the    greenhouse effect affects the whole world.        119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs.    Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs    of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social    ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the    fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but    by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many    human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extent    that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of    the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For    example, the system provides people with food because the system    couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's    psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it    couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious.    But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert    constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the    system. Too much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the    educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a    mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A    chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask    whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their    time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put    out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining,"    no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in    this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to    technical necessity and for good reason: If human needs were put    before technical necessity there would be economic problems,    unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in    our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual    behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without    showing signs of stress.        120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy    within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company,    instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a    catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed    to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have    tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for    practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited    extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to    ultimate goals -- their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed    toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their    employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any    company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to    act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system,    workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise,    otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the    system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible    for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in    industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only    limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation,    he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system    and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a    new technology, the small-business person often has to use that    technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.             THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS               121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in    favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in    which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the    "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take    modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on    progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other    fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech    equipment that can be made available only by a technologically    progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much    progress in medicine without the whole technological system and    everything that goes with it.        122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of    the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.    Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People    with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and    reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for    diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the    population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since    diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of    insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases    susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the    population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or    extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the    future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God    (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a    manufactured product.        123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much    NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic    constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow    the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the    consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.    [19]        124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical    ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in    the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code    of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means    of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody    (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and    such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others    were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on    the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of    ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority    would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a    different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic    engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom    would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings,    and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a    technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a    minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented    by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible,    especially since to the majority of people many of its applications    will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and    mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in    today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used    extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the    industrial-technological system. [20]       TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM       125. 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. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the    outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful    than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land.    The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise.    Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to    give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece    of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long    series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually    gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology    and freedom.        126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force    than the aspiration for freedom.        127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom    often turns out to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it    very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A    walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace    without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of    technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced    they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away    from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't    want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel    much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized    transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly    man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it    became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car,    especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one    likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of    traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various    obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration,    insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on    purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer    optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the    arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority    of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of    employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that    they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they    must use public transportation, in which case they have even less    control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the    walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually    has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to    serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous    and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we    have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item    of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept    or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many    cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people    eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)        128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our    sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF    appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid    long-distance communications . . . how could one argue against any of    these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical    advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to    resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many    advantages and no disadvantages. Yet as we explained in paragraphs    59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created world    in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in    the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians,    corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and    bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21]    The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic    engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a    genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease It does no    apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of    genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an    engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God,    or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).        129 Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is    that, within the context of a given society, technological progress    marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a    technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become    dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced    innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a    new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes    dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if    computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in    only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology    repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back -- short of the    overthrow of the whole technological system.        130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at    many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and    regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large    organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic    engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and    computers, etc.) To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would    require a long different social struggle. Those who want to protect    freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the    rapidity with which they develop, hence they become pathetic and no    longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be    futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological    system as a whole; but that is revolution not reform.        131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all    those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to    be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a    conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost    always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the    case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators,    humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use    propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve    their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they    find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about    individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies    are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects    and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they    can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent    those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law    officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but    when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work    is more important.        132. It is well known that people generally work better and more    persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid    a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are    motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those    who oppose technilogiccal invasions of freedom are working to avoid a    negative outcome, consequently there are a few who work persistently    and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a    signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further    erosion of freedom through technological progress, most would tend to    relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the    scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as    it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more    and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent    on the system.        133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or    ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology.    History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all    change or break down eventually. But technological advances are    permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for    example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements    that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human    beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten    freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting.    Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably    sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic    engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this    invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological    civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent    through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently    happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed    that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the    worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political    wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.        134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful    social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement    requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next    several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing    severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and    especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion,    hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We    hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will    cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a    revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment    the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than    technology.        135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is    left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing    on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong    neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak    neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can    kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to    give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets    well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible    alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has    the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we    must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its    sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.        SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE               136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the    system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him    consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society    has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and    straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop    environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or    domestic abuse.        137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict    of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving    some of our natural resources for our grandchildren [22] But on this    subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people    who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action,    and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren    will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue    consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some    of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The    line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion.    This is not a rational process, or is it one that is likely to lead to    a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social    problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely or never solved    through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves    out through a process in which various competing groups pursing their    own usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly by luck) at    some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we    formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational,    long-term social planning can EVER be successful. 138. Thus it is    clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for    solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is    it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem of    reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut    material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means    different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured    by propaganda and fancy talk.        139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our    environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a    rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only    because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these    problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve    freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the    interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the    greatest possible extent. Thus, while practical considerations may    eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to    environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force    the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by    indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom.) This    isn't just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q.    Wilson) have stressed the importance of "socializing" people more    effectively.       REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM               140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be    reformed in a such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The    only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological system    altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed    uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature    of society.        141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much    greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about    than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is    much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement    can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot    inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social    problem A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one    stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for    which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this    reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological    system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development    of application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic    engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may    devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the    industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132,    reformers seeking to limite certain aspects of technology would be    working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain    a powerful reward -- fulfillment of their revolutionary vision -- and    therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.        142. Reform is always restrainde by the fear of painful consequences    if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold    of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for    the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and    Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of    the population is really committed to the revolution, but this    minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the    dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution    in paragraphs 180-205.       CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR               143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had    to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the    social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society    to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive    labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise,    crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society    requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant,    or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently,    societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits.    When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going    rong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or    depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a    declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society    breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is    (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution)    replaces by some more efficient form of society.        [25]        144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the    development of societies. People coud be pushed only so far and no    farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is    developing way of modifying human beings.        145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that amke    them terribley unhappy, then gives them the drugs to take away their    unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent    in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical    depression had been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe    that this is due to disruption fo the power process, as explained in    paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of    depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in    today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people    depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect,    antidepressants area a means of modifying an individual's internal    state in such a way as to enable him to toelrate social conditions    that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that    depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to    those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)        146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the methods of    controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us    look at some of the other methods.        147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden    video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places,    computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information    about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the    effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement).[26] Then    there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication    media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been    developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public    opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important    psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out    large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man    with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television,    videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration,    dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't have work to    do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all,    because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most    modern people must be contantly occupied or entertained, otherwise the    get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.        148. Other techniques strike deeper that the foregoing. Education is    no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't    know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them.    It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's    development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great    success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques    are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools.    "Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make    children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways    that the system finds desirable. "Mental health" programs,    "intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly    designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as    methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system    requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose    attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up    against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape    from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat.    His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system    requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the    individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in    its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all    cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all    is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists    interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when    used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form    of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not    spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well    with the existing system of society. In practice, the word "abuse"    tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that    produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go    beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for    preventing "child abuse" are directed toward the control of human    behavior of the system.        149. Presumably, research will continue to increas the effectiveness    of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we    think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be    sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that    technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be    used. We have already mentiond the use of drugs in this connection.    Neurology may provide other avenues of modifying the human mind.    Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in    the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume the such    methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the    body that affect mental funtioning.        150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely    to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of    human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And    a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental    problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low    self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't    study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse , other    crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political    corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict    (i.e., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism,    sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the    very survival of the system. The system will be FORCED to use every    practical means of controlling human behavior.        151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the    result of mere chance. It can only be a result fo the conditions of    life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most    important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If    the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human    behavior to assure itw own survival, a new watershed in human history    will have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have    imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in    paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to    pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological    methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems    will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human    being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.        [27] 152. Generally speaking, technological control over human    behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention    or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28]    Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be    taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as    curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to    study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be    humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist    prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly    doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the    drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to    Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming    enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their    children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one    didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their    kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But    what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be    unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to    Sylvan.        153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a    calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social    evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible    to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to    be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance    will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making    the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not    making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many    good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14]    Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to    the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual    attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state    as represented by the public school system.        154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the    likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal and suppose some    sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course most    parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the    therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would    probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But    many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison    with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech    methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there    is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have    innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must    be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which    many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove    potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of    re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the    system.        155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought    or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible    because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain    to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the    manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a    "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.        156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of    technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN    optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a    way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to    function without using that technology. This applies also to the    technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are    put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a    parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program,    because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively    speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a    biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable    side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which    so many people suffer in our society. If large numbers of people    choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in    society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to    increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this    seems to have happened already with one of our society's most    important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at    least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see    paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is "optional": No law    requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines.    Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on    which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the    trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have    kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along    today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite    recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no    other entertainment than that which each local community created for    itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would    not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing    pressure on us as it does.        157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that    technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete    control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any    rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely    biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as    hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by    electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can    be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to    the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced    or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human    soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the    biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case    then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human    feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.        158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have    electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by    the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so    open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling    human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons,    hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible    to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in    solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great    advances will be made in the control of human behavior.        159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological    control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made    to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control    will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there    will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs    127,132, 153.)        160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we    point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's fact. The    Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way    of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is    increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be    altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.       HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS               161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop    in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques    for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these    techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the    more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of    educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the "lab schools"    where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them    effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many    of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and    guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for    making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical    advances relating to human behavior the system to date has not been    impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose    behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of    the type that might be called "bourgeois." But there are growing    numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the    system: welfare leaches, youth gangs cultists, satanists, nazis,    radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc..        162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to    overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the    problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system    succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly    enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We    think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several    decades, say 40 to 100 years.        163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several    decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought    under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular    that of "socializing" human beings; that is, making people    sufficiently docile so that their behavior no longer threatens the    system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would    be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would    presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete    control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other    important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic    organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a    number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes    elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the    government, the corporations and other large organizations both    cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have    vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent    vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an    arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for    manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and    physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real    power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom,    because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our    politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of    power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly    narrow limits.        164. Don't imagine that the systems will stop developing further    techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of    the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer    necessary for the system's survival. On the contrary, once the hard    times are over the system will increase its control over people and    nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by    difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival    is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in    paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on their work    largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for    power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this    with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and    challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding    the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the    "good of humanity," of course.        165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming    decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down    there may be a period of chaos, a "time of troubles" such as those    that history has recorded: at various epochs in the past. It is    impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles,    but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The    greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute    itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there    will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be    anxious to get the factories running again.        166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to    which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must    work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to    increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened    sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second,    it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes    technology and the industrial society if and when the system becomes    sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that,    if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be    smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The    factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.       HUMAN SUFFERING               167. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of    revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary    attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into    very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so    either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous    but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many    people will die, since the world's population has become so overblown    that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced    technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction    of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate    than through elevation of the death rate, the process of    de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much    suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be    phased out in a smoothly managed orderly way, especially since the    technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore    cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not.    In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the    system down unless it is already in deep trouble so that there would    be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and    the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of    its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening    the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent of the    disaster.        168. In the second place, one has to balance the struggle and death    against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and    dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical    pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to    die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but    empty and purposeless life.        169. In the third place, it is not all certain that the survival of    the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the    system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to    cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that    for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with    each other and their environment, have been shattered by contact with    industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of    economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the    effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much    of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out    of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies.    Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread    throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see    paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone    depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that    cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new    technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and    irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut    what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?        170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We    will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody    healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago.    The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make    everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The    technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their    understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to    ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial    ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of    other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph    103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable    that in their attempt to end poverty and disease, engineer docile,    happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social    systems that are terribly troubled, even more so that the present one.    For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by    creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow    the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well    known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is    merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We    emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will    lead to other new problems for society far more rapidly that it has    been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long difficult period of    trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their    Brave New World (if they ever do). In the meantime there will be great    suffering. So it is not all clear that the survival of industrial    society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that    society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from    which there is not likely to be any easy escape.       THE FUTURE               171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next    several decade and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the    system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be?    We will consider several possibilities.        172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in    developing intelligent machines that can do all things better that    human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be    done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort    will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might    be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human    oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.        173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we    can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible    to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the    fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might    be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand    over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that    the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor    that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is    that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a    position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no    practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As    society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and    machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines    make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made    decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. 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 the machines will be in    effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off,    because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would    amount to suicide.        174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the    machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have    control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of    his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will    be in the hands of a tiny elite -- just as it is today, but with two    difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater    control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be    necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the    system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate    the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or    other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate    until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the    elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may    decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human    race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are    satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic    conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and    that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure    his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will    have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove    their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their    drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human    beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will    not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic    animals.        175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in    developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains    necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the    simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human    workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening    already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to    get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they    cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves    useful in the present system.) On those who are employed,    ever-increasing demands will be placed; They will need more and m ore    training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more    reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more    like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly    specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with    the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The    system will have to use any means that I can, whether psychological or    biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities    that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into    some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a    society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society    may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of    directing competitiveness into channels that serve that needs of the    system. We can imagine into channels that serve the needs of the    system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless    competition for positions of prestige an power. But no more than a    very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is    (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a    person can satisfy his needs for power only by pushing large numbers    of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity    for power.        176. Once can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than    one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it    may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real,    practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being    given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example,    that a great development of the service of industries might provide    work for human beings. Thus people will would spend their time    shinning each others shoes, driving each other around inn taxicab,    making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables,    etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race    to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives    in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets    (drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biological or    psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.        177. Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all    the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem    to us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios that    are any more palatable that the ones we've just described. It is    overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system    survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed    certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the    "bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,    and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever    on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and    their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly    to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them    rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or    whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to    remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision    and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild).    In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that    neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as    we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through    genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular    point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and    other organisms have been utterly transformed.        178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is    creating for human begins a new physical and social environment    radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural    selection has adapted the human race physically and psychological. If    man is not adjust to this new environment by being artificially    re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long an painful    process of natural selection. The former is far more likely that the    latter.        179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the    consequences.       STRATEGY               180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride    into the unknown. Many people understand something of what    technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude    toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think    it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here    some indications of how to go about stopping it.        181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present    are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and    to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the    industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and    unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern    would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French    society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their    respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and    weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a    new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the    Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the    old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient    additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat    in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose in    something along the same lines.        182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were    failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an    old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society    envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian    revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of    society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in    destroying the existing form of society.        183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have    a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as    well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is    Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of the    Earth and its living things that are independent of human management    and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we    include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the    functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation    by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God    (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).        184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several    reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the    opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power    of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful;    certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical    environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and    opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to    set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature    takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long    before any human society, and for countless centuries many different    kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an    excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did    the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To    relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special    kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial    society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society    has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very    long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial    societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting    rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will    relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can    begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to    keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature).    Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial    system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature,    because in the absence of advanced technology there is not other way    that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or    herdsmen or fishermen or hunter, etc., And, generally speaking, local    autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology    and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or    other large organizations to control local communities.        185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial    society -- well, you can't eat your cake and have it too. To gain one    thing you have to sacrifice another.        186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they    avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and    they like to have such issues presented to them in simple,    black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The    revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.        187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address    itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The    object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the    industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full    appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the    price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is    particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are    capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These    people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts    should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language    should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to    the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid    misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy    the intellectual respectability of the ideology.        188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a    simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the    conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on    this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language    that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people    of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda    sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more    advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of    intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an    unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as    someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However,    propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system    is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between    rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old    world-view goes under.        189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not    expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by    active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a    clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time    comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task of    revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the    majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for    the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of    the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it    will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can    be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.        190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but    one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The    line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and    the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians,    scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials,    etc..). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the    mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the    revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption.    Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the    advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying    a lot of junk that he doesn't need and that is very poor compensation    for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It    is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising    industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing    itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally    avoid blaming the public.        191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social    conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields    technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its    power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from    the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people,    between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may    actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such    a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over    its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It    also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in    America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African    Americans by placing back individuals in the technological    power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials,    scientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are    helping to absorb the African American subculture into the    technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only    those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the    conflicts of power--elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.        192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant    advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the    revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer    more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral    significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system,    and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no    importance.        193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily    involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not    involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution.    Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]        194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political    power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system    is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure    in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some "green"    party should win control of the United States Congress in an election.    In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they    would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into    economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear    disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of    commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided    through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to    begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted.    Dissatisfaction would grow, the "green" party would be voted out of of    fice and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For    this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political    power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any    hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the    industrial system itself and not from the policies of the    revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have    to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from    above.        195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be    carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that    the United States, for example, should cut back on technological    progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming    that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of    us. Holy robots The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever    sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of    technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively    democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty,    dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to    progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world.    That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations    simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there    is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at    approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even    conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead    instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk    that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference    between a "democratic" industrial system and one controlled by    dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial    system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an    industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because    dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence    they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.        196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to    bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements    like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the    short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous    because they foster economic interdependence between nations. I will    be eaier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if he    world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any on major nation    will lead to its breakdwon in al industrialized nations.        the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster    economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy    the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so    unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its    breakdown in all industrialized nations.        197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too    much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on    the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing    themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power    for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It    is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people    NEED power. Modern man as a collective entity--that is, the industrial    system--has immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as    evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far    less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast    power of "modern man" over nature is exercised not by individuals or    small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the    average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is    permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the    supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for    everything and with the license come rules and regulations). The    individual has only those technological powers with which the system    chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.        198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable    power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN    nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare    edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He    knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals,    etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because    the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to    the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.        199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should    argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and    that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS    and SMALL GROUPS.        200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the    destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries' ONLY goal.    Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal.    More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any    other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to    use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in    to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological    trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized    system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself    obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only    token amounts of technology.        201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took "social    justice" as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice    would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In    order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central    organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance    transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology    needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To    feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and    manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure    social justice would force them to retain most parts of the    technological system. Not that we have anything against social    justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to    get rid of the technological system.        202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the    system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must    use the communications media to spread their message. But they should    use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the    technological system.        203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of    him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, "Wine isn't bad for you if    used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good    for you! It won't do me any harm if I take just one little drink..."    Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human    race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.        204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There    is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a    significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude    is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears    that personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to    make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude.    Objections to these findings have been raised, but objections are    feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one    denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes    similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn't    matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically    or through childhood training. In either case the ARE passed on.        205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel    against the industrial system are also concerned about the population    problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way    they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support    or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of    the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation must    reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the    population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to    get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system    is gone the world's population necessarily will decrease (see    paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will    continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable    the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.        206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which    we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the    elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be    allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should    take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the    recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give    good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.       TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY               207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution    is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout    history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence    technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.        208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will    call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology.    Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale    communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent    technology is technology that depends on large-scale social    organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in    small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES    regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down.    Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale    technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,    for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by    Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent    technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were    never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The    Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that until rather    recent times did the sanitation of European cities that of Ancient    Rome.        209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that,    until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most    technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology    developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent    technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made    parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be    virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a    refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it    would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power.    So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators    require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire    without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for    refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or    preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention    of the refrigerator.        210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly    broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same    is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this    technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take    centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the    first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and    scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without    outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools    to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long process of    economic development and progress in social organization is required.    And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there    is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding    industrial society. The enthusiasm for "progress" is a phenomenon    particular to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have    existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.        211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that    were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and    the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations    remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one    knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their    theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that    rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only    under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that    long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.        212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an    industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying    about it, since we can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years    in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who    will live at that time.       THE DANGER OF LEFTISM               213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a    movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type are often    unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and    membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish    types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so    that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the    movement.        214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes    technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid    all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run    inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the    elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to    bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a    unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life    by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can't    have a united world without rapid transportation and communication,    you can't make all people love one another without sophisticated    psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society" without    the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the    need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis,    through identification with a mass movement or an organization.    Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is    too valuable a source of collective power.        215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an    individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups    to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes    technology because it makes small groups dependent on large    organizations.        216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose    it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is    controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in    society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands    of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth.    In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown    again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were    outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police,    they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth;    but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter    censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had    existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least    as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of    decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist    professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in    those universities where leftists have become dominant, they have    shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic    freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with    leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if    they ever get it under their own control.        217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type,    repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as    well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later    have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre    did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the    Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro    and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism,    it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to    collaborate with leftists.        218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of    religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because    leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural    being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much    like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to    believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological    economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has    a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and    that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on    everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as    "leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and would not    describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term "leftism"    because we don't know of any better words to designate the spectrum of    related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political    correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a    strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)        219. Leftism is totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position    of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every    thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the    quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftists    beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian    force because of the leftists' drive for power. The leftist seeks to    satisfy his need for power through identification with a social    movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to    pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no    matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the    leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate    activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist's real motive is not    to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated    by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a    social goal.[35]        Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has    already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to    pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for    minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality    of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some    corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the    leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough;    no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals,    disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on    and on. It's not enough that the public should be informed about the    hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of    cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not    banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is    outlawed, and after that it will be alco hot then junk food, etc.    Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now    they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will    want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another    thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have    complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will    move on to another cause.        220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that    were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social    change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of    years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain    about, some new social "evil" to correct because, once again, the    leftist is motivated less by distress at society's ills than by the    need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on    society.        221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior    by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the    over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people    do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable    outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on    everyone.        222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True    Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer's book, "The True Believer." But    not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists.    Presumably a truebelieving nazi, for instance is very different    psychologically from a truebelieving leftist. Because of their    capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a    useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement.    This presents a problem with which we must admit we don't know how to    deal. We aren't sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer    to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that    no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his    commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is    committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a    tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221).        223. Some readers may say, "This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap.    I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don't have all    these totalitarian tendencies." It's quite true that many leftists,    possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely    believe in tolerating others' values (up to a point) and wouldn't want    to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks    about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but    to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the    general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the    numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the    movement.        224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements    tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type because power-hungry    people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power.    Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement,    there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of    many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to    oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they    cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME    leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that    emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are    better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken    care to build themselves a strong power base.        225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries    that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of    communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom    criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did    many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the    communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always    opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish    types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action    in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing.    Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their    leftist faith, they just couldn't bear to put themselves in opposition    to communism. Today, in those of our universities where "political    correctness" has become dominant, there are probably many leftish    types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom,    but they go along with it anyway.        226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild    and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole    form having a totalitarian tendency.        227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far    from clear what we mean by the word "leftist." There doesn't seem to    be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole    spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are    leftist, and some activist movements (e.g.., radical environmentalism)    seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and    personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better    than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out    gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often    be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a    leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of    leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this    article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in    deciding who is a leftist.        228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing    leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner.    Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists,    some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have    to use your judgment.        229. The leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He    emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of    society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude    toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be    for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically    "enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative    action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He    tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often    finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of    using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, " "sexism, "    "homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism "    "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social    responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his    tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay    rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political    correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these    movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]        230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most    power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic    approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may    be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of    aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work    quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values,    "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children,    dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These    crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois    types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in    psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to    bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way    of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional.    The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system    because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The    crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the    oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker    and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the    ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep    lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a    cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his    (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average    bourgeois.        FINAL NOTE        231. Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements and    statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and    reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be    flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity    made it impossible for us to fomulate our assertions more precisely or    add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of    this        kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can    sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more    than a crude approximation to the truth.        232. All the same we are reasonably confident that the general    outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. We    have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to    our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But    we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to    satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone    have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the    decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem,    powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not    themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification    with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some    extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we    can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so    evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in    modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently    that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a    significant question to which historians ought to give their    attention.        NOTES        1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and    ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.        2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized    people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of    repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings. Freud    apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus    of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.        3. (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists in engineering    "hard" sciences.        4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper    classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance    is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only    to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society    is in favor of the stated values.        The main reasons why these values have become, so to speak, the    official values of our society is that they are useful to the    industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the    functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic    conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the    talent of minority-group members who could be useful to the system.    Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes problems for the    system and contact with the underclass lowers the moral of the other    classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents    are useful to the system and, more importantly because by having    regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied    directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken    family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to    strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the    family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in    accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51,52 that    the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social    groups be strong or autonomous.)        5. (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of people don't    want to make their own decisions but want leaders to do their thinking    for them. There is an element of truth in this. People like to make    their own decisions in small matters, but making decisions on    difficult, fundamental questions require facing up to psychological    conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict. Hence they tend    to lean on others in making difficult decisions. The majority of    people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have    direct personal access to their leaders and participate to some extent    in making difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need    autonomy.        6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those    shown by caged animals.        To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to    the power process:        Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of    goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that    boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure    to obtain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem.    Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of    spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued    frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to    cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about    oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an    antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with    perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to    cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people    often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram. The foregoing    is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course    deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of    the symptoms described. By the way, when we mention depression we do    not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by    a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And    when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought    out goals. For many or most people through much of human history, the    goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one's    family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.        7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passive,    inward looking groups, such as the Amish, which have little effect on    the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale    communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth gangs and    "cults". Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they are, because    the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one another rather    than to the system, hence the system cannot control them. Or take the    gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because    their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to    give testimony that "proves" their innocence. Obviously the system    would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such    groups. Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers who were    concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity of breaking    down small-scale social groups such as the family: "(According to Sun    Yat-sen) The Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which    would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state. .    .(According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the    family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop to China."    (Chester C. Tan, Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century,"    page 125, page 297.)        8. (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19th century America had its    problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of breviety we have to    express ourselves in simplified terms.        9. (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the underclass. We are speaking of    the mainstream.        10. (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, "mental health"    professionals and the like are doing their best to push the social    drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone has a    satisfactory social life.        11. (Paragraphs 63, 82) Is the drive for endless material acquisition    really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing    industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for material    acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people have    desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary to satisfy    their basic physical needs (Australian aborigines, traditional Mexican    peasant culture, some African cultures). On the other hand there have    also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material acquisition    has played an important role. So we can't claim that today's    acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation of the    advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that the    advertising and marketing industry has had an important part in    creating that culture. The big corporations that spend millions on    advertising wouldn't be spending that kind of money without solid    proof that they were getting it back in increased sales. One member of    FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank enough to    tell him, "Our job is to make people buy things they don't want and    don't need." He then described how an untrained novice could present    people with the facts about a product, and make no sales at all, while    a trained and experienced professional salesman would make lots of    sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated into    buying things they don't really want.        12. (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems to have become    less serious during the last 15 years or so, because people now feel    less secure physically and economically than they did earlier, and the    need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness has    been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining    security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness because the    liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems by    having society guarantee everyone's security; but if that could be    done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness. The real    issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for people's    security; the trouble is that people are dependent on the system for    their security rather than having it in their own hands. This, by the    way, is part of the reason why some people get worked up about the    right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect of their    security in their own hands.        13. (Paragraph 66) Conservatives' efforts to decrease the amount of    government regulation are of little benefit to the average man. For    one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated    because most regulations are necessary. For another thing, most of the    deregulation affects business rather than the average individual, so    that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it    to private corporations. What this means for the average man is that    government interference in his life is replaced by interference from    big corporations, which may be permitted, for example, to dump more    chemicals that get into his water supply and give him cancer. The    conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting    his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.            14. (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose for which    propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally calls it    "education" or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is    propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.        15. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of    the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.        16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule    there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than    there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there    was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and    after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial    Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from "Violence in    America: Historical and Comparative perspectives," edited by Hugh    Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages    476-478: "The progressive heightening of standards of property, and    with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th    century America). . .were common to the whole society. . .[T]he change    in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a    connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes;    that of industrial urbanization itself. . ."Massachusetts in 1835 had    a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly    preindustrial and native born. It's citizens were used to considerable    personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were    all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their    work made them physically dependent on each other. . .Individual    problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider    social concern. . ."But the impact of the twin movements to the city    and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a    progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century    and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life    governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the    demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of    living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions    previously unobjectionable.        Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were    mutually dependent on their fellows. as one man's work fit into    another's, so one man's business was no longer his own. "The results    of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when    some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were    classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had    been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer    acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later    period. . .The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more    tractable, more socialized, more 'civilized' generation than its    predecessors."        17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases    in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such    cases are rare.        18. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced lands, men    live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious and    political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in    Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, a Communist bank clerk in    Moscow are far more alike than the life any one of them is like that    of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities    are the result of a common technology. . ." L. Sprague de Camp, "The    Ancient Engineers," Ballentine edition, page 17.        The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does    have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to    survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.        19. (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might    create a lot of terrorists.        20. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences    of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered.    Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the    elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of    carcinogens into the environment.        21. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion    that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we will    illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B.    Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of    course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for    him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C    tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance    he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL    of his moves for him he spoils the game, since there is not point in    Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.        The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system    makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in    doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.        22. (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of    values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out    of the picture "outsider" values like the idea that wild nature is    more important than human economic welfare.        23. (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL    self-interest. It can consist in fulfillment of some psychological    need, for example, by promoting one's own ideology or religion.        24. (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the    system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas.    For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and    restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But    only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the    system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the    leash is sometimes long( see paragraphs 94, 97).        25. (Paragraph 143) We don't mean to suggest that the efficiency or    the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely    proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the    society subjects people. That is certainly not the case. There is good    reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to    less pressure than the European society did, but European society    proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won    out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages    conferred by technology.        26. (Paragraph 147) If you think that more effective law enforcement    is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that    crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what YOU would call    crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a "crime," and, in some places in    the U.S.., so is possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be    made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods    of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of    dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty    that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or    political system lasts forever.        If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment,    then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be    subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the    rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past    have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.        27. (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of    influencing behavior, but these have been primitive and of low    effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being    developed.        28. (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly    expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And    the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August 1987) as    saying, "I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to    humans, and I'm rooting for the machines."        29. (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing    paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American    according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for    identifying possible future criminals and for treating them by a    combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists    advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be    available in the near future. (See "Seeking the Criminal Element", by    W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this    is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become    drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to peel who    spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging    equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the    system.        30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal    to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of    reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could    perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many    societies religion has served as a support and justification for the    established order, but it is also true that religion has often    provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a    religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so    because Western society today has no strong religious foundation.        Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for    narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this    way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many    evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism    (fundamentalist Protestant sects, "cults"), or is simply stagnant    (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong,    widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times    has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is    fragmented and has no clear, unified inspiring goal.        Thus there is a religious vaccuum in our society that could perhaps be    filled by a religion focused on nature in opposition to technology.    But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to    fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure.    Take the "Gaia" religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe    in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their    religion will be a flop in the end.        It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict    of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion    yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in    many other people.        31. (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs.    Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat    gradual or piecemeal fashion. (see paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 4).        32. (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the    revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward    technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless    disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we'll be    very lucky. It's far more probably that the transition to a    nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts    and disasters.        33. (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a    society are far more important than its political structure in    determining the way the average man lives (see paragraphs 95, 119 and    Notes 16, 18).        34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of    anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called    "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves    anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should    be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement    whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly    would not approve of FC's violent methods.        35. (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but    the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for    power.        36. (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone    who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our    society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have    equal rights is not necessarily a leftist. The feminist, gay rights,    etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular    ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for    example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily    follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it    exists today.        If copyright problems make it impossible for this long quotation to be    printed, then please change Note 16 to read as follows:        16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule    there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than    there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there    was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and    after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial    Revolution took hold in this country. In "Violence in America:    Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham    and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in    pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and    autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization    necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom.