💾 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
➡️ 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/
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.