u***@yahoo.com
2006-11-17 21:33:13 UTC
I know this may seem a little late, but I've been meaning to write
you a letter and as I was rereading an old issue I thought the
quote you opened with in issue 22:2 seemed a bit misleading. This
struck me as a bit odd since most of your issues open with a
quotation having very much to do with ethics. I wonder if that
quote from Orwell, "Men are only as good as their technical
development allows them to be," might have been taken out of
context in a way. Did he not mean by "good" that they are merely
as technically "capable and productive" as their technical
development allows? Either way, that would make much more sense
because technical development has not at all seemed to improve the
moral or ethical character of mankind. And that brings me to the
crux of my position which I have wanted you to respond to for some
time. The technical capabilities of hacking computer technology
may be amorally used for good or evil, but the evil which you seem
to often downplay can be of devastating power and seems far more
insidious as large bureaucracies make use of technical capabilities
to further their agenda. In regards to that point about power I'll
point out that as our lives become more dependent upon computer
technology a single person acting destructively can cause far more
damage. And the information, which the hacker credo suggests
should ever be free and available to all, might bring about great
devastation. I can think of a number of weapons technologies, for
instance, whose technical schematics ought to be hidden if not
destroyed. Of course technical capability grows and, sooner or
later, these devastating technologies will become practically
commonplace and, inevitably, put to use. Men are indeed only as
good their technical ability allows them to be. Now I realize that
your staff has spent their lives improving and believing in the
neutrality of computer technology, and I don't criticize that
behavior simply to be mean, but how neutral is it when an
individual can obtain highly destructive information and
corporations use the ability to promote the highest level of
ecological consumption in the history of civilization? As much as
the technology might help one individual find some sort of zen
happiness, how many millions of others does it simply compel to
shop? Are the benefits brought about by easily accessed knowledge
about, say, the environment, offset by the environmental harm
caused by the consumerism enabled at the same time? That's to say
nothing of the harm directly caused by the manufacture of computer
related equipment. And so this is my sincere and honest critique
which I challenge you to answer. My conclusion, paradoxically, is
that the greatest use of computer technology is against itself,
which I hope this message serves to do.
Sincerely,
An Unapologetic Neo-Luddite
(forwarded to ***@2600.com)
you a letter and as I was rereading an old issue I thought the
quote you opened with in issue 22:2 seemed a bit misleading. This
struck me as a bit odd since most of your issues open with a
quotation having very much to do with ethics. I wonder if that
quote from Orwell, "Men are only as good as their technical
development allows them to be," might have been taken out of
context in a way. Did he not mean by "good" that they are merely
as technically "capable and productive" as their technical
development allows? Either way, that would make much more sense
because technical development has not at all seemed to improve the
moral or ethical character of mankind. And that brings me to the
crux of my position which I have wanted you to respond to for some
time. The technical capabilities of hacking computer technology
may be amorally used for good or evil, but the evil which you seem
to often downplay can be of devastating power and seems far more
insidious as large bureaucracies make use of technical capabilities
to further their agenda. In regards to that point about power I'll
point out that as our lives become more dependent upon computer
technology a single person acting destructively can cause far more
damage. And the information, which the hacker credo suggests
should ever be free and available to all, might bring about great
devastation. I can think of a number of weapons technologies, for
instance, whose technical schematics ought to be hidden if not
destroyed. Of course technical capability grows and, sooner or
later, these devastating technologies will become practically
commonplace and, inevitably, put to use. Men are indeed only as
good their technical ability allows them to be. Now I realize that
your staff has spent their lives improving and believing in the
neutrality of computer technology, and I don't criticize that
behavior simply to be mean, but how neutral is it when an
individual can obtain highly destructive information and
corporations use the ability to promote the highest level of
ecological consumption in the history of civilization? As much as
the technology might help one individual find some sort of zen
happiness, how many millions of others does it simply compel to
shop? Are the benefits brought about by easily accessed knowledge
about, say, the environment, offset by the environmental harm
caused by the consumerism enabled at the same time? That's to say
nothing of the harm directly caused by the manufacture of computer
related equipment. And so this is my sincere and honest critique
which I challenge you to answer. My conclusion, paradoxically, is
that the greatest use of computer technology is against itself,
which I hope this message serves to do.
Sincerely,
An Unapologetic Neo-Luddite
(forwarded to ***@2600.com)