Pasted

(Source:  well.sf.ca.us )    Unabomber's Manifesto    The following is full text of the 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.     _________________________________________________________________