Anarchism and Technology

Some anarchists reject technology. Ted Kaczynski, who used the threat of violence to coerce newspapers into publishing his manifesto, is perhaps the most famous of the anti-technology anarchists. Although I am also an anarchist, I find Kaczynski's methods unethical and his arguments hollow. My view is that there's an unstoppable revolution underway, consisting of the total transformation of human society, driven by technological advancement. This revolution naturally arises from the imperative to adapt, multiplied by billions of people, each articulating their own adaptations with what technologies are accessible. From this perspective, anti-technology arguments make little sense.

In my own life, computers and web access have made it possible for me to work despite having a medical condition that renders traditional employment impossible. Throughout society there are others with their own limitations who are empowered by technology to more fully participate in the world around them. In these ways, our technological revolution is liberating. In other ways, it is confusing.

Having to learn new software every few years confuses me. So does the vast surveillance apparatus that spies on everything. And the computerization of household appliances. My technological confusion stems from a persistent sense that such things simply should not be. This doesn't warrant rejection of technology. Rather, it is a reminder that technology may seem unnatural because it does what nature alone cannot.

Some may fear that technological advancement will lead to job losses. My position is that the replacement of human workers with robots frees up human labor for use in more important areas. Market forces have yet to figure out what those more important areas are, leaving society with technological unemployment. Technological unemployment is not an argument against automation. It is an argument against the economic system.

There are a few aspects of our technological revolution that I find troubling. The first is engineered obsolescence, because it wastes resources for the sake of corporate profits and undermines critical systems within our society to the extent that these systems rely on products designed to break down after a short time. The second is the use of sophisticated technologies of persuasion to trick people into serving political and corporate agendas that they otherwise would not support, which undermines individual freedom directly. The third is the increasing difficulty of opting out of undesirable technological systems, such as online menus at restaurants and electronic payments at stores, because such systems require a person to have devices and accounts that they might not have for reasons of finance or personal choice.

These troubling aspects of our technological revolution have less to do with technology than with political and corporate choices inflicted on our population. Technology makes people more powerful. It is unsurprising that governments and companies attempt to leverage this increased power into more power still. Changes in voting or consumer habits will not change this organizational behavior. But the development and adoption of technological alternatives to these organizations has the potential to make this behavior much less relevant.