Copyright 2000 by Neal R. Wagner.
Anti-technologists have long been around; after all, the Luddite movement occurred early in the nineteenth century. The best-known recent anti-technologist is the so-called Unabomber, now identified as Theodore Kaczynski. At the beginning of his ``Manifesto,'' Kaczynski wrote in part:
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.... they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological [and physical] suffering, and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.Kaczynski is a serial killer who, in the most charitable terms, has severe mental problems. Yet his views were embraced by many, especially on the Internet. Here are a few quotations from reviews of the book taken off the ``amazon.com'' online bookstore:
``Great.'' ``Pure Genius.'' ``Very well done.'' ``Some of it is extremist, but most is not. This is a must read for anyone interested in technology, history or politics! Pick up a copy.''Compare the above quotation with the following one:
But now the machine era is coming to a rapid close. It has fouled the air, poisoned our waters, killed our rain forests, torn holes in the ozone layer, destroyed our soil and the art of family farming, rendered our young violent and self-destructive, dried up our souls, and sent adults wandering for meaning, bewildered and soulless. ... The machine era has also managed to bankrupt itself. We cannot afford industrialism any more.Though written independently of Kaczynski, these new words have a similar tone. Who is the second anti-technologist? No psychotic this time, but Matthew Fox, a deeply spiritual religious leader, former radical Catholic priest in the Dominican order, now an Episcopal priest. Fox's words come from his remarkable book, The Reinvention of Work, and the issue is not what Fox is against but what he is for: a view of work as a type of sacrament, where people will do their work as a ritual combined with the ``great work of the universe,'' which for him is ``the work of creation unfolding, the work of evolution or creativity in the universe.''
Here then is the range of anti-technologists: from lethal lunatic to religious visionary. In between are lesser extremes, starting with Kirkpatrick Sale, a chronicler of the Luddite revolution with a profound distrust of technology. His book, Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age (Addison-Wesley, 1995), is a cautionary tale against technology. He writes (pages 278--279),
If the edifice of industrial civilization does not eventually crumble as a result of a determined resistance within its very walls, it seems certain to crumble of its own accumulated excesses and instabilities within not more than a few decades, perhaps sooner, after which there may be space for alternative societies to arise.... It is now the task of the neo-Luddites, armed with the past, to prepare, to preserve, and to provide that body of lore, that inspiration, for such future generations as may be.Another intermediate position is held by Stephen Talbott, who challenges the assumption that computers automatically convey benefits on their users. Talbott has for years run a fascinating Internet discussion group that debates the utility of these machines, especially in education, where horror stories abound of clueless school districts adding computers and Internet connectivity without a clear idea of how they are to be used in the schools. He maintains that computers inevitably limit human consciousness and creativity. Talbott carries out his NetFuture discussion group using low-technology electronic mail.
Sale might dislike the term ``anti-technologist'' applied to him as too simple a label, but he would probably welcome the ``Luddite'' label, since he makes clear that Luddism (and the ``neo-Luddites'') are not against all technology, but only against ``technology ... malevolent to the user, to the community around, to the culture, to the environment, to the future.'' Similarly, Talbott might also dislike the ``anti-technologist'' label, since it would be applied to a thoughtful man who questions the use of computer technology, who asks for an accounting. Fox might even welcome such a label, since he welcomes words like ``radical'' and ``post-denominational'' for his work as a priest.
The anti-technology movement is far larger and stronger than these four men might indicate. Worldwide, the fundamentalist religious movements are a fertile source of anti-technologists. Fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. are particularly strong, and their reliance on biblical literalism (the belief that every word of the canonical Christian Bible is literally true) leaves them completely at odds with most of modern science, though they dispute this assertion.
Finally, there is a vocal group within the U.S. who would resist technological support for crime reduction. These people are not exactly anti-technologists, but they certainly do not want technology monitoring their public activities or controlling their use of guns, and a program like national identification is unacceptable to them.