A Fine Spring Day

Today is a hot day. Maybe not hot, but mildly humid. I wish that it was maybe a little bit cooler, with a little bit more of a breeze. That's the perfect weather. Days like these make me like the weather here so much more than the weather back home in New York, where it's hard to get to that perfect spring day. If it weren't for the awful pollen, Richmond may actually be the perfect place for me.

There is nothing truly like sitting on the grass on a nice spring day. Listening to birds chirping, feeling the sun and wind, nothing even comes close. I think that it is a problem with my generation; we do not stop and appreciate the beauty of the world. Unfortunately, I must also include myself when I make that claim. I spend most of my free time using electronics. Being in a long distance relationship makes the use of cell phones and computers a necessity for me. I cannot go a day without somehow communicating with my boyfriend, and advancements in electronics have made it much easier for me to do so.

There are some days, however, that I wish that we as a society moved a little slower. My mom and I love Jane Austen novels, and sometimes I wonder if people lived fuller lives in those days. Close interactions with loved ones, more time with nature...I don't think anyone would think of these aspects of life as negative. It might have been nice to live as Elizabeth Bennett, but I do not think that it is possible for us to return to those times. Once we have some kind of advancement, a majority of people will not be willing to let it go.

I have not done this for a long time; this being sitting outside and physically writing. I used to do it a lot when I was a kid, just sit outside and write whatever came to mind. That was back in the day when I wanted to be an author, until I realized I didn't have anything significant to write about. I think I'll leave the writing to the professionals, but continue to read as much as I can. This is nice, though. It's very relaxing. Things have been a bit crazy because it's the end of the semester and finals are next week (!), but this is very nice. I guess when there's a lot to do, I don't really take time to sit and just think. I think that that would apply to most people, but I definitely think that it's something that we should change (good idea, Dr. Essid).

I definitely enjoyed being in this first year seminar. I learned a lot about technology and its advancements over time. I wish that we had spend less time discussing virtual worlds and more talking about societal reactions to advancements in technology. Perhaps it is because I am interested in psychology, but I am always fascinated by how people react to dramatic changes. Virtual worlds, however, are not something that I think will become relevant in the near future. Nothing can compare or replicate exactly what I am feeling right now.

And what am I feeling right now? I feel the sun trying to push its way out from behind the clouds. I feel congested because of my awful allergies. I feel a slight breeze. I feel the grass poking my skin. But most importantly, I feel relaxed. This exercise has shown me that the Neo-Luddites were right...we should (occasionally) put the electronics away and try to reconnect with nature. It truly is a beautiful thing and it would be a shame if we wasted it.

Sorry, Castronova

I like to think that, as a young college student, I am open to the ideas of people from all walks of life. I do my best not to judge others' beliefs and, if I must, I like to think that I have made my judgements only after seeing enough evidence that the idea is wrong. I like to think that that was the process that I took when reading Dr. Edward Castronova's work of speculative nonfiction, Exodus to the Virtual World.

Dr. Castronova's prediction, which he carries and explains in depth throughout the book, is that within the next few decades, people will begin to migrate in great numbers to virtual worlds. In these virtual worlds, people will go through the same motions that they would in "reality", essentially, without ever having to leave their homes. Eventually, virtual worlds will become the "new frontier", where everyone who is anyone will "live".

I disagree to the greatest extent possible.

I am the kind of person who believes that there is nothing better than a good face-to-face conversation with someone that you care about. For me, and I am sure that there are others out there like me, virtual worlds and avatars do not fulfill that need for physical contact and close proximity. I cannot foresee millions of people entering virtual worlds to eat, sleep and live.

I do understand that there are many people today who are already deeply involved in virtual worlds. I am not one of these people. Perhaps, because of this, I am biased against such worlds. I would much rather spend my time talking with my friends or furthering my education (getting my parents' money's worth).

This will not be lost anytime soon.

Some would argue that this migration is not for my generation, but for the generation after mine. I would still stand by my disagreement. I have two younger cousins, aged 7 and 10, who I see on a fairly regular basis when I am at home. While the two young girls certainly enjoy playing with video games or watching television more than I did when I was their age, as soon as I walk into the room they immediately want to play with me and talk to me...real conversation.

I think that Castronova's point is definitely a valid one that should be taken into consideration amongst people in the academic and economic world. However, I do not agree with his idea of a Great Migration into virtual worlds. We're social creatures, and we will remain in need of physical social interaction for as long as we are around.

Neo-Luddites on the Loose! (Revised)

For as long as there has been innovation and progress, there has been resistance to such advancements. Whether ideological, religious or personal, the reasons behind these oppositions have led to a large spectrum of behaviors and actions which have had varying degrees of significance on society. One such group of resistors has been present since the first Industrial Revolution began in England nearly two centuries ago; the Luddites. Led by Ned Ludd, an English weaver who lived at the time of the First Industrial Revolution, the original Luddites broke the factory machinery that they believed were the reason that they were becoming insignificant in their place of work. The Luddites’ actions may not have had the impact that they had desired, but their founding ideologies have lasted until and have sparked a new group of opposers; the Neo-Luddites. 

It is more difficult to define Neo-Luddism, when it started, and who the leader of the movement is. These difficulties stem from the broader goals and varying degrees of intensities found within the more contemporary groups of Neo-Luddites. As Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale describes, contemporary Neo-Luddism ranges from “narrow single-issue concerns to broad philosophical analysis, from aversion to resistance to sabotage, with much diversity in between” (Sale, 241). The wide spectrum of Neo-Luddites present in the contemporary world has led me to draw the conclusion that Neo-Luddism is much more prevalent than I had originally believed and should be taken much more seriously than most people do. Additionally, it has become clear to me that Neo-Luddites are criticizing much more than simply our increased usage of technology, but many other aspects of the contemporary world, as well. 

Personally, I find that the peaceful Neo-Luddites to be at the more interesting end of the spectrum of Neo-Luddism. These activists are almost more comparable to the Amish, as embodied in magazine editor Scott Savage. Described as “a plain Quaker who lives in an area of Ohio where there are many Amish” (Fox, 330), Savage and his family have given up all technologies that most would consider vital in today’s world: “their computer, their television, their radio, and even their car” (330). Instead, Savage uses a horse and buggy to travel, a technology that was considered to be innovative in the early 19th century. Even in his line of work, which, for most is extremely reliant on technology nowadays, Savage does not use a computer, but an old fashioned printing press instead. Savage has been quoted criticizing the modern world, stating that:

  [w]e spend too much time at work. We earn, not to sustain ourselves alone, but to indulge 

ourselves in too much food, too many gizmos, extravagant educations for our children, and 

overly large houses in oft-times impersonal communities. Our fast paced lives separate use

from our families and our God (333).

Both ours and Savage's world together 

The reader will notice that the over-indulgence of the contemporary world is one of Savage’s major criticisms. Even in the world of education, where one would imagine that indulgence could be beneficial, the Neo-Luddite in Savage views it as being too excessive. I believe that, to some extent, Savage is correct in his criticisms. We, at least most living in the Western world, have become extremely self-indulgent as our nations have grown wealthier and more progressive. But, to some extent, this indulgence, particularly in education, is a solid investment in the future of our nations. It is clear that Savage is a man who is extremely passionate about his beliefs, yet he would not use violence or aggression to have his beliefs known. Rather, he calls for a “‘nonresistant Luddism’ that would transform industrial society without confrontation” (Bauerlein). However, it remains unclear as to how Savage intends for such a nonresistant Luddism to take place in today’s technological age.

A figure similar to Savage is found in James Howard Kunstler, an author who is critical of the increased use of technologies in the United States, yet utilizes the very technology he is critical of to spread his ideas. On the biography portion of his website, one will find Kunstler’s Saratoga Springs home address, a P.O. Box, a telephone number, yet no e-mail address. One will, however, find the e-mail addresses of both Kunstler’s literary and lecture agents. At first, one may find it strange that a Neo-Luddite would advertise his anti-technological ideas while using a technology which he is supposedly against. One may also find it strange that such a Neo-Luddite would even have a website in the first place, which, essentially, contradicts everything that he stands for. However, Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale explains that some of his fellow Luddites, such as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth quarterly, are inclined “toward the view that technology is inherently evil” but will disseminate “this view via e-mail, computer, and laser printer” (Sale 256). It appears that some Neo-Luddites, such as Kunstler and Davis, have come to the realization that it would be impossible in today’s technological world to set their ideas forth without using the very thing that they are against. This contradiction of beliefs and actions is one which is extremely present in the world of Neo-Luddism and will continue to be until either one world is destroyed or the two can learn to live harmoniously. Unfortunately for the Neo-Luddite movement, to some, like myself, their use of technology weakens their argument and discredits, to some extent, what they stand for. Although an observer may realize that it would be close to impossible to spread the word on Neo-Luddism nowadays without some use of technology, the movement is slightly discredited in the process. 

Nichols Fox’s in-depth investigation into Neo-Luddism in the 21st century brought him to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean where the original Luddist movement began; England. According to Fox, there are many Neo-Luddists who are also pacifists in the nation where violent resistance to technology was born. One of the most striking nonviolent Neo-Luddites with whom Fox came into contact with was Richard Morton, a cobbler who, like Savage, is passionate about the negative aspects of technology and violence. Fox writes:

  His biggest concern is the loss of skills that technology has allowed. Machine tools have done 

away with craftsmanship. Calculators leave children unable to do math. Literacy is declining

as more information comes in a visual format. ‘Technology is used for laziness, not for raising 

        standards,’ [Morton] says. He could never be violent against technology, however. ‘You’ve got 

to look at your own situation and decide what’s best for you. It’s about living in harmony. It’s

about finding the right livelihood (Fox, 347). 

The tranquility and understanding that oozes from Morton’s words is particularly striking. The reader gains the impression that Morton is aware that much of the rest of the world is extremely reliant on the technologies that he rejects. He seems to have accepted that he cannot change how others view innovation and progress, and appears to be perfectly content with his place as a minority. 

Morton’s openness to others’ viewpoints on technology is amicable, and a stark contrast to many Neo-Luddites on the aggressive end of the anti-technology spectrum. Those who are more extreme and violent are often highlighted by the media and give the Neo-Luddite movement a bad name. Two of the most famous violent Neo-Luddites of the 20th century are Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and certain members of the Earth First! movement. 

Kaczynski's Lincoln, Montana cabin

Before becoming the infamous Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski was considered to be a mathematical prodigy. After he was accepted to Harvard University at the tender age of 16, Kaczynski went on to earn his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and become an associate professor in mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Then, after two years of teaching, Kaczynski left the university and moved to the woods of Lincoln, Montana. It was there that Kaczynski transformed from a mathematical genius into the madman that was the Unabomber. For nearly twenty years, Kaczynski sent homemade explosives to members of the academic communities and airline services, seriously injuring twenty-three people and killing three. His beliefs were similar to those of Savage and Morton, but considerably more extreme: that technological advancements were taking the human race to a place that it was never intended to go and that the continuation of such progress would lead to the destruction of humanity. The difference between Kaczynski and the more passive Neo-Luddites, according to one of Kaczynski’s many biographers, Alston Chase, was Kaczynski’s extremist nature, which caused him to be “more serious about ideas and more ready to use violence” (Chase, 32). Chase also compares Kaczynski’s beliefs to those of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two young men involved in the Columbine High School shooting, and Osama bin Laden, stating that these four men “feel threatened by civilization. They despise the contemporary nation-state, which they see as a big, repressive and unresponsive to the needs of people. In response, they would destroy everything” (368). This chilling comparison emphasizes how far Kaczynski was willing to go in an attempt to have his ideas made legitimate in a time in which technology was becoming increasingly prevalent. 

Possibly the most interesting aspect of Chase’s biographical work, Harvard and the Unabomber, is his concentration on Kaczynski’s time at Harvard University. The author brings a particularly interesting perspective to the life and time of the Unabomber because of the many similarities between the two men. Both attended Harvard within a decade of each other, went on to earn their Ph.D.s in their respective areas, became professors at prestigious universities, and eventually moved away from their careers in academia in order to become closer to nature. Their time spent in the Midwestern United States wilderness is where their similarities end, however. Chase’s perspective adds yet another layer to the complexity of the Unabomber. He writes, “[i]t was at Harvard that Kaczynski first encountered the ideas about the evils of technology...It was at Harvard that he began to develop these ideas into his ideology of a revolution (18). Chase’s focus on Kaczynski’s education as a reason to his eventual madness is given greater validity because of the similarities between the two men. Chase appears to, almost, blame Kaczynski’s consistent exposure to higher education caused him to gain an “arrogant tendency to put ideas above common humanity” and to “commit hubris, the sin of intellectual pride...[which] seduces them into believing that they have the right to decide what is best for others” (369). The education that Kaczynski received at Harvard, it seems, may have had some impact as to the person that he ended up becoming in the future. The information that Chase presents relates back to magazine editor Scott Savage’s quotation regarding over-indulgence in our modern world, particularly in education. It would appear from his biography of Kaczynski that Chase may be in agreement with Savage, in that “extravagant educations” (Fox, 333) may allow for negative character traits, such as the extremism of Kaczynski, to emerge. One may predict, but never know for sure, that Kaczynski may not have “transformed” into the Unabomber had it not been for his constant exposure to higher education. 

Earth First! is a contemporary environmentalist group with similar ideologies to those of Kaczynski, but the movement takes a slightly different approach. The radical group was created in the 1980s and proudly holds a slogan which demonstrates their extremist stance; “No compromise in defense of Mother Earth”. The Earth First! website states that they “believe in using all the tools in the tool box, ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkeywrenching” (http://earthfirst.org), but the movement is much more than that. The group has been known for actions ranging from tire slashing and road blocking to drilling spikes into trees in forests in order to prevent chainsaws from cutting them down (Sale, 248). According to one Earth First!er, these actions were done for the purpose of “dismantling...the present industrial system”, as well as throwing “‘a monkey wrench’ into the industrial machine” (249). 

Earth First!, as a self-proclaimed radical group, has gained significant media attention in the thirty years that the group has been a part of the Neo-Luddite movement. They are one of many groups that Robert Atkinson, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, believes is cause for increasing attention and concern to Neo-Luddism. He writes, “[w]hat is especially troubling is that in contrast to the past, when Luddites were often consigned to the fringes of political debate, today they enjoy widespread legitimacy” (Atkinson, 48). The increased organization among Luddite groups is also a concern of Atkinson’s, as well as “how seriously they are taken by the media and how effectively they use the political system to advance their agendas” (48). As a non-Luddite, it is understandable that the increased attention to Neo-Luddites is somewhat intimidating to Atkinson, whose very viewpoints and beliefs are most likely being questioned by the growing movement. 

Similar viewpoints were expressed by Professor Joseph Harris of Columbia University, in his article “Computer Luddism”. Written in 1984, the article provides the reader with an almost prophetic warning on how anti-technological feelings could develop as technology became more and more prevalent. Harris criticizes the original Luddites, claiming that their movement failed because the men focused on the machine as the problem, when it was actually the emerging system which was causing the workers to become increasingly insignificant. Harris writes:

  We cannot ignore the computer. But to focus on it as a technology will be to repeat the 

failure of the Luddites. It is the computer as a metaphor - of our culture, of our notions, of 

mind - that demands our study and criticism. The computer is an artifact of our Information 

Society; its importance lies in what it reveals of society. Put simply, we need to learn not

what the computer can do but what it means - what values it stands for, whose interests it 

represents. Only then can we avoid a computer luddism. (Harris, 59-60).

It appears that Harris may be slightly critical of how Neo-Luddist viewpoints have developed since his writing was published. Through research, it has become clear that most people have developed Neo-Luddite ideals when focusing in on specific technologies and not viewing the system and society as a whole. Chellis Glendinning, for example, and her book, When Technology Wounds, focuses solely on the human consequences that have been paid through technological progress, including negative effects that have been produced from weed killer and artificial sweeteners. Glendinning is biased, however, against such technological progress, as she herself suffered an illness due to an intro-uterine contraceptive device. Perhaps Neo-Luddites must begin to focus on the psychology behind human decision-making, rather than criticizing the system that they believe “forces” us to make such decisions. 

Harris’ argument also brings a different view of what the computer “means” to mind. Because access to the computer has become increasingly open as technological advancements have been made, many have viewed the computer as a metaphor for an undiscovered and entirely open frontier that all will have access to. However, it is clear that not all do have equal access to the computer and its capabilities. Typically, male Westerners have dominated the computer and technological industries, which leaves a majority of the world out of the picture. The metaphor for computer has, therefore, developed into one of exclusion, a metaphor for something that one can only when reaching a certain status, something similar to being accepted into an exclusive club. 

Neo-Luddism has been a movement that has been developing for nearly two centuries and is still continuing to grow, both in size and in ideologies. The range of viewpoints within the Neo-Luddite movement is overwhelmingly broad and continues to grow, just as our technological world continues to progress. This large range makes the movement difficult to define, which is a probable reason as to why the movement is hard for many to understand. However, I believe that it is safe to say that as long as there continues to be technological innovation, there will be a continuous movement against it, which will fall under the Neo-Luddite umbrella. 

Works Cited

Atkinson, Robert. “The Luddites Are Coming!.” CIO 20.1 (2006): 48-50. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Bauerlein, Monika. “The Luddites Are Back.” Utne Reader Mar.-Apr. 1996. Utne Reader. 1 Mar. 1996. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. http://tinyurl.com/Bauerleinarticle.

Chase, Alston. Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2003. Print. 

Earth First! Worldwide. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. http://earthfirst.org.

Fox, Nichols. Against the Machine: the Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Washington, DC: Island/Shearwater, 2002. Print.

Glendinning, Chellis. When Technology Wounds: the Human Consequences of Progress. New York: Morrow, 1990. Print. 

Harris, Joseph. “Computer Luddism.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 41.1 (1984): 56-60. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Kaczynski, Ted. “The Unabomber Manifesto.” The New York Times. 19 Sept. 1995. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. 

Kunstler, James H. James Howard Kunstler. 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2011 http://kunstler.com/index.php.

Rourke, Matt. Amish School Shooting. 2006. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. 

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995. Print. 

Thompson, Elaine. Unabomber. 1996. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. 

Digital Story Narrative - Kaczynski

Ted Kaczynski was, at one point, considered to be a mathematical prodigy and potential genius in the field. He enrolled in Harvard University at the tender age of sixteen and, after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, went on to teach mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. But this young, intelligent professor was not satisfied with his potential-filled life and, after only two years at Berkeley, moved to a log cabin in Lincoln, Montana and became the Unabomber. 

For nearly two decades, Kaczynski terrorized members of the academic and airline communities with homemade explosives. Finally, after seriously injuring twenty-three people and injuring three, the Unabomber was caught in Montana and has been in prison ever since. 

But Kaczynski was more than your average terrorist. He was a Neo-Luddite, one of the more radical ones to say the least. Neo-Luddism is a belief system which found its basis in the original Luddites, English factory workers led by Ned Ludd who were frustrated with the new system materializing as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Today, two centuries after the original Luddites destroyed factory machines, the Neo-Luddite movement is one which stands for environmentalism and against technological progress. 

Kaczynski’s infamous Unabomber’s Manifesto was sent to a number of major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post in September of 1995. In this pamphlet, which was more than 50 pages, Kaczynski criticized many of the, what he saw as, negative aspects of contemporary society. He wrote of increased stress and frustration found throughout humanity as a result of isolation from nature, rapid social change, and breakdown of communities. Kaczynski believed that, as a result of technological innovation, society had developed widespread feelings of “low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism”. Kaczynski’s intense belief system and high intellect combined to form the Unabomber. 

It is difficult for me to imagine how someone could be filled with such hatred towards others’ beliefs that they would be willing to kill for it. There is a big part of me which wonders what Kaczynski’s thought process was before, during, and after his time as the Unabomber. There is also a part of me which is frightened by the psychology of such a terrorist. But my biggest fear is that more Ted Kaczynskis will emerge as we continue to progress as a technological society. While it will be difficult to hinder the advancements that are being made in the fields of technology, it will be equally difficult to hinder the resistances to such innovations. The only hope that we have for the future of these resistances is that they will be peaceful and passive and nothing at all like that of the Unabomber. 

Art - What is the Point?

Because I live in New York, my mother took any and every opportunity to take my younger brother and I to the many museums in the city. From the Met to the MoMA and everything in between, my brother, who is three years younger than me and was not interested in art in the least, and I were constantly being exposed to culture. I always enjoyed visiting the museums and, to this day, still travel into the city a few times a years to visit the museums.

Metropolitan Museum of Art

I suppose that my life-long exposure to art was the reason that M.T. Anderson's Feed shocked me so much, especially a quotation from the point of view of the main character, Titus.

After being hacked by a man while visiting the moon (just a casual way to spend spring break...), Titus and his group of friends are disconnected from the rest of the "feed" network. Titus spends his days in the hospital doing nothing but staring at a painting of a boat, which causes him to think

"I couldn't figure out even the littlest reason to paint a picture like that."

My favorite work of art at the Met...
will its appeal one day be lost?

I was quite taken aback by Titus' comment, which got me thinking about the "purpose" of art. I think that one of the many beauties of art is that there is no one tangible point to it. Art is the expression of one's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and experiences. Art allows the viewer to interpret it in any way. I believe that openness and abstractness of art makes it beautiful. It is also one of the few things that has lasted in our society for centuries, an accomplishment that not many parts of culture can claim.

I fear that there are too many people in today's technological world who feel the same that Titus does. In this fast-paced progressive world, most people, at least people my age, do not take the time to stop and look at a work of art for a little bit and try to put themselves in the artist's shoes. The concept of art is truly a beautiful thing, and more people should stop and take the time to appreciate it, before we all begin to think the same way that Titus does.

Project 3 Draft - Neo-Luddites on the Loose!

For as long as there has been innovation and progress, there has been resistance to such advancements. Whether ideological, religious or personal, the reasons behind these oppositions have led to a large spectrum of behaviors and actions which have had varying degrees of significance on society. One such group of resistors has been present since the first Industrial Revolution began in England nearly two centuries ago; the Luddites. Led by Ned Ludd, an English weaver who lived at the time of the First Industrial Revolution, the original Luddites broke the factory machinery that they believed were the reason that they were becoming insignificant in their place of work. The Luddites’ actions may not have had the impact that they had desired, but their founding ideologies have lasted until and have sparked a new group of opposers; the Neo-Luddites. 

It is more difficult to define Neo-Luddism, when it started, and who the leader of the movement is. These difficulties stem from the broader goals and varying degrees of intensities found within the more contemporary groups of Neo-Luddites. As Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale describes, contemporary Neo-Luddism ranges from “narrow single-issue concerns to broad philosophical analysis, from aversion to resistance to sabotage, with much diversity in between” (Sale, 241). The wide spectrum of Neo-Luddites present in the contemporary world has led me to draw the conclusion that Neo-Luddism is much more prevalent than I had originally believed and should be taken much more seriously than most people do.

Personally, I find that the peaceful Neo-Luddites to be at the more interesting end of the spectrum of Neo-Luddism. These activists are almost more comparable to the Amish, as embodied in magazine editor Scott Savage. Described as “a plain Quaker who lives in an area of Ohio where there are many Amish” (Fox, 330), Savage and his family has given up all technologies that most would consider vital in today’s world; “their computer, their television, their radio, and even their car” (330). Instead, Savage uses a horse and buggy to travel, a technology that was considered to be innovative in the early 19th century. Savage has been quoted criticzing the modern world, stating that:

[w]e spend too much time at work. We earn, not to sustain ourselves alone, but to indulge 

ourselves in too much food, too many gizmos, extravagant educations for our children, and 

overly large houses in oft-times impersonal communities. Our fast paced lives separate use

from our families and our God (333).

Contradiction of our world and Savage's

While Savage is a man who is extremely passionate about his beliefs (even in his line of work, which, for most, is very reliant on technology nowadays, Savage does not use a computer and uses an old fashioned printing press instead), he would not use violence or aggression to have his beliefs known. Rather, he calls for a “‘nonresistant Luddism’ that would transform industrial society without confrontation” (Bauerlein). However, it remains unclear as to how Savage intends for such a nonresistant Luddism to take place in today’s technological age.

A figure similar to Savage is found in James Howard Kunstler, an author who is critical of the increased use of technologies in the United States, yet utilizes the very technology he is critical of to spread his ideas. On the biography portion of his website, one will find Kunstler’s Saratoga Springs home address, a P.O. Box, a telephone number, yet no e-mail address. One will, however, find the e-mail addresses of both Kunstler’s literary and lecture agents. At first, one may find it strange that a Neo-Luddite would advertise his anti-technological ideas while using a technology which he is supposedly against. Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale explains that some of his fellow Luddites, such as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth quarterly, are inclined “toward the view that technology is inherently evil” but will disseminate “this view via e-mail, computer, and laser printer” (Sale 256). It appears that some Neo-Luddites, such as Kunstler and Davis, have come to the realization that it would be impossible in today’s technological world to set their ideas forth without using the very thing that they are against. This contradiction of beliefs and actions is one which is extremely present in the world of Neo-Luddism and will continue to be until either one world is destroyed or the two can learn to live harmoniously. 

Nichols Fox’s in-depth investigation into Neo-Luddism in the 21st century brought him to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean where the original Luddist movement began; England. According to Fox, there are many Neo-Luddists who are also pacifists in the nation where violent resistance to technology was born. One of the most striking nonviolent Neo-Luddites with whom Fox came into contact with was Richard Morton, a cobbler who, like Savage, is passionate about the negative aspects of technology and violence. Fox writes:

His biggest concern is the loss of skills that technology has allowed. Machine tools have done 

away with craftsmanship. Calculators leave children unable to do math. Literacy is declining

as more information comes in a visual format. ‘Technology is used for laziness, not for raising standards,’ [Morton] says. He could never be violent against technology, however. ‘You’ve got 

to look at your own situation and decide what’s best for you. It’s about living in harmony. It’s

about finding the right livelihood (Fox, 347). 

The tranquility and understanding that oozes from Morton’s words is particularly striking. The reader gains the impression that Morton is aware that much of the rest of the world is extremely reliant on the technologies that he rejects. He seems to have accepted that he cannot change how others view innovation and progress, and appears to be perfectly content with his place as a minority. 

Morton’s openness to others’ viewpoints on technology is amicable, and a stark contrast to many Neo-Luddites on the aggressive end of the anti-technology spectrum. Those who are more extreme and violent are often highlighted by the media and give the Neo-Luddite movement a bad name. Two of the most famous violent Neo-Luddites of the 20th century are Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, and certain members of the Earth First! movement. 

Kaczynski's Lincoln, Montana cabin

Before becoming the infamous Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski was considered to be a mathematical prodigy. After being accepted to Harvard University at the tender age of 16, Kaczynski went on to earn his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan and become an associate professor in mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley. Then, after two years of teaching, Kaczynski left the university and moved to the woods of Lincoln, Montana. It was there that Kaczynski transformed from a mathematical genius into the madman that was the Unabomber. For nearly twenty years, Kaczynski sent homemade explosives to members of the academic communities and airline services, seriously injuring twenty-three people and killing three. His beliefs were similar to those of Savage and Morton, but considerably more extreme; that technological advancements were taking the human race to a place that it was never intended to go and that the continuation of such progress would lead to the destruction of humanity. The difference between Kaczynski and the more passive Neo-Luddites, according to one of Kaczynski’s many biographers, Alston Chase, was his extremist nature, which caused him to be “more serious about ideas and more ready to use violence” (Chase, 32). Chase also compares Kaczynski’s beliefs to those of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two young men involved in the Columbine High School shooting, and Osama bin Laden, stating that these four men “feel threatened by civilization. They despise the contemporary nation-state, which they see as a big, repressive and unresponsive to the needs of people. In response, they would destroy everything” (368). This chilling comparison emphasizes how far Kaczynski was willing to go in an attempt to have his ideas made legitimate in a time in which technology was becoming increasingly prevalent. 

Possibly the most interesting aspect of Chase’s biographical work, Harvard and the Unabomber, is his concentration on Kaczynski’s time at Harvard University. The author brings a particularly interesting perspective to the life and time of the Unabomber because of the many similarities between the two men. Both attended Harvard within a decade of each other, went on to earn their Ph.D.s in their respective areas, became professors at prestigious universities, and eventually moved away from their careers in academia in order to become closer to nature. Their time spent in Midwestern United States wilderness is where their similarities end, however. Chase’s perspective adds yet another layer to the complexity of the Unabomber. He writes:

        It was at Harvard that Kaczynski first encountered the ideas about the evils of technology 

that would provide justification for and a focus to an anger he had felt since junior high school. 

It was at Harvard that he began to develop these ideas into his ideology of revolution. It was at 

Harvard that Kaczynski began to have fantasies of revenge, began to dream of escaping to the 

wilderness. And it was at Harvard that he fixed all dualistic ideas of good and evil, and on a 

mathematical cognitive style that led him to think he could find absolute truth through the 

application of his own reason (18-19).

Chase’s focus on Kaczynski’s education as a reason to his eventual madness is given greater validity because of the similarities between the two men. Chase appears to, almost, blame Kaczynski’s consistent exposure to higher education caused him to gain an “arrogant tendency to put ideas above common humanity” and to “commit hubris, the sin of intellectual pride...[which] seduces them into believing that they have the right to decide what is best for others” (369). The education that Kaczynski received at Harvard, it seems, may have had some impact as to the person that he ended up becoming in the future. 

Earth First! is a contemporary environmentalist group with similar ideologies to those of Kaczynski, but takes a slightly different approach. The radical group was created in the 1980s and proudly holds a slogan which demonstrates their extremist stance; “No compromise in defense of Mother Earth”. The Earth First! website states that they “believe in using all the tools in the tool box, ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkeywrenching” (http://earthfirst.org), but the movement is much more than that. The group has been known for actions ranging from tire slashing and road blocking to drilling spikes into trees in forests in order to prevent chainsaws from cutting them down (Sale, 248). According to one Earth First!er, these actions were done for the purpose of “dismantling...the present industrial system”, as well as throwing “‘a monkey wrench’ into the industrial machine” (249). 

Earth First!, as a self-proclaimed radical group, has gained significant media attention in the thirty years that the group has been a part of the Neo-Luddite movement. They are one of many groups that Robert Atkinson, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, believes is cause for increasing attention and concern to Neo-Luddism. He writes, “[w]hat is especially troubling is that in contrast to the past, when Luddites were often consigned to the fringes of political debate, today they enjoy widespread legitimacy” (Atkinson, 48). The increased organization among Luddite groups is also a concern of Atkinson’s, as well as “how seriously they are taken by the media and how effectively they use the political system to advance their agendas” (48). As a non-Luddite, it is understandable that the increased attention to Neo-Luddites is somewhat intimidating to Atkinson, whose very viewpoints and beliefs are most likely being questioned by the growing movement. 

Similar viewpoints were expressed by Professor Joseph Harris of Columbia University, in his article “Computer Luddism”. Written in 1984, the article provides the reader with an almost prophetic warning on how anti-technological feelings could develop as technology became more and more prevalent. Harris criticizes the original Luddites, claiming that their movement failed because the men focused on the machine as the problem, when it was actually the emerging system which was causing the workers to become increasingly insignificant. Harris writes:

  We cannot ignore the computer. But to focus on it as a technology will be to repeat the 

failure of the Luddites. It is the computer as a metaphor - of our culture, of our notions, of 

mind - that demands our study and criticism. The computer is an artifact of our Information 

Society; its importance lies in what it reveals of society. Put simply, we need to learn not

what the computer can do but what it means - what values it stands for, whose interests it 

represents. Only then can we avoid a computer luddism. (Harris, 59-60).

It appears that Harris may be slightly critical of how Neo-Luddist viewpoints have developed since his writing was published. Through research, it has become clear that most people have developed Neo-Luddite ideals when focusing in on specific technologies and not viewing the system and society as a whole. Chellis Glendinning, for example, and her book, When Technology Wounds, focuses solely on the human consequences that have been paid through technological progress, including negative effects that have been produced from weed killer and artificial sweeteners. Glendinning is biased, however, against such technological progress, as she herself suffered an illness due to an intro-uterine contraceptive device. Perhaps Neo-Luddites must begin to focus ton the psychology behind human decision-making, rather than criticizing the society that they believe “forces” us to make such decisions. 

Having no knowledge on the history or prevalence of Luddites or Neo-Luddites, researching such a topic was an eye-opening experience. It is my belief, as a result of my research, that the varying degrees of Neo-Luddism require more attention rather than the sole focus on the anarchist and aggressive end of the spectrum. 

Works Cited

Atkinson, Robert. “The Luddites Are Coming!.” CIO 20.1 (2006): 48-50. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Bauerlein, Monika. “The Luddites Are Back.” Utne Reader Mar.-Apr. 1996. Utne Reader. 1 Mar. 1996. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. http://tinyurl.com/Bauerleinarticle.

Chase, Alston. Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2003. Print. 

Earth First! Worldwide. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. http://earthfirst.org.

Fox, Nichols. Against the Machine: the Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Washington, DC: Island/Shearwater, 2002. Print.

Glendinning, Chellis. When Technology Wounds: the Human Consequences of Progress. New York: Morrow, 1990. Print. 

Harris, Joseph. “Computer Luddism.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 41.1 (1984): 56-60. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Kaczynski, Ted. “The Unabomber Manifesto.” The New York Times. 19 Sept. 1995. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. 

Kunstler, James H. James Howard Kunstler. 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 Mar. 2011 http://kunstler.com/index.php.

Rourke, Matt. Amish School Shooting. 2006. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. 

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1995. Print. 

Thompson, Elaine. Unabomber. 1996. Photograph. AP Images. Web. 27 Mar. 2011.