i'm bored, kill me

[H. Haggerty]

Login  Pref Your subscriptions Home Help -->syndicate at anart.no 
mailinglist of Syndicate network for media culture and media art  -->   List info  
 Subscribers: 370

OwnersAuriea")// -->clement ")// -->peter")// -->anna")// -->frederic")// -->nn")// -->claudia")// --> 
ModeratorsAuriea")// -->clement Thomas ")// -->Anna Balint")// -->claudia W")// --> 
 
 Subscribe  
 Unsubscribe  
 Archive  
 Post  
  Shared web  
You requested unsubscription from list syndicate. 

To confirm your identity and prevent anyone from unsubscribing you from this list against your will, a message containing an URL will be sent to you. 

Check your mailbox for new messages and enter below the password given in the message Sympa sent you. This will confirm your unsubscription from list syndicate. e-mail address herbert_haggerty at yahoo.com
password  [input]   [input]   [input]        [input]  This password, associated to your email address, will allow you to access your custom environment. The Unabomber's Manifesto -- Ted KaczynskiIndustrial Society And Its FutureINDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
111. 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 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. 
112. 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 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. 

 [input]   [input]   [input]   ?????e?tinadeutschespa?olestonianfinnishfran?aismagyaritnederlandsRomanaenglish  Powered by 


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tekspost.no/mailman/private/syndicate/attachments/20030103/d8c66caf/attachment.html>