210 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
210 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### ## ##
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### ##
|
|
|
|
[ Comments To The Unabomber Manifesto ] [ By Phearless/The GNN ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments to the Unabomber Manifesto.
|
|
by PHEARLESS and THE GNN
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though it was quite a while ago that the 'Unabomber Manifesto' showed
|
|
up, we decided to comment on it. Thoughts never goes out of style, better
|
|
late than never. Baha, who cares anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHEARLESS: 'Unabomber - who or what are you trying to preserve?'
|
|
|
|
In your manifesto, you thoroughly explain your fear that the communists will
|
|
take over the world. You tell us that you want to save humankind from
|
|
extinction, or maybe just save life on earth itself. Your theory is that
|
|
technology will be the end of everything as we know it (as if anyone didn't
|
|
already know...), and your mission is to have it stopped.
|
|
|
|
Yes, we would get rid of many problems if we all just went back to the
|
|
caves, or perhaps that is too hi-tech. Let's get back to the trees, where we
|
|
all really belong. No. Why don't we all just crawl back to the sea, the
|
|
birthplace of all forms of life?
|
|
Of course this is against nature, because we are the nature! We're even
|
|
more than just the "plain old" nature! It isn't the way it used to be,
|
|
nothing is!
|
|
|
|
You must understand this, dear Unabomber, no matter what happens, life
|
|
will continue on earth! Maybe (most likely) it won't host any humans, but
|
|
there will be life in one form or the other! Life that undoubtedly will
|
|
evolve and create the new standards of nature. No technology can ever stop
|
|
that fact! There is even a chance that what we call intelligent life will
|
|
evolve and rule the planet as humans do today. It may become worse, or it
|
|
may be not.
|
|
|
|
There is one exception of course. If Earth itself seized to exist, life on
|
|
it would too - whether it's an asteroid collision or the Sun running out of
|
|
gas. But if this becomes the case, we wouldn't have any problems adapting to
|
|
it, on a molecular level.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if the ozone layer completely vanishes, and all the ice
|
|
of the poles makes the sea level rise beyond imagination. It doesn't matter
|
|
if every country in the world attacks all the others with thermo nuclear
|
|
missiles in a single strike. It doesn't matter if HIV becomes airborne and
|
|
kills all human life! Call it fate or bad luck, anyway there's no way to
|
|
stop it. And why should anyone try to?
|
|
Life has always been evolving, why would it stop now? From where we are
|
|
now, technology is an important part of our evolution, for better and for
|
|
worse, as with everything else. Could we actually change this fact? In
|
|
theory, yes. In reality, never.
|
|
|
|
If your goal is to make humankind survive in the future, why blame
|
|
technology? We all know that our brain is the one to blame. It's too big to
|
|
be any good. Evolution gave us this equipment, and as long as we can think
|
|
beyond reproduction, food and sleep, we will eventually _do_ something
|
|
beyond that as well.
|
|
|
|
Now we could discuss, for fun, what was the first mistake human race did,
|
|
which put us where we are now? Here are some things that might pop into your
|
|
mind. Was it when we learned to; control fire? hunt? control animals?
|
|
control others? make clothes? ...actually learn? No matter what, it's thanks
|
|
to our big grey blob between our ears. If you want the biggest chance of
|
|
succeeding you must eliminate it's capacity. Now that's Big Brother fantasies
|
|
for you! What serious politician wouldn't want an army of drooling
|
|
vegetables at his command?
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I'm saying that it won't get
|
|
you anywhere near your goals. Since you are in the country of opportunities,
|
|
try running for president. That will surely help. If Nixon and Reagan could,
|
|
you certainly could too.
|
|
If your only intention were some attention, you've certainly succeeded!
|
|
|
|
Finally, generalizing is not the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE GNN: 'What is the Technological Threat?'
|
|
|
|
I know that I am drunk when ideas takes form in my mind on how to form a
|
|
terrorist group. I will not say "I don't know why" because I know perfectly
|
|
well why. The answer makes it easier for me to understand radical groups
|
|
that have existed through times. The Unabomber is (as we know) not a group,
|
|
only a single individual, but it is the same thing in this context. The
|
|
intense frustration one might experience when people constantly works
|
|
against you, the feeling that the masses around you are ignorant and cannot
|
|
understand what you are trying to say, is for sure hard. When words are not
|
|
enough, it is easy to rely upon a few bombs. It is sure a good way to get
|
|
the attention.
|
|
|
|
After killing a few people, however, it would be quite unusual if the
|
|
population appreciated your work. Terrorism seems to seldom succeed in the
|
|
long run. But nor does much else, think about it. For a change, we are able
|
|
to actually read the justifications one terrorist has for his deeds. It is
|
|
in The Unabomber Manifesto. In this short text, I will comment on that.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Unabomber seems to be a rather intelligent individual when you
|
|
encounter the manifesto for the first time. It is well-written and does not
|
|
contain anything that might be regarded as simple emotions. However, a
|
|
closer look reveals that the manifesto is way too long. It contains the
|
|
same thing over and over again, dressed in different words. The arguments
|
|
are to a certain extent emotional, even though they are well hidden. As
|
|
all terrorists, Mr. Unabomber is not trying to reach his goal through the
|
|
actual act of killing. It is just a way to draw attention. His goal, which
|
|
can be put into one single sentence is: 'Technology is a threat that must
|
|
be destroyed'. Mr. Unabomber blames the 'lefties' (i.e the communists) for
|
|
the technological threat, something that is so utterly stupid that it will
|
|
not be discussed in this text. I will just concentrate on the question if
|
|
technology-in-itself (not what technology does) can be seen as a threat.
|
|
|
|
(If the problem was only what technology does, the problem would be very
|
|
different. Then we could just say that we ought to use it more wisely. But
|
|
since Mr. Unabomber seems to believe that technology is dangerous just
|
|
because it is technology, we will find ourselves in another league.)
|
|
|
|
If you look around you, you will notice technology everywhere.
|
|
Intellectual laymen often claims that technology is only a threat when it
|
|
harms people, not just because it exists. A micro-wave oven in the kitchen
|
|
cannot possible be seen as a threat, they say. The latest a-bomb, however,
|
|
is a dangerous technology. It is also said that 'you cannot stop progress'
|
|
even though those who say that are unable to define what the concept
|
|
'progress' means. In this lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
'Progress' today means 'progress in science'. Progress in science means
|
|
progress in technology. That is all. Too many scientists in the world works
|
|
just for the sake of technology. There is nothing left to other values that
|
|
constitutes the good life. Those who values thoughts, culture, human nature
|
|
and the like are seen as mere entertainers who might present a nice thought
|
|
now and then - but nothing more. To ponder about the meaning of life is
|
|
regarded as something that ought to be just a hobby. Progress in technology,
|
|
however, is the 'hard reality' that must come first. This is not a healthy
|
|
way of living, it turns the humans into machines that are served by
|
|
machines. It oppresses the human mind, it keeps it away from the good life.
|
|
Of cause, the disease is too spread to be noticed. People believe that
|
|
more and more advanced technology will make them happy.
|
|
|
|
Man has destroyed the religious dogmas, which is a good thing. Dogmas
|
|
oppresses free thinking. But the result has not became the opposite. God
|
|
has been replaced by scientific progress. To serve God is no longer of
|
|
value, but to serve, trust and obey science is 'good'. In fact, it is the
|
|
same thing. To say that technological progress is a good thing is to express
|
|
a dogma - nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
To 'stop technology' is not to end progress. I would not, and I guess
|
|
nor would anyone else, like to live without the modern technology. But
|
|
what is of utmost importance is to stop the cult around it. Man is a free
|
|
individual that ought to be happy. Values that really constitutes a good
|
|
life, intellectual thoughts that expands our mind and knowledge, cannot be
|
|
reached by technology alone. A micro-wave oven or an a-bomb will not
|
|
increase our knowledge concerning the meaning of life.
|
|
|
|
What is most important? To know how, or to understand? To understand.
|
|
What kind of understanding do we reach with the help of technology-in-
|
|
itself? Not much. We learn how to do things, that is all. Technology makes
|
|
our lives more comfortable, it makes communication easier. So, we ought
|
|
to have a lot of free time to spend with the real questions. But since
|
|
scientific progress comes first, we never dare to work with those questions.
|
|
It is here that we must change. We must understand that technology comes at
|
|
second place, and that cardinal human values and intellectual work comes
|
|
first. After that, we will be able to be really free.
|
|
|
|
Yes, technology is a threat, but not in the usual context. It is not the
|
|
visible results of technology (like pollution or wars) that is the main
|
|
problem. It is technology-in-itself (how we consider it), not the effects-
|
|
of-technology that is a problem. Mr. Unabomber understands this. But will
|
|
terrorism help? Perhaps, perhaps not. There will probably be no obvious
|
|
results from his bombs. People will not hear and bang and then come to the
|
|
above conclusions. But when words are not enough nor listened to, I can
|
|
understand why some people see radical actions as the only solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
<------------------------------------------------------------------------>
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #294 Underground eXperts United 1996 uXu #294
|
|
Call DEMON ROACH UNDERGROUND -> +1-806-794-4362
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|