What The Unabomber Wants
"We're lucky
Kaczynski was a mathematician, not a molecular biologist." --From Bill Joy's
Anti-Tech Manifesto "Why
The Future Doesn't Need Us" "Probably the
most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry... "--From Ted Kaczynski,
otherwise known as the "Unabomber", in
the newest issue of Green Anarchy, who, horrifically enough, may be reading his press
clippings. When I think of
this frightening piece by the Unabomber in Green
Anarchy I'm reminded of the first appearance of Hannibal Lecter (played by Brian Cox
in Manhunter), where his seemingly benign phone calls and newspaper ads would expand and
unfold exponentially like a Hoberman
Sphere of Darkness, Terror and Evil. One of his messages to the outside world gave a
serial killer the home address of FBI investigator William Graham, played by actor William
Peterson, now the lead for the television show CSI. That was, as the Unabomber might
phrase it, "hitting them where it hurts". I fear that if one looks at the
darkest possible meaning in Mr. Kaczynskis newest prose efforts then one could
conclude that his messages to the outside world are no less benign than the fictional
Hannibal Lecter's. Brian Cox First Played Dr. Hannibal Lecter
To be optimistic,
and to assume the best of Dr. Lect, uhh, Mr. Kaczynski, let's take him at his word when he
notes that "Biotechnology May Be The Best Target For Political Attack". He
probably means letter writing campaigns, weekend bake sales, sit-ins, and the wonderful
utility of the vote--an effectiveness so wonderfully utilized during the last presidential
election. Perhaps, when he mentions "persuading" biotechs to change their ways
he means hotly worded email spams, vociferously loud public marches around their homes
drenched with the folk music of Si Kahn (a definite aspiration killer), sporadic displays
of "shunning" and the creation of wickedly mocking Big Puppet Faces displayed at
public events or online aimed at your average aspiring Craig Venters out there. I'm
sure that's what Mr. Kaczynski means. Really. And when he says "By legal means, of
course" let's presume that he actually means it. Although I wish an insightful and
sardonic prison editor would have placed the words "nudge nudge wink wink" after
that particular phrase. You could take a
more pessimistic view of Mr. Kaczynski's message, however. First, he makes the clear
argument that "It is useless to attack the system in terms of its own values."
In the essay he explains that what he refers to is this idea that traditional activists
merely help the system when they ameliorate deleterious symptoms. For example, if I
understand his argument, activists who get rid of sweatshops actually help create a more
enlightened compassionate capitalism, which is actually quite good for capitalism, which
probably isn't the overall goal of your average Green Anarchist True Believer. However,
these are words written by a man who literally blew up people he didn't agree with. This
is an act that also meets the requirement of not attacking the system within its own
values. Combine this sentiment of not playing by the rules and his odd use of the word
"persuasion" and somebody could interpret the seemingly innocent benign message
of using political activity to attack biotech as something else. Namely, and I stress that
this is dark lucid speculation on my part, there may be political advantage in murdering
rising biotech stars. I suppose, within the orbit of my speculation, it would not be
unlike the distorted rationalization of your average "prolife" assassin who
kills abortion doctors. I happen to be pro-choice and find the phrase murderous pro lifers
not only obscene but contradictory. But I can't say with certainty that it wouldnt
work if the tactic were expanded. Just for the
record, I don't think the Unabomber is actually right any more than his more civil
Republican anti-tech allies Francis Fukuyama or Leon Kass. One of the odd things about the
Unabomber piece is that he uses the exact same language as Fukuyama and Kass when he
describes his arguments against biotech. The Unabomber opposes biotech research because he
believes "that it will radically transform fundamental human values that have existed
for thousands of year." Odd. Those are similar sentiments stated by Mr.
Fukuyama and Kass during their testimonies before congress. Great stasist minds think
alike I suppose. And make no mistake: I
believe Ted, Francis and Leon are united in their opposition to change. The problem with
their methodologies--implied harassment and perhaps assassination on the one hand and
hostile bureaucratic strangulation on the other--is that their methods only work in the
United States. So, the net effect is that you're stopping or slowing down research in the
United States. Other countries, which don't let nonscientists determine their tech
policies, will simply move ahead of us in genomic therapies and research. Their tactics
simply dictate that leading biotech firms will have headquarters in Britain, Singapore or
China. Nice. I prefer a more
nuanced and subtler progressive response. There's a difference between terminator genes
and nutraceuticals. We should lobby accordingly. There should also be lobbying for the
idea of a Genetic Commons and against the wholesale privatization of our genetic heritage.
I make this argument not only out of legitimate ethical concerns but because I believe
that the establishment of such commons will be better for business, just as open source
protocols, cheap domain names and affordable internet access are better for business. I'm also waiting
for the pro-choice feminist left to make the connection: We should have the right to
choose these technologies for ourselves. For the first time, the choice issue applies to
men and subsequently its appeal can be widened. The implied right to privacy now extends
to men and where are you when we need you Katha Pollitt? Do you want Leon Kass deciding
that viagra disrupts "human nature"? Or that life extension therapy should be
outlawed? The constant I find between the Unholy Trinity of Ted, Francis and Leon is that
they never ask for your opinion. There shouldn't be anything like a vote or a public
referendum or personal discretion to hear them rant. I mean, to paraphrase a bit on my own
site: If I want the artificial blood, the augmented antioxidants, the Rhino Horn, the
creepy blood-red infrared eyes and a bio-networked version of a Spidey sense, then that
should be my choice, my call. Will I still be human? I don't know. But I should have the
right to find out, good or ill.
|