The evolving anti-technology movement in the United States is not harmless nostalgia. It threatens growth, security, competitiveness, and human progress.
Dear Bob! As always, I'm completely on your side. But Ted Kaczynski's Unabomberism emerged in the United States long before 1995. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, political and intellectual resistance to technological progress arose in the United States. Nelson Rockefeller, who served as Vice President under Gerald Ford (1974–1977), in the mid-1970s criticized the excessive optimism of the 1960s—the belief that technology and economic growth would automatically solve social problems. In The Crisis of Democracy (1975), Crozier, Huntington, and Watanabe discuss the "excessive optimism" of the 1960s in the context of the governability of democracies. The excessive growth of qualified scientific and technical personnel, with their own independent viewpoints on democracy and politics, frightened the elite of big business. So, it seems that Unabomberism has deep political support. Therefore, a social demand has emerged for a return to pastoral feudalism as humanity's "bright future." I'll be happy if I'm wrong.
Serge, thanks for the insightful comment. I completely agree. Teddy K was part of a broader movement, albeit on the extreme. I wrote about this in my 1990s book, The Past and Future of America’s Economy. The Smithsonian was in the lead of the framing tech as bad. i also wrote about this for the Independent Review. The critique of innovation is widespread
Little time passes without my absorbing handwringing and doomsday predictions about artificial intelligence from highly accomplished, well-read, and erudite friends. Like you, I resist the reflexive calls to slow or halt technological progress. (Didn’t rotary dial phones work just fine?) Still, it's one thing to smother technological advancement in its crib like Ted Kaczynski and quite another to recognize and address its unintended consequences.
Technological optimism and technological caution should not be seen as opposites. We can celebrate innovation while also acknowledging the legitimate concerns it raises: children living on social media, the energy demands of data centers, the downside implications of facial recognition, or the displacement of workers by A.I. Raising such issues is not an argument against progress; it is an argument for responsible progress.
Technological change is coming faster and seemingly more furiously than ever, but while we don’t want to stand in the way of that change – or its speed – I don't think we should group legitimate concerns about that change under the banner of "Unabomberism." That risks dismissing thoughtful critics whose aim is not to impede innovation, but to ensure that its benefits outweigh its costs.
Rob, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your well-written and thoughtful posts. You and I are on the same page! We both want technological progress. I’m nitpicking here about how much attention should be paid to managing its consequences.
Sure. But lots of the concerns to me still are kind of bogus. Like energy use of data centers. Are we not supposed to use more energy in the world. Seems like we should. Besides the big day companies and AI companies are investing a lot in alternative energies. And with regard to jobs, I just don’t think that’s a problem I think that is an opportunity. The entire narrative around jobs is basically anti growth.
Didn't realise the anti technology movement was so big nor interest in unabomber. I feel it's more like anti-TechBro BS people are upset about. Not surprised however. Hobbit Shire analogy good way to end. Have we ever left the shire? We are going to return to Hobbit like existence it seems yes.. Reminded me of previous post https://kaipability.substack.com/p/one-poll-to-rule-them-all-beef-is
Dear Bob! As always, I'm completely on your side. But Ted Kaczynski's Unabomberism emerged in the United States long before 1995. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, political and intellectual resistance to technological progress arose in the United States. Nelson Rockefeller, who served as Vice President under Gerald Ford (1974–1977), in the mid-1970s criticized the excessive optimism of the 1960s—the belief that technology and economic growth would automatically solve social problems. In The Crisis of Democracy (1975), Crozier, Huntington, and Watanabe discuss the "excessive optimism" of the 1960s in the context of the governability of democracies. The excessive growth of qualified scientific and technical personnel, with their own independent viewpoints on democracy and politics, frightened the elite of big business. So, it seems that Unabomberism has deep political support. Therefore, a social demand has emerged for a return to pastoral feudalism as humanity's "bright future." I'll be happy if I'm wrong.
Отправить отзыв
Serge, thanks for the insightful comment. I completely agree. Teddy K was part of a broader movement, albeit on the extreme. I wrote about this in my 1990s book, The Past and Future of America’s Economy. The Smithsonian was in the lead of the framing tech as bad. i also wrote about this for the Independent Review. The critique of innovation is widespread
Little time passes without my absorbing handwringing and doomsday predictions about artificial intelligence from highly accomplished, well-read, and erudite friends. Like you, I resist the reflexive calls to slow or halt technological progress. (Didn’t rotary dial phones work just fine?) Still, it's one thing to smother technological advancement in its crib like Ted Kaczynski and quite another to recognize and address its unintended consequences.
Technological optimism and technological caution should not be seen as opposites. We can celebrate innovation while also acknowledging the legitimate concerns it raises: children living on social media, the energy demands of data centers, the downside implications of facial recognition, or the displacement of workers by A.I. Raising such issues is not an argument against progress; it is an argument for responsible progress.
Technological change is coming faster and seemingly more furiously than ever, but while we don’t want to stand in the way of that change – or its speed – I don't think we should group legitimate concerns about that change under the banner of "Unabomberism." That risks dismissing thoughtful critics whose aim is not to impede innovation, but to ensure that its benefits outweigh its costs.
Rob, I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your well-written and thoughtful posts. You and I are on the same page! We both want technological progress. I’m nitpicking here about how much attention should be paid to managing its consequences.
Sure. But lots of the concerns to me still are kind of bogus. Like energy use of data centers. Are we not supposed to use more energy in the world. Seems like we should. Besides the big day companies and AI companies are investing a lot in alternative energies. And with regard to jobs, I just don’t think that’s a problem I think that is an opportunity. The entire narrative around jobs is basically anti growth.
Didn't realise the anti technology movement was so big nor interest in unabomber. I feel it's more like anti-TechBro BS people are upset about. Not surprised however. Hobbit Shire analogy good way to end. Have we ever left the shire? We are going to return to Hobbit like existence it seems yes.. Reminded me of previous post https://kaipability.substack.com/p/one-poll-to-rule-them-all-beef-is
So far little violence. Hopefully that does not change. But way too much sympathy for the ideology