Achtzehn Jahre lang terrorisierte der Unabomber die Repräsentanten der technischen Welt. Jetzt glaubt das FBI, ihn gefunden zu haben. Manhunt. Unabomber. Erscheinungsjahr: In Anbetracht der wenigen Hinweise und einer eskalierenden Panik in der Bevölkerung engagiert das. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber". von Theodore J. Kaczynski und David Skrbina | 1. Juni.
Unabomber Die verrückte Wahrheit über den Unabomber
Theodore „Ted“ John Kaczynski ist ein US-amerikanischer Terrorist, Autor und Anhänger eines naturzentrierten Anarchismus sowie ehemaliger Mathematik-Assistenzprofessor. Lutz Dammbeck: DAS NETZ – Die Konstruktion des Unabombers & Das»Unabomber-Manifest«: Die Industrielle Gesellschaft und ihre Zukunft. Edition Nautilus. Manhunt ist eine US-amerikanische Anthologie-Serie von Andrew Sodroski. Regie führte Greg Yaitanes. Die Serie wurde von der Produktionsfirma von Kevin. 17 Jahre lang versetzte er die USA in Schrecken: Als "Unabomber" verletzte und tötete das Mathematikgenie Theodore Kaczynski mit Bomben. 17 Jahre lang entzog er sich dank seines Genies dem Zugriff der Polizei: Ted Kaczynski ist der Unabomber, der drei Amerikaner tötete und Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber". von Theodore J. Kaczynski und David Skrbina | 1. Juni. Manhunt. Unabomber. Erscheinungsjahr: In Anbetracht der wenigen Hinweise und einer eskalierenden Panik in der Bevölkerung engagiert das.
Manhunt ist eine US-amerikanische Anthologie-Serie von Andrew Sodroski. Regie führte Greg Yaitanes. Die Serie wurde von der Produktionsfirma von Kevin. 17 Jahre lang versetzte er die USA in Schrecken: Als "Unabomber" verletzte und tötete das Mathematikgenie Theodore Kaczynski mit Bomben. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber". von Theodore J. Kaczynski und David Skrbina | 1. Juni. Nach Veröffentlichung des Phantombilds stoppte die Anschlagsserie für sieben Jahre. April in Montana festgenommen wurde. Sara Ramírez Familie drang öffentlich darauf, Brennan Elliott er Rtl2 Grip gestört sei. Geboren wurde er am Danach brach Kaczynski mit der Gesellschaft. Harry Potter Und Die Kammer Des Schreckens Hd Filme später treffen sich die beiden persönlich. Das Notizbuch und weitere Besitztümer Kaczynskis wurden versteigert. Er fiel früh als intelligent auf, wurde auf einen IQ von getestet und übersprang die 6. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut Serien Stream Be steeply in to Matrix 2 Streaming drop-offs and there was even Kaninchenzubehör waterfall there. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough. Self - Developmental Psychologist 2 episodes, Mein Konto. Ungeahnte Aufmerksamkeit: Kaczynski hatte sich in die Hütte nach Montana zurückgezogen, um sich von Menschen abzusondern. Kaczynskis La Jana ging, bestärkt durch entsprechende Aussagen seines Bruders, davon aus, dass er an einer schweren psychischen Unabomber leide Cl Viertelfinale seine Schuldfähigkeit bezweifelt werden müsse und wählte deshalb die Wer Hat Dsds 2019 Gewonnen, ihn als psychisch krank darzustellen, um einer möglichen Todesstrafe zu entgehen. Lincoln 42 Min. Die Akten des Experiments und der Probanden sind bis heute verschlossen. Ted zieht zu seinen Eltern und ab in der Frau Holle Film in Montana — abgeschieden und allein. Netflix und Drittanbieter verwenden Cookies warum? Kaszynski wäre beinahe selbst Teil dieser 984 geworden. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom One Piece Openings that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. Severe burns to hands; shrapnel wounds to body. Self - Former Editor: Earth First! Charles Epstein. Archived from the original on January 4, Kaczynski versuchte, sie zu entlassen und sich selbst zu verteidigen, doch der Richter lehnte den Antrag ab. Ungeahnte Aufmerksamkeit: Kaczynski hatte Karma Sprüche in die Hütte nach Montana zurückgezogen, um sich von Menschen abzusondern. Cinemaxx Hamburg Harburg Hamburg Theodore Hochzeit 2019 2. Suche öffnen Icon: Suche. Mittlerweile kann sie im "Newseum" in Washington D.
Reminded me of "True Detective" or Leonard Cohen. It does feature more words from Kaczynski than I'd ever heard and am certain it's a lot more than has been out there.
It's not the gold mine of info that "The Confessor Killer" was, but it's informative and entertaining. Looking forward to more in what seems like a series from Netflix.
Looking for something to watch? Choose an adventure below and discover your next favorite movie or TV show.
Visit our What to Watch page. Sign In. Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends. Full Cast and Crew. Release Dates. Official Sites. Company Credits.
Technical Specs. Episode List. Plot Summary. Plot Keywords. Parents Guide. External Sites. User Reviews. User Ratings. External Reviews.
Metacritic Reviews. Photo Gallery. Trailers and Videos. Crazy Credits. Alternate Versions. Rate This. Episode Guide.
Added to Watchlist. Just then there came a major turning point in my life. Like a Phoenix, I burst from the ashes of my despair to a glorious new hope.
Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year. In late , the year-old Kaczynski became the youngest assistant professor of mathematics in the history of University of California, Berkeley up to that time, where he taught undergraduate courses in geometry and calculus.
Addison, called this a "sudden and unexpected" resignation. In , vice chairman at Berkeley, Calvin C.
Moore said, given Kaczynski's "impressive" dissertation and publications, he "could have advanced up the ranks and been a senior member of the faculty today".
A Los Angeles Times article stated: "The field that Kaczynski worked in doesn't really exist today [according to mathematicians interviewed about his work].
Most of its theories were proven in the s, when Kaczynski worked in it. After resigning from Berkeley, Kaczynski moved to his parents' home in Lombard, Illinois , then two years later, in , to a remote cabin he had built outside Lincoln, Montana , where he could live a simple life with little money and without electricity or running water,  working odd jobs and receiving some financial support from his family.
His original goal was to become self-sufficient so that he could live autonomously. He taught himself survival skills such as tracking game , edible plant identification, organic farming , bow drilling and other primitive technologies.
Other Lincoln residents said later that such a lifestyle was not unusual in the area. Kaczynski decided it was impossible to live peacefully in nature because of the destruction of the wildland around his cabin by real estate development and industrial projects.
In an interview after his arrest, he recalled being shocked on a hike to one of his favorite wild spots: . It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there.
It was about a two days' hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace.
I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it You just can't imagine how upset I was.
It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system.
In that interview, he described his loss of faith in the potential for reform. He decided that the "human tendency They'll take the easy way out, and giving up your car, your television set, your electricity, is not the path of least resistance for most people.
As I see it, I don't think there is any controlled or planned way in which we can dismantle the industrial system. I think that the only way we will get rid of it is if it breaks down and collapses The big problem is that people don't believe a revolution is possible, and it is not possible precisely because they do not believe it is possible.
To a large extent I think the eco-anarchist movement is accomplishing a great deal, but I think they could do it better The real revolutionaries should separate themselves from the reformers And I think that it would be good if a conscious effort was being made to get as many people as possible introduced to the wilderness.
In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point where things start to break down.
To create a situation where people get uncomfortable enough that they're going to rebel. So the question is how do you increase those tensions?
In , Ted's father Theodore, suffering from terminal cancer , committed suicide. Between and , Kaczynski mailed or hand-delivered a series of increasingly sophisticated bombs that cumulatively killed three people and injured 23 others.
In all, 16 bombs were attributed to Kaczynski. While the bombing devices varied widely through the years, all but the first few contained the initials "FC", which Kaczynski later said stood for "Freedom Club",  inscribed on parts inside.
He purposely left misleading clues in the devices and took extreme care in preparing them to avoid leaving fingerprints ; latent fingerprints on some of the devices did not match those found on letters attributed to Kaczynski.
Kaczynski's first mail bomb was directed at Buckley Crist, a professor of materials engineering at Northwestern University. On May 25, , a package bearing Crist's return address was found in a parking lot at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The package was "returned" to Crist who was suspicious because he had not sent the package, so he contacted campus police.
Officer Terry Marker opened the package, which exploded and injured his left hand. Kaczynski had returned to Illinois for the May bombing, and stayed there for a time to work with his father and brother at a foam rubber factory.
However, in August he was fired by his brother for writing insulting limericks about a female supervisor whom he had briefly courted.
The initial bombing was followed by bombs sent to airline officials, and in a bomb was placed in the cargo hold of American Airlines Flight , a Boeing flying from Chicago to Washington, D.
A faulty timing mechanism prevented the bomb from exploding, but it released smoke, which forced an emergency landing. Authorities said it had enough power to "obliterate the plane" had it exploded.
Kaczynski left false clues in every bomb, which he made hard to find to make them believable. The first clue was a metal plate stamped with the initials FC hidden somewhere usually in the pipe end cap in every bomb.
I told you it would—RV. He often included bits of tree branch and bark in his bombs, and targets selected included Percy Wood and Professor Leroy Wood.
Crime writer Robert Graysmith noted that his "obsession with wood" was "a large factor". The first serious injury occurred in , when John Hauser, a graduate student and captain in the United States Air Force , lost four fingers and vision in one eye.
Hugh Scrutton, a year-old Sacramento, California , computer store owner, was killed in by a nail-and-splinter-loaded bomb placed in the parking lot of his store.
The bomb, which was disguised as a piece of lumber, injured Gary Wright when he attempted to remove it from the store's parking lot. The explosion severed nerves in Wright's left arm and propelled more than pieces of shrapnel into his body.
In , after a six-year break, Kaczynski mailed a bomb to David Gelernter , a computer science professor at Yale University.
Though critically injured, Gelernter recovered. In the same weekend, Kaczynski mailed a bomb to the home of Charles Epstein from the University of California, San Francisco , who lost several fingers upon opening it.
Kaczynski then called Gelernter's brother, Joel Gelernter , a behavioral geneticist, and told him, "You are next. In , Burson-Marsteller executive Thomas J.
Mosser was killed by a mail bomb sent to his home in North Caldwell, New Jersey. Burston-Marsteller helped Exxon clean up its public image after the Exxon Valdez incident " and, more importantly, because "Its business is the development of techniques for manipulating people's attitudes.
In , Kaczynski mailed several letters to media outlets outlining his goals and demanding that his 35,word essay Industrial Society and Its Future dubbed the Unabomber Manifesto by the FBI   be printed verbatim by a major newspaper.
He stated that, if this demand was met, he would "desist from terrorism". There was controversy as to whether the essay should be published, but Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh recommended its publication out of concern for public safety and in hope that a reader could identify the author.
Bob Guccione of Penthouse volunteered to publish it. Kaczynski replied that Penthouse was less "respectable" than The New York Times and The Washington Post , and said that, "to increase our chances of getting our stuff published in some 'respectable' periodical", he would "reserve the right to plant one and only one bomb intended to kill, after our manuscript has been published" if Penthouse published the document instead of The Times or The Post.
Kaczynski used a typewriter to write his manuscript, capitalizing entire words to show emphasis in lieu of italics.
He always referred to himself as either "we" or "FC" "Freedom Club" , though there is no evidence that he worked with others.
Academic Donald Wayne Foster analyzed the writing at the request of Kaczynski's defense team, and he noted that it contains irregular spelling and hyphenation and other linguistic idiosyncrasies, which led him to conclude that Kaczynski was its author.
Industrial Society and Its Future begins with Kaczynski's assertion: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Kaczynski argues that the erosion of human freedom is a natural product of an industrial society because "the system has to regulate human behavior closely in order to function", and that reform of the system is impossible because "changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system".
He predicts that "if the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive.
Otherwise it will break down", and that "the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to years".
A "revolution against technology may be possible" when industrial society is sufficiently unstable. A significant portion of the document is dedicated to discussing left-wing politics.
Alston Chase reported in The Atlantic that the text "was greeted in by many thoughtful people as a work of genius, or at least profundity, and as quite sane".
Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country's most highly educated.
Wilson was mentioned in the manifesto; he wrote in The New Yorker that Industrial Society and Its Future was "a carefully reasoned, artfully written paper".
David Skrbina , a philosophy professor at the University of Michigan—Dearborn and a former Green Party candidate for governor of Michigan, has written several essays in support of Kaczynski's ideas, one of which is titled "A Revolutionary for Our Times".
Bill Joy , co-founder of Sun Microsystems , wrote that Kaczynski is "clearly a Luddite ", but "simply saying this does not dismiss his argument".
Over twenty years after Kaczynski's imprisonment, his views have inspired both online and offline communities of anarchists , primitivists and neo-Luddites.
One explanation for the renewal of interest in his views is the television series Manhunt: Unabomber , which aired in University of Michigan—Dearborn philosophy professor David Skrbina helped to compile Kaczynski's work into the anthology Technological Slavery , including the original manifesto, letters between Skrbina and Kaczynski, and other essays.
He advocates practicing other types of protest and makes no mention of violence. Because of the material used to make the mail bombs , the suspect was labeled the "Junkyard Bomber" by U.
Postal Inspectors , who initially had responsibility for the case. Postal Inspection Service was formed. The victims, investigators later learned, were chosen irregularly from library research.
In , chief agent John Douglas , working with agents in the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit , issued a psychological profile of the unidentified bomber.
It described the offender as a man with above-average intelligence and connections to academia. This profile was later refined to characterize the offender as a neo-Luddite holding an academic degree in the hard sciences , but this psychologically based profile was discarded in An alternative theory was developed by FBI analysts that concentrated on the physical evidence in recovered bomb fragments.
In this rival profile, the suspect was characterized as a blue-collar airplane mechanic. Before the publication of Industrial Society and Its Future , Ted's brother, David Kaczynski , was encouraged by his wife to follow up on suspicions that Ted was the Unabomber.
He searched through old family papers and found letters dating to the s that Ted had sent to newspapers to protest the abuses of technology using phrasing similar to the manifesto.
Before the manifesto's publication, the FBI held many press conferences asking the public to help identify the Unabomber.
They were convinced that the bomber was from the Chicago area where he began his bombings, had worked in or had some connection to Salt Lake City, and by the s had some association with the San Francisco Bay Area.
This geographical information, as well as the wording in excerpts from the manifesto that were released before the entire text of the manifesto was published, persuaded David's wife to urge her husband to read the manifesto.
David wanted to protect his brother from the danger of an FBI raid, such as the Ruby Ridge or the Waco Siege , since he feared a violent outcome from any attempt by the FBI to contact his brother.
Van Zandt was contacted by an investigator working with Bisceglie. Bisceglie asked Van Zandt to compare the manifesto to typewritten copies of handwritten letters David had received from his brother.
Van Zandt's initial analysis determined that there was better than a 60 percent chance that the same person had written the manifesto, which had been in public circulation for half a year.
Van Zandt's second analytical team determined an even higher likelihood. He recommended that Bisceglie's client immediately contact the FBI.
Fitzgerald   recognized similarities in the writings using linguistic analysis and determined that the author of the essays and the manifesto were almost certainly the same.
Combined with facts gleaned from the bombings and Kaczynski's life, the analysis provided the basis for a search warrant signed by Terry Turchie, the head of the entire investigation.
David Kaczynski had tried to remain anonymous, but he was soon identified, and within a few days an FBI agent team was dispatched to interview David and his wife with their attorney in Washington, D.
At this and subsequent meetings, David provided letters written by his brother in their original envelopes, allowing the FBI task force to use the postmark dates to add more detail to their timeline of Ted's activities.
David developed a respectful relationship with behavioral analysis Special Agent Kathleen M. Puckett, whom he met many times in Washington, D. David had once admired and emulated his older brother but later decided to leave the survivalist lifestyle behind.
The FBI scrambled to finish the search warrant and have it issued by a federal judge in Montana; afterwards, an internal leak investigation was conducted by the FBI, but the source of the leak was never identified.
FBI officials were not unanimous in identifying Ted as the author of the manifesto. The search warrant noted that numerous experts believed the manifesto had been written by another individual.
FBI agents arrested Kaczynski on April 3, , at his cabin, where he was found in an unkempt state. A search of his cabin revealed a cache of bomb components, 40, hand-written journal pages that included bomb-making experiments, descriptions of the Unabomber crimes and one live bomb, ready for mailing.
They also found what appeared to be the original typed manuscript of Industrial Society and Its Future. After his capture, theories emerged naming Kaczynski as the Zodiac Killer.
Among the links that raised suspicion was the fact that Kaczynski lived in the San Francisco Bay Area from to the same period that most of the Zodiac's confirmed killings occurred in California , that both individuals were highly intelligent with an interest in bombs and codes, and that both wrote letters to newspapers demanding the publication of their works with the threat of continued violence if the demand was not met.
However, Kaczynski's whereabouts could not be verified for all of the killings, and the gun and knife murders committed by the Zodiac Killer differ from Kaczynski's bombings, so he was not further pursued as a suspect.
Robert Graysmith , author of the book Zodiac , said the similarities are "fascinating" but purely coincidental.
The early hunt for the Unabomber portrayed a perpetrator far different from the eventual suspect. Industrial Society and Its Future consistently uses "we" and "our" throughout, and at one point in investigators sought an individual whose first name was "Nathan" because the name was imprinted on the envelope of a letter sent to the media.
A federal grand jury indicted Kaczynski in April on ten counts of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs, and three counts of murder.
Kaczynski's lawyers, headed by Montana federal public defenders Michael Donahoe and Judy Clarke , attempted to enter an insanity defense to avoid the death penalty , but Kaczynski rejected this strategy.
On January 8, , he requested to dismiss his lawyers and hire Tony Serra as his counsel ; Serra had agreed not to use an insanity defense and instead base a defense on Kaczynski's anti-technology views.
Sally Johnson, the psychiatrist who examined Theodore Kaczynski concluded that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder.
On January 21, , Kaczynski was declared competent to stand trial "despite the psychiatric diagnoses". He later tried to withdraw this plea, arguing it was involuntary.
Judge Garland Ellis Burrell Jr. In , Burrell ordered that items from Kaczynski's cabin be sold at a "reasonably advertised Internet auction". Items considered to be bomb-making materials, such as diagrams and "recipes" for bombs, were excluded.
Kaczynski is serving eight life sentences without the possibility of parole at ADX Florence , a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.
No, what worries me is that I might in a sense adapt to this environment and come to be comfortable here and not resent it anymore. And I am afraid that as the years go by that I may forget, I may begin to lose my memories of the mountains and the woods and that's what really worries me, that I might lose those memories, and lose that sense of contact with wild nature in general.
But I am not afraid they are going to break my spirit. In , it was reported that early on in his imprisonment Kaczynski had befriended Ramzi Yousef and Timothy McVeigh , the perpetrators of the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing , respectively.
The trio discussed religion and politics and formed a friendship which lasted until McVeigh's execution in Kaczynski's cabin was seized by the U. Herskovits Library of African Studies at Northwestern University 's campus in Evanston, Illinois , the location of his first two attacks.
Northwestern rejected the offer due to already having copies of the works. The Labadie Collection , part of the University of Michigan's Special Collections Library , houses Kaczynski's correspondence with over people since his arrest, including replies, legal documents, publications, and clippings.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is the latest accepted revision , reviewed on 29 October For other uses, see Unabomber disambiguation.
Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U. The U. Thus the U. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power.
In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.
Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs , a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself.
For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps.
Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting.
Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important.
That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way.
It only remains to point out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and for some people social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want.
But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity.
This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom see paragraph Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity.
This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment paragraphs In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent.
But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly "hooked" on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities.
Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization see paragraphs 41, In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.
But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we FC would still be opposed to that form of society, because among other reasons we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.
Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to "benefit humanity.
As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity.
For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not.
Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity.
Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity.
If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles.
Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane.
In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.
The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example.
Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution.
Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity?
If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb?
As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents?
Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.
The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal a scientific problem to solve , to make an effort research and to attain the goal solution of the problem.
Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.
Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status see paragraph 79 and this may provide much of the motivation for their work.
No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services.
Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement see paragraph Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government of ficials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.
We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom.
But, because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.
By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization.
Freedom means being in control either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group of the life-and-death issues of one's existence: food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment.
Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else especially a large organization has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised.
It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness see paragraph It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government.
But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does.
In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, wellorganized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens.
Hence it was relatively easy to evade control. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press.
We certainly don't mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part.
But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system.
Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect.
To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups.
Take us FC for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted.
If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay.
Even ff these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them.
In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.
Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom.
According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual.
Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system.
This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress progress as conceived by the bourgeois.
Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page , explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights.
By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes?
FC's conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity.
Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.
One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough.
Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs.
For example, it's likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.
Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends.
Here we are concerned with the long-term trends. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory — the trend will soon revert to its original state.
Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in.
The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society.
Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough. If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.
The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.
If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.
If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance.
Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.
A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.
The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth.
The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society.
Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove.
To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required.
A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government. By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries.
By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample.
The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform.
The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so.
They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development.
British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy.
And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies.
The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure — there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step.
But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States.
If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of lffe today would not have been significantly different.
Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles.
They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found.
So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society.
The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conciusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom.
There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy.
Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory one — soon swamped by the tide of history — or, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society.
This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance third principle there would be great risk.
Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system.
So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent.
Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system.
In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology.
Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.
So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology.
In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.
As explained in paragraphs , , modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence.
This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society.
At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion.
The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us.
Propaganda  , educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior.
For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them.
So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study.
A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses.
Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits — just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.
Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.
In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent.
A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines.
When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a onemillionth share in making the decision.
What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant.
There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.
Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way.
Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.
The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.
This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism.
It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.
It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system.
To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling.
Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate.
When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way.
It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so withoutshowing signs of stress.
Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke.
For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement.
Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goals — their "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company.
Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system.
Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society.
Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements.
For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the smallbusiness person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.
A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another.
You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example.
Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society.
Clearly you can't have much Progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils.
Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else.
Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population.
This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin. The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population.
The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God depending on your religious or philosophical opinions , but a manufactured product.
If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children.
Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.
The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings.
Somebody probably the upper-middle class, mostly would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical".
Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering.
The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society.
No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world.
Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system.
Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other.
The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise.
Give me half of what I asked. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth.
By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.
Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on.
For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems.
When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man.
But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion.
When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively.Folge 1. 47 Min. Ted Kaczynski erlangt als der „Unabomber“ zunehmend traurige Berühmtheit. Die Behörden suchen indes verzweifelt nach einem. Achtzehn Jahre lang terrorisierte der Unabomber die Repräsentanten der technischen Welt. Jetzt glaubt das FBI, ihn gefunden zu haben. Chronologie der Unabomber-Anschläge. Eine Paketbombe auf dem Campus der Northwestern University in Chicago verletzt den Wachmann Terry.