💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ted-kaczynski-progress-versus-liberty.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:19:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Progress versus Liberty
Author: Ted Kaczynski
Date: 1971
Language: en
Topics: progress, anti-technology, technology, legalization
Source: https://www.wildwill.net/blog/2017/04/26/progress-versus-liberty-the-1971-essay/

Ted Kaczynski

Progress versus Liberty

In these pages it is argued that continued scientific and technical

progress will inevitably result in the extinction of individual liberty.

I use the word “inevitably” in the following sense: One

might—possibly—imagine certain conditions of society in which freedom

could coexist with unfettered technology, but these conditions do not

actually exist, and we know of no way to bring them about, so that, in

practice, scientific progress will result in the extinction of

individual liberty. Toward the end of this essay we propose what appears

to be the only thing that bears any resemblance to a practical remedy

for this situation.

I hope that the reader will bear with me when I recite arguments and

facts with which he may already be familiar. I make no claim to

originality. I simply think that the case for the thesis stated above is

convincing, and I am attempting to set forth the arguments, new and old,

in as clear a manner as possible, in the hope that the reader will be

persuaded to support the solution here suggested—which certainly is a

very obvious solution, but rather hard for many people to swallow.

The power of society to control the individual person has recently been

expanding very rapidly, and is expected to expand even more rapidly in

the near future. Let us list a few of the more ominous developments as a

reminder.

1. Propaganda and image-making techniques. In this context we must not

neglect the role of movies, television, and literature, which commonly

are regarded either as art or as entertainment, but which often

consciously adopt certain points of view and thus serve as propaganda.

Even when they do not consciously adopt an explicit point of view they

still serve to indoctrinate the viewer or reader with certain values. We

venerate the great writers of the past, but one who considers the matter

objectively must admit that modern artistic techniques have developed to

the point where the more skillfully constructed movies, novels, etc. of

today are far more psychologically potent than, say, Shakespeare ever

was. The best of them are capable of gripping and involving the reader

very powerfully and thus are presumably quite effective in influencing

his values. Also note the increasing extent to which the average person

today is “living in the movies” as the saying is. People spend a large

and increasing amount of time submitting to canned entertainment rather

than participating in spontaneous activities. As overcrowding and rules

and regulations curtail opportunities for spontaneous activity, and as

the developing techniques of entertainment make the canned product ever

more attractive, we can assume that people will live more and more in

the world of mass entertainment.

2. A growing emphasis among educators on “guiding” the child’s emotional

development, coupled with an increasingly scientific attitude toward

education. Of course, educators have always in some degree attempted to

mold the attitudes of their pupils, but formerly they achieved only a

limited degree of success, simply because their methods were

unscientific. Educational psychology is changing this.

3. Operant conditioning, after the manner of B.F. Skinner and friends.

(Of course, this cannot be entirely separated from item (2)).

4. Direct physical control of the emotions via electrodes and

“chemitrodes” inserted in the brain. (See Jose M.R. Delgado’s book

“Physical Control of the Mind.”)

5. Biofeedback training, after the manner of Joseph Kamiya and others.

6. Predicted “memory pills” or other drugs designed to improve memory or

increase intelligence. (The reader possibly assumes that items (5) and

(6) present no danger to freedom because their use is supposed to be

voluntary, but I will argue that point later. See page 8.)

7. Predicted genetic engineering, eugenics, related techniques.

8. Marvin Minsky of MIT (one of the foremost computer experts in the

country) and other computer scientists predict that within fifteen years

or possibly much less there will be superhuman computers with

intellectual capacities far beyond anything of which humans are capable.

It is to be emphasized that these computers will not merely perform

so-called “mechanical” operations; they will be capable of creative

thought. Many people are incredulous at the idea of a creative computer,

but let it be remembered that (unless one resorts to supernatural

explanations of human thought) the human brain itself is an

electro-chemical computer, operating according to the laws of physics

and chemistry. Furthermore, the men who have predicted these computers

are not crackpots but first-class scientists. It is difficult to say in

advance just how much power these computers will put into the hands of

what is vulgarly termed the establishment, but this power will probably

be very great. Bear in mind that these computers will be wholly under

the control of the scientific, bureaucratic, and business elite. The

average person will have no access to them. Unlike the human brain,

computers are more or less unrestricted as to size (and, more important,

there is no restriction on the number of computers that can be linked

together over a long distance to form a single brain), so that there is

no restriction on their memories or on the amount of information they

can assimilate and correlate. Computers are not subject to fatigue,

daydreaming, or emotional problems. They work at fantastic speed. Given

that a computer can duplicate the functions of the human brain, it seems

clear in view of the advantages listed above that no human brain could

possibly compete with such a computer in any field of endeavor.

9. Various electronic devices for surveillance. These are being used.

For example, according to newspaper reports, the police of New York City

have recently instituted a system of 24-hour television surveillance

over certain problem areas of the city.

These are some of the more strikingly ominous facets of scientific

progress, but it is perhaps more important to look at the effect of

technology as a whole on our society. Technological progress is the

basic cause of the continual increase in the number of rules and

regulations. This is because many of our technological devices are more

powerful and therefore more potentially destructive than the more

primitive devices they replace (e.g., compare autos and horses) and also

because the increasing complexity of the system makes necessary a more

delicate coordination of its parts. Moreover, many devices of functional

importance (e.g., electronic computers, television broadcasting

equipment, jet planes) cannot be owned by the average person because of

their size and costliness. These devices are controlled by large

organizations such as corporations and governments and are used to

further the purposes of the establishment. A larger and larger

proportion of the individual’s environment—not only his physical

environment, but such factors as the kind of work he does, the nature of

his entertainment, etc.–comes to be created and controlled by large

organizations rather than by the individual himself. And this is a

necessary consequence of technological progress, because to allow

technology to be exploited in an unregulated, unorganized way would

result in disaster.

Note that the problem here is not simply to make sure that technology is

used only for good purposes. In fact, we can be reasonably certain that

the powers which technology is putting into the hands of the

establishment will be used to promote good and eliminate evil. These

powers will be so great that within a few decades virtually all evil

will have been eliminated. But, of course, “good” and “evil” here mean

good and evil as interpreted by the social mainstream. In other words,

technology will enable the social mainstream to impose its values

universally. This will not come about through the machinations of

power-hungry scoundrels, but through the efforts of socially responsible

people who sincerely want to do good and who sincerely believe in

freedom—but whose concept of freedom will be shaped by their own values,

which will not necessarily be the same as your values or my values.

The most important aspect of this process will perhaps be the education

of children, so let us use education as an example to illustrate the way

the process works. Children will be taught—by methods which will become

increasingly effective as educational psychology develops—to be

creative, inquiring, appreciative of the arts and sciences, interested

in their studies—perhaps they will even be taught nonconformity. But of

course this will not be merely random nonconformity but “creative”

nonconformity. Creative nonconformity simply means nonconformity that is

directed toward socially desirable ends. For example, children may be

taught (in the name of freedom) to liberate themselves from irrational

prejudices of their elders, “irrational prejudices” being those values

which are not conducive to the kind of society that most educators

choose to regard as healthy. Children will be educated to be racially

unbiased, to abhor violence, to fit into society without excessive

conflict. By a series of small steps—each of which will be regarded not

as a step toward behavioral engineering but as an improvement in

educational technique—this system will become so effective that hardly

any child will turn out to be other than what the educators desire. The

educational system will then have become a form of psychological

compulsion. The means employed in this “education” will be expanded to

include methods which we currently would consider disgusting, but since

these methods will be introduced in a series of small steps, most people

will not object—especially since children trained to take a “scientific”

or “rational” attitude toward education will be growing up to replace

their elders as they die off.

For instance, chemical and electrical manipulation of the brain will at

first be used only on children considered to be insane, or at least

severely disturbed. As people become accustomed to such practices, they

will come to be used on children who are only moderately disturbed. Now,

whatever is on the furthest fringes of the abnormal generally comes to

be regarded with abhorrence. As the more severe forms of disturbances

are eliminated, the less severe forms will come to constitute the outer

fringe; they will thus be regarded as abhorrent and hence as fair game

for chemical and electrical manipulation. Eventually, all forms of

disturbance will be eliminated—and anything that brings an individual

into conflict with his society will make him unhappy and therefore will

be a disturbance. Note that this whole process does not presuppose any

antilibertarian philosophy on the part of educators or psychologists,

but only a desire to do their jobs more effectively.

Consider: Today, how can one argue against sex education? Sex education

is designed not simply to present children with the bald facts of sex;

it is designed to guide children to a healthy attitude toward sex. And

who can argue against that? Think of all the misery suffered as a result

of Victorian repressions, sexual perversions, frigidity, unwanted

pregnancies, and venerial [sic.] disease. If much of this can be

eliminated by instilling “healthy” (as the social mainstream interprets

that word) sexual attitudes in children, who can deny it to them? But it

will be equally impossible to argue against any of the other steps that

will eventually lead to the complete engineering of the human

personality. Each step will be equally humanitarian in its goals.

There is no distinct line between “guidance” or “influence” and

manipulation. When a technique of influence becomes so effective that it

achieves its desired effect in nearly every case, then it is no longer

influence but compulsion. Thus influence evolves into compulsion as

science improves technique.

Research has shown that exposure to television violence makes the viewer

more prone to violence himself. The very existence of this knowledge

makes it a foregone conclusion that restrictions will eventually be

placed on televized violence, either by the government or by the TV

industry itself, in order to make children less prone to develop violent

personalities. This is an element of manipulation. It may be that you

feel an end to television violence is desirable and that the degree of

manipulation involved is insignificant. But science will reveal, one at

a time, a hundred other factors in entertainment that have a “desirable”

or “undesirable” effect on personality. In the case of each one of these

factors, knowledge will make manipulation inevitable. When the whole

array of factors has become known, we will have drifted into large-scale

manipulation. In this way, research leads automatically to calculated

indoctrination.

By way of a further example, let us consider genetic engineering. This

will not come into use as a result of a conscious decision by the

majority of people to introduce genetic engineering. It will begin with

certain “progressive” parents who will voluntarily avail themselves of

genetic engineering opportunities in order to eliminate the risk of

certain gross physical defects in their offspring. Later, this

engineering will be extended to include elimination of mental defects

and treatment which will predispose the child to somewhat higher

intelligence. (Note that the question of what constitutes a mental

“defect” is a value-judgement. Is homosexuality, for example, a defect?

Some homosexuals would say “no.” But there is no objectively true or

false answer to such a question.) As methods are improved to the point

where the minority of parents who use genetic engineering are producing

noticeably healthier, smarter offspring, more and more parents will want

genetic engineering. When the majority of children are genetically

engineered, even those parents who might otherwise be antagonistic

toward genetic engineering will feel obliged to use it so that their

children will be able to compete in a world of superior people—superior,

at least relative to the social milieu in which they live. In the end,

genetic engineering will be made compulsory because it will be regarded

as cruel and irresponsible for a few eccentric parents to produce

inferior offspring by refusing to use it. Bear in mind that this

engineering will involve mental as well as physical characteristics;

indeed, as scientists explain mental traits on the basis of physiology,

neurology, and biochemistry, it will become more and more difficult to

distinguish between “mental” and “physical” traits.

Observe that once a society based on psychological, genetic, and other

forms of human engineering has come into being, it will presumably last

forever, because people will all be engineered to favor human

engineering and the totally collective society, so that they will never

become dissatisfied with this kind of society. Furthermore, once human

engineering, the linking of human minds with computers, and other things

of that nature have come into extensive use, people will probably be

altered so much that it will no longer be possible for them to exist as

independent beings, either physically or psychologically. Indeed,

technology has already made it impossible for us to live as physically

independent beings, for the skills which enabled primitive man to live

off the country have been lost. We can survive only by acting as

components of a huge machine which provides for our physical needs; and

as technology invades the domain of mind, it is safe to assume that

human beings will become as dependent psychologically on technology as

they now are physically. We can see the beginning of this already in the

inability of some people to avoid boredom without television and in the

need of others to use tranquilizers in order to cope with the tensions

of modern society.

The foregoing predictions are supported by the opinions of at least some

responsible writers. See especially Jacques Ellul’s “The Technological

Society” and the section titled “Social Controls” in Kahn and Wiener’s

“The Year 2,000.”

Now we come to the question: What can be done to prevent all this? Let

us first consider the solution sketched by Perry London in his book

“Behavior Control.” This solution makes a convenient example because its

defects are typical of other proposed solutions. London’s idea is,

briefly, this: Let us not attempt to interfere with the development of

behavioral technology, but let us all try to be as aware of and as

knowledgeable about this technology as we can; let us not keep this

technology in the hands of a scientific elite, but disseminate it among

the population at large; people can then use this technology to

manipulate themselves and protect themselves from manipulation by

others. However, on the grounds that “there must be some limits” London

advocates that behavior control should be imposed by society in certain

areas. For example, he suggests that people should be made to abhor

violence and that psychological means should be used to make businessmen

stop destroying the forests. (NOTE: I do not currently have access to a

copy of London’s book, and so I have had to rely on memory in describing

his views. My memory is probably correct here, but in order to be honest

I should admit the possibility of error.)

My first objection to London’s scheme is a personal one. I simply find

the sphere of freedom that he favors too narrow for me to accept. But

his solution suffers from other flaws.

He proposes to use psychological controls where they are not necessary,

and more for the purpose of gratifying the liberal intellectual’s

esthetic sensibilities than because of a practical need. It is true that

“there must be some limits”–on violence, for example—but the threat of

imprisonment seems to be an adequate limitation. To read about violence

is frightening, but violent crime is not a significant cause of

mortality in comparison to other causes. Far more people are killed in

automobile accidents than through violent crime. Would London also

advocate psychological elimination of those personalities that are

inclined to careless driving? The fact that liberal intellectuals and

many others get far more excited over violence than they do over

careless driving would seem to indicate that their antagonism toward

violence arises not primarily from a concern for human life but from a

strong emotional antipathy toward violence itself. Thus it appears that

London’s proposal to eliminate violence through psychological control

results not from practical necessity but from a desire on London’s part

to engineer some of his own values into the public at large.

This becomes even clearer when we consider London’s willingness to use

psychological engineering to stop businessmen from destroying forests.

Obviously, psychological engineering cannot accomplish this until the

establishment can be persuaded to carry out the appropriate program of

engineering. But if the establishment can be persuaded to do this, then

they can equally well be persuaded to pass conservation laws strict

enough to accomplish the same purpose. And if such laws are passed, the

psychological engineering is superfluous. It seems clear that here,

again, London is attracted to psychological engineering simply because

he would like to see the general public share certain of his values.

When London proposes to us systematic psychological controls over

certain aspects of the personality, with the intention that these

controls shall not be extended to others areas, he is assuming that the

generation following his own will agree with his judgment as to how far

the psychological controls should reach. This assumption is almost

certainly false. The introduction of psychological controls in some

areas (which London approves) will set the stage for the later

introduction of controls in other areas (which London would not

approve), because it will change the culture in such a way as to make

people more receptive to the concept of psychological controls. As long

as any behavior is permitted which is not in the best interests of the

collective social organization, there will always be the temptation to

eliminate the worst of this behavior through human engineering. People

will introduce new controls to eliminate only the worst of this

behavior, without intending that any further extension of the controls

should take place afterward; but in fact they will be indirectly causing

further extensions of the controls because whenever new controls are

introduced, the public, as it becomes used to the controls, will change

its conception of what constitutes an appropriate degree of control. In

other words, whatever the amount of control to which people have become

accustomed, they will regard that amount as right and good and they will

regard a little further extension of control as negligible price to pay

for the elimination of some form of behavior that they find shocking.

London regards the wide dissemination of behavioral technology among the

public as a means by which the people can protect themselves against

psychological manipulation by the established powers. But if it is

really true that people can use this knowledge to avoid manipulation in

most areas, why won’t they also be able to use it to avoid being made to

abhor violence, or to avoid control in other areas where London thinks

they should be controlled? London seems to assume that people will be

unable to avoid control in just those areas where he thinks they should

be controlled, but that they will be able to avoid control in just those

areas where he thinks they should not be controlled.

London refers to “awareness” (of sciences relating to the mind) as the

individual’s “sword and buckler” against manipulation by the

establishment. In Roman times a man might have a real sword and buckler

just as good as those of the emperor’s legionaries, but that did not

enable him to escape oppression. Similarly, if a man of the future has a

complete knowledge of behavioral psychology it will not enable him to

escape psychological control any more than the possession of a

machine-gun or a tank would enable him to escape physical control. The

resources of an organized society are just too great for any individual

to resist no matter how much he knows.

With the vast expansion of knowledge in the behavioral sciences,

biochemistry, cybernetics, physiology, genetics, and other disciplines

which have the potential to affect human behavior, it is probably

already impossible (and, if not, it will soon become impossible) for any

individual to keep abreast of it all. In any case, we would all have to

become, to some degree, specialists in behavior control in order to

maintain London’s “awareness.” What about those people who just don’t

happen to be attracted to that kind of science, or to any science? It

would be agony for them to have to spend long hours studying behavioral

technology in order to maintain their freedom.

Even if London’s scheme of freedom through “awareness” were feasible, it

could, or at least would, be carried out only by an elite of

intellectuals, businessmen, etc. Can you imagine the members of

uneducated minority groups, or, for that matter, the average

middle-class person, having the will and the ability to learn enough to

compete in a world of psychological manipulation? It will be a case of

the smart and the powerful getting more powerful while the stupid and

the weak get (relatively) stupider and weaker; for it is the smart and

the powerful who will have the readiest access to behavioral technology

and the greatest ability to use it effectively.

This is one reason why devices for improving one’s mental or

psychological capabilities (e.g., biofeedback training, memory pills,

linking of human minds with computers) are dangerous to freedom even

though their use is voluntary. For example, it will not be physically

possible for everyone to have his own full-scale computer in his

basement to which he can link his brain. The best computer facilities

will be reserved for those whom society judges most worthy: government

officials, scientists, etc. Thus the already powerful will be made more

powerful.

Also, the use of such mind-augmentation devices will not remain

voluntary. All our modern conveniences were originally introduced as

optional benefits which one could take or leave as one chose. However,

as a result of the introduction of these benefits, society changed its

structure in such a way that the use of modern conveniences is now

compulsory: for it would be physically impossible to live in modern

society without extensively using devices provided by technology.

Similarly, the use of mind-augmenting devices, though nominally

voluntary, will become in practice compulsory. When these devices have

reached a high development and have come into wide use, a person

refusing to use them would be putting himself in the position of a dumb

animal in a world of supermen. He would simply be unable to function in

a society structured around the assumption that most people have vastly

augmented mental abilities.

By virtue of their very power, the devices for augmenting or modifying

the human mind and personality will have to be governed by extensive

rules and regulations. As the human mind comes to be more and more an

artifact created by means of such devices, these rules and regulations

will come to be rules and regulations governing the structure of the

human mind.

An important point: London does not even consider the question of human

engineering in infancy (let alone genetic engineering before

conception). A two-year-old obviously would not be able to apply

London’s philosophy of “awareness”; yet it will be possible in the

future to engineer a young child so that he will grow up to have the

type of personality that is desired by whoever has charge of him. What

is the meaning of freedom for a person whose entire personality has been

planned and created by someone else?

London’s solution suffers from another flaw that is of particular

importance because it is shared by all libertarian solutions to the

technology problem that have ever come to my attention. The problem is

supposed to be solved by propounding and popularizing a certain

libertarian philosophy. This approach is unlikely to achieve anything.

Our liberty is not deteriorating as a result of any antilibertarian

philosophy. Most people in this country profess to believe in freedom.

Our liberty is deteriorating as a result of the way people do their jobs

and behave in relation to technology on a day-to-day basis. The system

has come to be set up in such a way that it is usually comfortable to do

that which strengthens the organization. When a person in a position of

responsibility sets to eliminate that which is contrary to established

values, he is rewarded with the esteem of his fellows and in other ways.

Police officials who introduce new surveillance devices, educators who

introduce more advanced techniques for molding children, do not do so

through disrespect for freedom; they do so because they are rewarded

with the approval of other police officials or educators and also

because they get an inward satisfaction from having accomplished their

assigned tasks not only competently, but creatively. A hands-off

approach toward the child’s personality would be best from the point of

view of freedom, but this approach will not be taken because the most

intelligent and capable educators crave the satisfaction of doing their

work creatively. They want to do more with the child, not less. The

greatest reward that a person gets from furthering the ends of the

organization may well be simply the opportunity for purposeful,

challenging, important activity—an opportunity that is otherwise hard to

come by in society. For example, Marvin Minsky does not work on

computers because he is antagonistic to freedom, but because he loves

the intellectual challenge. Probably he believes in freedom, but since

he is a computer specialist he manages to persuade himself that

computers will tend to liberate man.

The main point here is that the danger to freedom is caused by the way

people work and behave on a day-to-day basis in relation to technology;

and the way people behave in relation to technology is determined by

powerful social and psychological forces. To oppose these forces a

comparatively weak force like a body of philosophy is simply hopeless.

You may persuade the public to accept your philosophy, but most people

will not significantly change their behavior as a result. They will

invent rationalizations to reconcile their behavior with the philosophy,

or they will say that what they do as individuals is too insignificant

to change the course of events, or they will simply confess themselves

too weak to live up to the philosophy. Conceivably a school of

philosophy might change a culture over a long period of time if the

social forces tending in the opposite direction were weak. But the

social forces guiding the present development of our society are

obviously strong, and we have very little time left—another three

decades likely will take us past the point of no return.

Thus a philosophy will be ineffective unless that philosophy is

accompanied by a program of concrete action of a type which does not ask

people to voluntarily change the way they live and work—a program which

demands little effort or willpower on the part of most people. Such a

program would probably have to be a political or legislative one. A

philosophy is not likely to make people change their daily behavior, but

it might (with luck) induce them to vote for politicians who support a

certain program. Casting a vote requires only a casual commitment, not a

strenuous application of willpower. So we are left with the question:

What kind of legislative program would have a chance of saving freedom?

I can think of only two possibilities that are halfway plausible. The

discussion of one of these I will leave until later. The other, and the

one that I advocate, is this: In simple terms, stop scientific progress

by withdrawing all major sources of research funds. In more detail,

begin by withdrawing all or most federal aid to research. If an abrupt

withdrawal would cause economic problems, then phase it out as rapidly

as is practical. Next, pass legislation to limit or phase out research

support by educational institutions which accept public funds. Finally,

one would hope to pass legislation prohibiting all large corporations

and other large organizations from supporting scientific research. Of

course, it would be necessary to eventually bring about similar changes

throughout the world, but, being Americans, we must start with the

United States; which is just as well, since the United States is the

world’s most technologically advanced country. As for economic or other

disruption that might be caused by the elimination of scientific

progress—this disruption is likely to be much less than that which would

be caused by the extremely rapid changes brought on by science itself.

I admit that, in view of the firmly entrenched position of Big Science,

it is unlikely that such a legislative program could be enacted.

However, I think there is at least some chance that such a program could

be put through in stages over a period of years, if one or more active

organizations were formed to make the public aware of the probable

consequences of continued scientific progress and to push for the

appropriate legislation. Even if there is only a small chance of

success, I think that chance is worth working for, since the alternative

appears to be the loss of all human freedom.

This solution is bound to be attacked as “simplistic.” But this ignores

the fundamental question, namely: Is there any better solution or indeed

any other solution at all? My personal opinion is that there is no other

solution. However, let us not be dogmatic. Maybe there is a better

solution. But the point is this: If there is such a solution, no one at

present seems to know just what it is. Matters have progressed to the

point where we can no longer afford to sit around just waiting for

something to turn up. By stopping scientific progress now, or at any

rate slowing it drastically, we could at least give ourselves breathing

space during which we could attempt to work out another solution, if one

is possible.

There is one putative solution the discussion of which I have reserved

until now. One might consider enacting some kind of bill of rights

designed to protect freedom from technological encroachment. For the

following reasons I do not believe that such a solution would be

effective.

In the first place, a document which attempted to define our sphere of

freedom in a few simple principles would either be too weak to afford

real protection, or too strong to be compatible with the functioning of

the present society. Thus, a suitable bill of rights would have to be

excessively complex, and full of exceptions, qualifications, and

delicate compromises. Such a bill would be subject to repeated

amendments for the sake of social expedience; and where formal amendment

is inconvenient, the document would simply be reinterpreted. Recent

decisions of the Supreme Court, whether one approves of them or not,

show how much the import of a document can be altered through

reinterpretations. Our present Bill of Rights would have been

ineffective if there had been in America strong social forces acting

against freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc. Compare what is

happening to the right to bear arms, which currently runs counter to

basic social trends. Whether you approve or disapprove of that “right”

is beside the point—the point is that the constitutional guarantee

cannot stand indefinitely against powerful social forces.

If you are an advocate of the bill-of-rights approach to the technology

problem, test yourself by attempting to write a sample section on, say,

genetic engineering. Just how will you define the term “genetic

engineering” and how will you draw the line, in words, between that

engineering which is to be permitted and that which is to be prohibited?

Your law will either have to be too strong to pass; or so vague that it

can be readily reinterpreted as social standards evolve; or excessively

complex and detailed. In this last case, the law will not pass as a

constitutional amendment, because for practical reasons a law that

attempts to deal with such a problem in great detail will have to be

relatively easy to change as needs and circumstances change. But then,

of course, the law will be changed continually for the sake of social

expedience and so will not serve as a barrier to the erosion of freedom.

And who would actually work out the details of such a bill of rights?

Undoubtedly, a committee of congressmen, or a commission appointed by

the president, or some other group of organization men. They would give

us some fine libertarian rhetoric, but they would be unwilling to pay

the price of real, substantial freedom—they would not write a bill that

would sacrifice any significant amount of the organization’s power.

I have said that a bill of rights would not be able to stand for long

against the pressures for science, progress, and improvement. But laws

that bring a halt to scientific research would be quite different in

this respect. The prestige of science would be broken. With the

financial basis gone, few young people would find it practical to enter

scientific careers. After, say three decades or so, our society would

have ceased to be progress-oriented and the most dangerous of the

pressures that currently threaten our freedom would have relaxed. A bill

of rights would not bring about this relaxation.

This, by the way, is one reason why the elimination of research merely

in a few sensitive areas would be inadequate. As long as science is a

large and going concern, there will be the persistent temptation to

apply it in new areas; but this pressure would be broken if science were

reduced to a minor role.

Let us try to summarize the role of technology in relation to freedom.

The principal effect of technology is to increase the power of society

collectively. Now, there is a more or less unlimited number of

value-judgments that lie before us: for example: whether an individual

should or should not have puritanical attitudes toward sex; whether it

is better to have rain fall at night or during the day. When society

acquires power over such a situation, generally a preponderance of the

social forces look upon one or the other of the alternatives as Right.

These social forces are then able to use the machinery of society to

impose their choice universally; for example, they may mold children so

successfully that none ever grows up to have puritanical attitudes

toward sex, or they may use weather engineering to guarantee that the

rain falls only at night. In this way there is a continual narrowing of

the possibilities that exist in the world. The eventual result will be a

world in which there is only one system of values. The only way out

seems to be to halt the ceaseless extension of society’s power.

I propose that you join me and a few other people to whom I am writing

in an attempt to found an organization dedicated to stopping federal aid

to scientific research. It would be a mistake, I think, to reject this

suggestion out of hand on the basis of some vague dogma such as

“knowledge is good” or “science is the hope of man.” Sure, knowledge is

good, but how high a price, in terms of freedom, are we going to pay for

knowledge? You may be understandably reluctant to join an organization

about which you know nothing, but you know as much about it as I do. It

hasn’t been started yet. You would be one of the founding members. I

claim to have no particular qualifications for trying to start such an

organization, and I have no idea how to go about it, I am only making an

attempt because no better qualified person has yet done so. I am simply

trying to bring together a few highly intelligent and thoughtful people

who would be willing to take over the task.