TK's 1971 Essay
Fischer
will inevitably result in the extinction of individual liberty. I use the
word "inevitably" in the following sense: One might --possibly-- imagine
certain conditions of society in which liberty could coexist with
technology, but these conditions do not actually exist, and we know of no
way to bring them about, so that, in practice, scientific progress will
result in the extinction of individual liberty. Toward the end of this essay
we propose what appears to be the only thing that bears any resemblance to a
practical remedy for this situation.
I hope that the reader will bear with us when I recite arguments and facts
with which he may already be familiar. I make no claim to originality. I
simply think that the case for the thesis stated above is convincing, and I
am attempting to set forth the arguments, new and old, in as clear a manner
as possible, in the hope that the reader will be persuaded to support the
solution here suggested -- which certainly is a very obvious solution, but
rather hard for many people to swallow.
The power of society to control the individual person has recently been
expanding very rapidly, and is expected to expand even more rapidly in the
near future. Let us list a few of the more ominous developments as a
reminder.
(1) Propaganda and image-making techniques. In this context we must not
neglect the role of movies, television and literature, which commonly are
regarded either as art or as entertainment, but which often consciously
adopt certain points of view and thus serve as propaganda. Even when they do
not consciously adopt an explicit point of view they still serve to
indoctrinate the viewer or reader with certain values. We venerate the great
writers of the past, but one who considers the matter objectively must admit
that modern artistic techniques have developed to the point where the more
skillfully constructed movies, novels, etc. of today are, in the mind of the
viewer or reader, far more psychologically potent than, say, Shakespeare
ever was. The best of them are capable of gripping and involving the reader
very powerfully and thus are presumably quite effective in influencing his
values. Also note the increasing extent to which the average person today is
"living in the movies" as the saying is. People spend a large and increasing
amount of time submitting to canned entertainment rather than participating
in spontaneous activities. As overcrowding and rules and regulations curtail
opportunities for spontaneous activity, and as the developing techniques of
entertainment make the canned product ever more attractive, we can assume
that people will live more and more in the world of mass entertainment.
(2) A growing emphasis among educators on "guiding" the child's emotional
development, coupled with an increasingly scientific attitude toward
education. Of course, educators have always in some degree attempted to mold
the attitudes of their pupils, but formerly they achieved only a limited
degree of success, simply because their methods were unscientific.
Educational psychology is changing this.
(3) Operant conditioning, after the manner of B.F. Skinner and friends. (Of
course, this cannot be entirely separated from item (2).)
(4) Direct physical control of the emotions via electrodes and "chemitrodes"
inserted in the brain. (See Jose M.R. Delgado's book "Physical Control of
the Mind".)
(5) Biofeedback training, after the manner of Joseph Kamiya and others.
(6) Predicted "memory pills" or other drugs designed to improve memory or
increase intelligence.
(The reader possibly assumes that items (5) and (6) present no danger to
freedom because their use is supposed to be voluntary, but I will argue that
point later. See page 1-15.)
(7) Predicted genetic engineering, eugenics, related techniques.
(8) Marvin Minsky of MIT (one of the foremost computer experts in the
country) and other computer scientists predict that within fifteen years or
possibly much less there will be superhuman computers with intellectual
capacities far beyond anything of which humans are capable. It is to be
emphasized that these computers will not merely perform so-called
"mechanical" operations; they will be capable of creative thought. Many
people are incredulous at the idea of a creative computer, but let it be
remembered that (unless one resorts to supernatural explanations of human
thought) the human brain itself is an electro-chemical computer, operating
according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Furthermore, the men who
have predicted these computers are not crackpots but first-class scientists.
It is difficult to say in advance just how much power these computers will
put into the hands of what is vulgarly termed the establishment, but this
power will probably be very great. Bear in mind that these computers will be
wholly under the control of the scientific, bureaucratic, and business
elite. The average person will have no access to them. Unlike the human
brain, computers are more or less unrestricted as to size (and, more
important, there is no restriction on the number of computers that can be
linked together over a long distance to form a single brain), so that there
is no restriction on their memories or on the amount of information they can
assimilate and correlate. Computers are not subject to fatigue, daydreaming,
or emotional problems. They work at fantastic speed. Given that a computer
can duplicate the functions of the human brain, it seems clear in view of
the advantages listed above that no human brain could possibly compete with
such a computer in any field of endeavor.
(9) Various electronic devices for surveillance. These are being used. For
example, according to newspaper reports, the police of New York City have
recently instituted a system of 24-hour television surveillance over certain
problem areas of the city.
These are some of the more strikingly [illegible] facets of scientific
progress, but it is perhaps more important to look at the effect of
technology as a whole on our society. Technological progress is the basic
cause of the continual increase in the number of rules and regulations. This
is because many of our technological devices are more powerful and therefore
more potentially destructive than the more primitive devices they replace.
(e.g. compare autos and horses) and also because the increasing complexity
of the system makes necessary a more delicate coordination of its parts.
Moreover, many devices of functional importance (e.g. electronic computers,
television broadcasting equipment, jet planes) cannot be owned by the
average person because of their size and costliness. These devices are
controlled by large organizations such as corporations and governments are
used to further the purposes of the establishment. A larger and larger
proportion of the individual's environment--not only his physical
environment, but such factors as the kind of work he does, the nature of his
entertainment, etc. comes to be created and controlled by large
organizations rather than by the individual himself. And this is a necessary
consequence of technological progress, because to allow technology to be
exploited in an unregulated, unorganized way would result in disaster.
Note that the problem here is not simply to make sure that technology is
used only for good purposes. In fact, we can be reasonably certain that the
powers which technology is putting into the hands of the establishment will
be used to promote good and eliminate evil. These powers will be so great
that within a few decades virtually all evil will have been eliminated. But,
of course, "good" and "evil" here mean good and evil as interpreted by the
social mainstream. In other words, technology will enable the social
mainstream to impose its values universally. This will not come about
through the machinations of power-hungry scoundrels, but through the efforts
of socially responsible people who sincerely want to do good and who
sincerely believe in freedom-- [illegible] but whose concept of freedom will
be shaped by their own values, which will not necessarily be the same as
your values or my values.
The most important aspect of this process will perhaps be the education of
children,so let us use education as an example to illustrate the way the
process works. Children will be taught--by methods which will become
increasingly effective as educational psychology develops--to be creative,
inquiring, appreciative of the arts and sciences, interested in their
studies--perhaps they will even be taught nonconformity. But of course this
will not be merely random nonconformity but "creative" nonconformity.
Creative nonconformity simply means nonconformity that is directed toward
socially desirable ends. For example, children may be taught (in the name of
freedom) to; liberate themselves from irrational prejudices of their elders,
"irrational prejudices" being those values which are not conducive to the
kind of society that most educators choose to regard as healthy. Children
will be educated to be racially unbiased, to abhor violence, to fit into
society without excessive conflict. By a series of small steps--each of
which will be regarded not as a step toward behavioral engineering but as an
improvement in educational technique--this system will become so effective
that hardly any child will turn out to be other than what the educators
desire. The educational system will then have become a form of psychological
compulsion. The means employed in this "education" will be expanded to
include methods which we currently would consider disgusting, but since
these methods will be introduced in a series of small steps, most people
will not object--especially since children trained to take a "scientific" or
"rational" attitude toward education will be growing up to replace their
elders as they die off.
For instance, chemical and electrical manipulation of the brain will at
first be used only on children considered to be insane, or at least severely
disturbed. As people become accustomed to such practices, they will come to
be used on children who are only moderately disturbed. Now, whatever is on
the furthest fringes of the abnormal generally comes to be regarded with
abhorrence. As the more severe forms of disturbances are eliminated, the
less severe forms will come to constitute the outer fringe: they will thus
be regarded as abhorrent and hence as fair game for chemical and electrical
manipulation. Eventually, all forms of disturbance will be eliminated--and
anything that brings an individual into conflict with his society will make
him unhappy and therefore will be a disturbance. Note that this whole
process does not presuppose any antilibertarian philosophy on the part of
educators or psychologists, but only a desire to do their jobs more
effectively.
Consider: Today, how can one argue against sex education? Sex education is
designed not simply to present children with the bald facts of sex, it is
designed to guide children to a healthy attitude toward sex. And who can
argue against that? Think of all the misery suffered as a result of
Victorian repressions, sexual perversions, frigidity, unwanted pregnancies,
and venerial desease [misspellings in original]. If much of this can be
eliminated by instilling "healthy" (as the social mainstream interprets that
word) sexual attitudes in children, who can deny it to them? But it will be
equally impossible to argue against any of the other steps that will
eventually lead to the complete engineering of the human personality. Each
step will be equally humanitarian in its goals.
There is no distinct line between "guidance" or "influence" and
manipulation. When a technique of influence becomes so effective that is
achieves its desired effect in nearly every case, then it is no longer
influence but compulsion. Thus influence evolves into compulsion as science
improves technique.
Research has shown that exposure to television violence makes the viewer
more prone to violence himself. The very existence of this knowledge makes
it a foregone conclusion that restrictions will eventually be placed on
television violence, either by the government or by the TV industry itself,
in order to make children less prone to develop violent personalities. This
is an element of manipulation. It may be that you feel an end to television
violence is desirable and that the degree of manipulation involved is
insignificant. [Indeed, it is impossible to argue against an end to
television violence.] But science will reveal, one at a time, a hundred
other factors in entertainment that have a "desirable" or "undesirable"
effect on personality. In the case of each one of these factors, knowledge
will make manipulation inevitable. When the whole array of factors has
become known, we will have drifted into large-scale manipulation. In this
way, research leads automatically to calculated indoctrination.
By way of a further example, let us consider genetic engineering. This will
not come into use as a result of a conscious decision by the majority of
people to introduce genetic engineering. It will begin with certain
"progressive" parents who will voluntarily avail themselves of genetic
engineering opportunities in order to eliminate the risk of certain gross
physical defects in their offspring. Later, this engineering will be
extended to include elimination of mental defects and treatment which will
predispose the child to somewhat higher intelligence. (Note that the
question of what constitutes a mental "defect" is a value-judgement. Is
homosexuality, for example, a defect? Some homosexuals would say "no". But
there is no objectively true or false answer to such a question.) As methods
are improved to the point where the minority of parents who use genetic
engineering are producing noticeably healthier, smarter offspring, more and
more parents will want genetic engineering. When the majority of children
are genetically engineered, even those parents who might otherwise be
antagonistic toward genetic engineering will feel obliged to use it so that
their children will be able to compete in a world of superior
people--superior, at least relative to the social milieu in which they live.
In the end, genetic engineering will be made compulsory because it will be
regarded as cruel and irresponsible for a few eccentric parents to produce
inferior offspring by refusing to use it. Bear in mind that this engineering
will involve mental as well as physical characteristics: indeed, as
scientists explain mental traits on the basis of physiology, neurology, and
biochemistry, it will become more and more difficult to distinguish between
"mental" and "physical" traits.
Observe that once a society based on psychological, genetic, and other forms
of human engineering has come into being, it will presumably last forever,
because people will all be engineered to favor human engineering and the
totally collective society, so that they will never become dissatisfied with
this kind of society. Furthermore, once human engineering, the linking of
human minds with computers, and other things of that nature have come into
extensive use, people will probably be altered so much that it will no
longer be possible for them to exist as independent beings, either
physically or psychologically. Indeed, technology has already made it
impossible for us to live as physically independent beings, for the skills
which enabled primitive man to live off the country have been lost. We can
survive only by acting as components of a huge machine which provides for
our physical needs: and as technology invades the domain of mind, it is safe
to assume that human beings will become as dependent psychologically on
technology as they now are physically. We can see the beginning of this
already in the inability of some people to avoid boredom without television,
in the need of others to use tranquilizers in order to cope with the
tensions of modern society.
The foregoing predictions are supported by the opinions of at least some
responsible writers. See especially Jacques Ellul's "The Technological
Society" and the section titled "Social Controls" in Kahn and Wiener's "The
Year 2,000".
Now we come to the question: What can be done to prevent all this? Let us
first consider the solution sketched by Perry London in his book "Behavior
Control". This solution makes a convenient example because its defects are
typical of other proposed solutions. London's idea is, briefly, this: Let us
not attempt to interfere with the development of behavioral technology, but
let us all try to be as aware of and as knowledgeable about this technology
as we can: let us not keep this technology in the hands of a scientific
elite, but disseminate it among the population at large: people can then use
this technology to manipulate themselves and protect themselves [illegible]
manipulation by others. However, on the grounds that "there must be some
limits" London advocates that behavior control should be imposed by society
in certain areas. For example, he suggests that people should be made to
abhor violence and that psychological means should be used to make
businessmen stop destroying the forests. (NOTE: I do not currently have
access to a copy of London's book, and so I have had to rely on memory in
describing his views. My memory is probably correct here, but in order to be
honest I should admit the possibility of error.)
My first objection to London's scheme is a personal one. I simply find the
sphere of freedom that he favors too narrow for me to accept. But his
solution suffers from other flaws.
He proposes to use psychological controls where they are not necessary, and
more for the purpose of gratifying the liberal intellectual's esthetic
sensibilities than because of a practical need. It is true that "there must
be some limits"--on violence, for example--but the threat of imprisonment
seems to be an adequate limitation. To read about violence is frightening,
but violent crime is not a significant cause of mortality in comparison to
other causes. Far more people are killed in automobile accidents than
through violent crime. Would London also advocate psychological elimination
of those personalities that are inclined to careless driving? The fact that
liberal intellectuals and many others get far more excited over violence
than they do over careless driving would seem to indicate that their
antagonism toward violence arises not primarily from a concern for human
life but from a strong emotional antipathy toward violence itself. Thus it
appears that London's proposal to eliminate violence through psychological
control results not from practical necessity but from a desire on London's
part to engineer some of his own values into the public at large.
This becomes even clearer when we consider London's willingness to use
psychological engineering to stop businessmen from destroying forests.
Obviously, psychological engineering cannot accomplish this until the
establishment can be persuaded to carry out the appropriate progress of
engineering. But if the establishment can be persuaded to do this, then they
can equally well be persuaded to pass conservation laws strict enough to
accomplish the same purpose. And if such laws are passed, the psychological
engineering is superfluous. It seems clear that here, again, London is
attracted to psychological engineering simply because he would like to see
the general public share certain of his values.
When London proposes to us systematic psychological controls over certain
aspects of the personality, with the intention that these controls shall not
be extended to others areas, he is assuming that the generation following
his own will agree with his judgement as to how far the psychological
controls should reach. This assumption is almost certainly false. The
introduction of psychological controls in some areas (which London approves)
will set the stage for the later introduction of controls in other areas
which London would not approve), because it will change the culture in such
a way as to make people more receptive to the concept of psychological
controls. As long as any behavior is permitted which is not in the best
interests of the collective social organization, there will always be the
temptation to eliminate the worst of this behavior through human
engineering. People will introduce new controls to eliminate only the worst
of this behavior, without intending that any further extension of the
controls should take place afterward; but in fact they will be indirectly
causing further extensions of the controls because whenever new controls are
introduced, the public, as it becomes used to the controls, will change its
conception of what constitutes an appropriate degree of control. In other
words, whatever the amount of control to which people have become
accustomed, they will regard that amount as right and good and they will
regard a little further extension of control as negligible price to pay for
the elimination of some form of behavior that they find shocking.
London regards the wide dissemination of behavioral technology among the
public as a means by which the people can protect themselves against
psychological manipulation by the established powers. But if it is really
true that people can use this knowledge to avoid manipulation in most areas,
why won't they also be able to use is to avoid being made to abhor violence,
or to avoid control in other areas where London thinks they should be
controlled? London seems to assume that people will be unable to avoid
control in just those areas where he thinks they should be controlled, but
that they will be able to avoid control in just those areas where he thinks
they should not be controlled.
London refers to "awareness" ([illegible] relating to the mind) as the
individual's "sword and buckle"against manipulation by the establishment. In
Roman times a man might have a real sword and buckler just as good as those
of the emperor's legionaries, but that did not enable him to escape
oppression. Similarly, if a man of the future has a complete knowledge of
behavioral psychology it will not enable him to escape psychological control
any more than the possession of a machine-gun or a tank would enable him to
escape physical control. The resources of an organized society are just too
great for any individual to resist no matter how much he knows.
With the vast expansion of knowledge in the behavioral sciences,
biochemistry, cybernetics, physiology, genetics, and other disciplines which
have the potential to affect human behavior, it is probably already
impossible (and, if not, it will soon become impossible) for any individual
to keep abreast of it all. In any case, we would all have to become, to some
degree, specialists in behavior control in order to maintain London's
"awareness". What about those people who just don't happen to be attracted
to that kind of science, or to any science? It would be agony for them to
have to spend long hours studying behavioral technology in order to maintain
their freedom.
Even if London's scheme of freedom through "awareness" were feasible, it
could, or at least would, be carried out only by an elite of intellectuals,
businessmen, etc. Can you imagine the members of uneducated minority groups,
or, for that matter, the average middle-class person, having the will and
the ability to learn enough to compete in a world of psychological
manipulation? It will be a case of the smart and the powerful getting more
powerful while the stupid and the weak get (relatively) stupider and weaker;
for it is the smart and the powerful who will have the readiest access to
behavioral technology and the greatest ability to use it effectively.
This is one reason why devices for improving one's mental or psychological
capabilities (e.g. biofeedback training, memory pills, linking of human
minds with computers) are dangerous to freedom even though their use is
voluntary. For example, it will not be physically possible for everyone to
have his own full-scale computer in his basement to which he can link his
brain. The best computer facilities will be reserved for those whom society
judges most worthy: government officials, scientists,etc. Thus the already
powerful will be made more powerful.
Also, the use of such mind-augmentation devices will not remain voluntary.
All our modern conveniences were originally introduced as optional benefits
which one could take or leave as one chose. However, as a result of the
introduction of these benefits, society changed its structure in such a way
that the use of modern conveniences is now compulsory: for it would be
physically impossible to live in modern society without extensively using
devices provided by technology. Similarly, the use of mind-augmenting
devices, though nominally voluntary, will become in practice compulsory.
When these devices have reached a high development and have come into wide
use, a person refusing to use them would be putting himself in the position
of a dumb animal in a world of supermen. He would simply be unable to
function in a society structured around the assumption that most people have
vastly augmented mental abilities.
By virtue of their very power, the devices for augmenting or modifying the
human mind and personality will have to be governed by extensive rules and
regulations. As the human mind comes to be more and more an artifact created
by means of such devices, these rules and regulations will come to be rules
and regulations governing the structure of the human mind.
An important point: London does not even consider the question of human
engineering in infancy (let alone genetic engineering before conception). A
two-year-old obviously would not be able to apply London's philosophy of
"awareness"; yet it would not be possible [illegible] in the future to
engineer a young child so that he will grow up to have the type of
personality that is desired by whoever has charge of him. What is the
meaning of freedom for a person whose entire personality has been planned
and created by someone else?
London's solution suffers from another flaw that is of particular importance
because it is shared by all libertarian solutions to the technology problem
that have ever come to my attention. The problem is supposed to be solved by
propounding and popularizing a certain libertarian philosophy. This approach
is unlikely to achieve anything. Our liberty is not deteriorating as a
result of any antilibertarian philosophy. Most people in this country
profess to believe in freedom. Our liberty is deteriorating as a result of
the way people do their jobs and behave on a day-to-day basis in relation to
technology. The system has come to be set up in such a way that it is
usually comfortable to do that which strengthens the organization. When a
person in a position of responsibility sets to eliminate that which is
contrary to established values, he is rewarded with the esteem of his
fellows and in other ways. Police officials who introduce new surveillance
devices, educators who introduce more advanced techniques for molding
children, do not do so through disrespect for freedom; they do so because
they are rewarded with the approval of other police officials or educators
and also because they get an inward satisfaction from having accomplished
their assigned tasks not only competently, but creatively. A hands-off
approach toward the child's personality would be best from the point of view
of freedom, but this approach will not be taken because the most intelligent
and capable educators crave the satisfaction of doing their work creatively.
They want to do more with the child, not less. The greatest reward that a
person gets from furthering the ends of the organization may well be simply
the opportunity for purposeful, challenging, important activity--an
opportunity that is otherwise hard to come by in society. For example,
Marvin Minsky does not work on computers because he is antagonistic to
freedom, but because he loves the intellectual challenge. Probably he
believes in freedom, but since he is a computer specialist he manages to
persuade himself that computers will tend to liberate man.
The main point here is that the danger to freedom is caused by the way
people work and behave on a day-to-day basis in relation to technology; and
the way people behave in relation to technology is determined by powerful
social and psychological forces. To oppose these forces a comparatively weak
force like a body of philosophy is simply hopeless. You may persuade the
public to accept your philosophy, but most people will not significantly
change [illegible] result. They will invent rationalizations to reconcile
their behavior with the philosophy, or they will say that what they do as
individuals is too insignificant to change the course of events, or they
will simply confess themselves too weak to live up to the philosophy.
Conceivably a school of philosophy might change a culture over a long period
of time if the social forces tending in the opposite direction were weak.
But the social forces guiding the present development of our society are
obviously strong, and we have very little time left--another three decades
likely will take us past the point of no return.
Thus a philosophy will be ineffective unless that philosophy is accompanied
by a program of concrete action of a type which does not ask people to
voluntarily change the way they live and work--a program which demands
little effort or willpower on the part of most people. Such a program would
probably have to be a political or legislative one. A philosophy is not
likely to make people change their daily behavior, but it might (with luck)
induce them to vote for politicians who support a certain program. Casting a
vote requires only a casual commitment, not a strenuous application of
willpower. So we are left with the question: What kind of legislative
program would have a chance of saving freedom?
I can think of only two possibilities that are halfway plausible. The
discussion of one of these I will leave until later. The other, and the one
that I advocate, is this: In simple terms, stop scientific progress by
withdrawing all major sources of research funds. In more details, begin by
withdrawing all or most federal aid to research. If an abrupt withdrawal
would cause economic problems, then phase it out [illegible] practical.
Next, pass legislation to limit or phase out research support by educational
institutions which accept public funds. Finally, one would hope to pass
legislation prohibiting all large corporations and other large organizations
from supporting scientific research. Of course, it would be necessary to
eventually bring about similar changes throughout the world, but, being
Americans, we must start with the United States; which is just as well,
since the United States is the world's most technologically advanced
country. As for economic or other disruption that might be caused by the
elimination of scientific progress--this disruption is likely to be much
less than that which would be caused by the extremely rapid changes brought
on by science itself.
I admit that, in view of the firmly entrenched position of Big Science, it
is unlikely that such a legislative program could be enacted. However, I
think there is at least some chance that such a program could be put through
in stages over a period of years, if one or more active organizations were
formed to make the public aware of the probable consequences of continued
scientific progress and to push for the appropriate legislation. Even if
there is only a small chance of success, I think that chance is worth
working for, since the alternative appears to be the loss of all human
freedom.
This solution is bound to be attacked as "simplistic", but this ignores the
fundamental question, namely: Is there any better solution or indeed any
other solution at all? My personal opinion is that there is no other
solution. However, let us not be dogmatic, Maybe there is a better solution.
But the point is this: If there is such a solution, no one at present seems
to know just what it is. Matters have progressed to the point where we can
no longer afford to sit around just waiting for something to turn up. By
stopping scientific progress now, or at any rate slowing it drastically, we
could attempt to work out another solution, if one is possible.
There is one putative solution the discussion of which I have reserved until
now. One might consider enacting some kind of bill of rights designed to
protect freedom from technological encroachment. For the following reasons I
do not believe that such a solution would be effective.
In the first place, a document which attempted to define our sphere of
freedom in a few simple principles would either be too weak to afford real
protection, or too strong to be compatible with the functioning of the
present society. Thus, a suitable bill of rights would have to be
excessively complex, and full of exceptions, qualifications, and delicate
compromises. Such a bill would be subject to repeated amendments for the
sake of social expedience; and where formal amendment is inconvenient, the
document would simply be reinterpreted. Recent decisions of the Supreme
Court, whether one approves of them or not, show how much the import of a
document can be altered through reinterpretations. Our present Bill of
Rights would have been ineffective if there had been in America strong
social forces acting against freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc.
Compare what is happening to the right to bear arms, which currently runs
counter to basic social trends. Whether you approve or disapprove of that
"right" is beside the point--the point is that the constitutional guarantee
cannot stand indefinitely against powerful social forces.
If you are an advocate of the bill-of-rights approach to the technology
problem, test yourself by attempting to write a sample section on, say,
genetic engineering. Just how will you define the term "genetic engineering"
and how will you draw the line, in words, between that engineering which is
to be permitted and that which is to be prohibited? Your law will be readily
reinterpreted as social standards evolve, or excessively complex and
detailed. In this last case, the law will not pass as a constitutional
amendment, because for practical reasons a law that attempts to deal with
such a problem in great detail will have to be relatively easy to change as
needs and circumstances change. But then, of course, the law will be changed
continually for the sake of social expedience and so will not serve as a
barrier to the erosion of freedom.
And who would actually work out the details of such a bill of rights?
Undoubtedly, a committee of congressmen, or a commission appointed by the
president, or some other group of organization men. They would give us some
fine libertarian rhetoric, but they would be unwilling to pay the price of
real, substantial freedom--they would not write a bill that would sacrifice
any significant amount of the organization's power.
I have said that a bill of rights would not be able to stand for long
against the pressures for science, progress, and improvement. But laws that
bring a halt to scientific research would be quite different in this
respect. The prestige of science would be broken. With the financial basis
gone, few young people would find it practical to enter scientific careers.
After, say three decades or so, our society would have ceased to be
progress-oriented and the most dangerous of the pressures that currently
threaten our freedom would have relaxed. A bill of rights would not bring
about this relaxation.
This, by the way, is one reason why the elimination of research merely in a
few sensitive areas would be inadequate. As long as science is a large and
going concern, there will be the persistent temptation to apply it in new
areas; but this pressure would be broken if science were reduced to a minor
role.
Let us try to summarize the role of technology in relation to freedom. The
principal effect of technology os to increase the power of society
collectively. Now, there is a more or less unlimited number of
value-judgements that lie before us: for example: whether an individual
should or should not have puritanical attitudes toward sex; whether it is
better to have rain fall at night or during the day. When society acquires
power over such a situation, generally a preponderance of the social forces
look upon one or the other of the alternatives as Right. These social forces
are then able to use the machinery of society to impose their choice
universally, for example, they may mold children so successfully that none
ever grows up to have puritanical attitudes toward sex, or they may use
weather engineering to guarantee that the rain falls only at night. In this
way there is a continual narrowing of the possibilities that exist in the
world. The eventual result will be a world in which there is only one system
of values. The only way out seems to be to halt the ceaseless extension of
society's power.
I propose that you join me and a few other people to whom I am writing in an
attempt to found an organization dedicated to stopping federal aid to
scientific research. I realize that you will probably reject this
suggestion, but I hope that you will not reject it on the basis of some
vague dogma such as "knowledge is good" READ the hope of READ. Okay,
knowledge is good, but how high a price, in terms of freedom, are we going
to pay for knowledge? You may be understandably reluctant to join an
organization about which you know nothing, but you know as much about it as
I do. It hasn't been started yet. You would be one of the founding members.
I claim to have no particular qualifications for trying to start such an
organization, and I have no idea how to go about it, I am only making an
attempt because no better qualified person has yet done so. I am simply
trying to bring together a few highly intelligent and thoughtful people who
would be willing to take over the task. I would prefer to drop out of it
personally because I am unsuited to that kind of work: in fact I dislike it
intensely.
---------------------------
"Why is the 1971 Essay so much better written than the Manifesto?"
--David Buchanan