Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 190 posts

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#121

Post by flexie »

armitron wrote: post #108
jmull wrote: post #105

Very interesting article. But I think it's a mistake to believe the ideas he was exposed to as an undergraduate lead to him becoming the unabomber. In his manifesto he works through a lot of these ideas and shows us the world view he's developed around them, but the impetus for it all -- it seems clear to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society. It causes him great pain and distress a…

Rather than dismissing him in such a crude manner, why don't you take the time to read and comprehend what he has written - and, assuming you find any - try to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Kaczynski was a genius, among other things, and his views deserve better than armchair dismissal and handwaving.

Why would anyone try to understand the ramblings of a twisted person who murdered 3 and maimed many more?

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#122

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Iv wrote: post #31
justboxing wrote: post #16

> The "Bad" Parts of Technology Cannot Be Separated from the "Good" Parts. [1] I thought this was one of the most prophetic statement from his Technology Manifesto. Written in 1995, still true today. Take any technology, and you'll see it has been used for doing "good" things as well as "evil" things, and it's impossible for anyone to separate the two and enforce usage of only the "good" parts. Example: Drones. Used…

> You cannot invent drones and tell people it should only be used for good things, not bad things. Sure you can. This is the purpose of laws and law enforcement. Try to fly a drone with a knife to stab people and people will destroy it and arrest you. Internationally we have a lack of laws and a lack of enforcement, therefore we had only limited success at preventing nuclear proliferation or chemical/bio weapons uses…

>they do have a valid excuse for that handgun on the ISS

The kind of cosmonauts that can fight a bear hand to hand don't physically fit in the Soyuz capsule.

It's a shame it would be a NFA headache to make but it would be really cool to have a replica of one of these guns for hunting. Integrate it with an over/under 12ga, full power rifle on one side, full power handgun on the other and you've got a load for basically anything you could run across. The block of steel you've have to start with would be $$$ though.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#123

Post by Geekette »

"Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy?"

I've always marveled at people's insistence on not believing that others can cultivate and act on bad/evil impulses without necessarily being insane. That insistence also pushes a simplistic view of mental illness: suffering from any of the numerous conditions that fall under it doesn't automatically equate to loss of awareness of self/propriety, societal mores, etc. And even in acute cases involving reduced consciousness/self-awareness, it doesn't mean that it occurs 24-7 or crucially, during the planning and execution of a crime.

I was also struck by the noted increase in certain types of “single-issue” terrorism:

"Last year the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, told Congress, “The most recognizable single issue terrorists at the present time are those involved in the violent animal rights, anti-abortion, and environmental protection movements. … the potential for destruction has increased as terrorists have turned toward large improvised explosive devices to inflict maximum damage.”

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#124

Post by losteverything »

jmull wrote: post #105

Very interesting article. But I think it's a mistake to believe the ideas he was exposed to as an undergraduate lead to him becoming the unabomber. In his manifesto he works through a lot of these ideas and shows us the world view he's developed around them, but the impetus for it all -- it seems clear to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society. It causes him great pain and distress a…

it seems clear to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society.

This.

If he were free today would he reddit or 4chan or something else?

Just a smart killing nut who took the effort that is now not required because of social sites

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#125

Post by damnfine »

flexie wrote: post #121
armitron wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than dismissing him in such a crude manner, why don't you take the time to read and comprehend what he has written - and, assuming you find any - try to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Kaczynski was a genius, among other things, and his views deserve better than armchair dismissal and handwaving.

Why would anyone try to understand the ramblings of a twisted person who murdered 3 and maimed many more?

You judge the material not the source.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#126

Post by plorg »

justboxing wrote: post #16

> The "Bad" Parts of Technology Cannot Be Separated from the "Good" Parts. [1] I thought this was one of the most prophetic statement from his Technology Manifesto. Written in 1995, still true today. Take any technology, and you'll see it has been used for doing "good" things as well as "evil" things, and it's impossible for anyone to separate the two and enforce usage of only the "good" parts. Example: Drones. Used…

My undergraduate engineering education was at a fairly religious school, and the last semester of the program involved a course called "technology and society". The material was largely from the typical secular sources, including Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.

The particular perspective shared by the engineering department, and which I find helpful in thinking about this, comes from the Dutch religious philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd. He broke down human experience and society into a hierarchy of maybe 15 so-called "spheres", each less abstract than the one nested below, and each influencing the one above. In this conceptualization the physical realities of the universe affect, for example, what we can invent. But we make choices in making inventions, and those choices affect how our inventions are used, and those uses affect society and culture.

This thought structure doesn't perfectly capture the interactions of law and society on how objects are used, but it does seem good job of explaining the role of a technologist in shaping society. Sure, we can't prevent people from using our inventions for ill. But we can build them in ways that promote positive uses.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#127

Post by damnfine »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #98
Houshalter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment implies people who voted the other way were more informed, which I really doubt. This happens every election. Someone does a survey and finds out the majority of voters know nothing about the candidates or issues. The majority of people don't even know who their representatives are. Democracy is terrible.

That wasn't what I was trying to imply at all. My point was - maybe we should listen to the experts instead of self-serving politicians.

But which 'experts'? If the public doesnt already know, anyone well spoken can be propped up as an 'expert' for either side. With the lack of critical media, the public are left to decide with woefully incomplete information, and an untrue sense of 'what the experts think'. I honestly dont see how to solve it as everyone will just look back to 'older trusted experts' even more entrenched in the power for power system.

Edit: runon and typo

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#128

Post by wu-ikkyu »

Geekette wrote: post #123

"Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy?" I've always marveled at people's insistence on not believing that others can cultivate and act on bad/evil impulses without necessarily being insane. That insistence also pushes a simplistic view of mental illness: suffering from any of the numerous conditions that fall under it doesn't automatically equate to loss of awareness of self/propri…

Labeling an adversary as "insane" or "crazy" is a convenient and commonly used way to shut down any discussion or inquiry into the grievances of that person, lest they reveal an underlying problem which we don't want to address.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#129

Post by [deleted] »

flexie wrote: post #121
armitron wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than dismissing him in such a crude manner, why don't you take the time to read and comprehend what he has written - and, assuming you find any - try to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Kaczynski was a genius, among other things, and his views deserve better than armchair dismissal and handwaving.

Why would anyone try to understand the ramblings of a twisted person who murdered 3 and maimed many more?

[deleted]

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#130

Post by EternalData »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #128
Geekette wrote: post #123

"Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy?" I've always marveled at people's insistence on not believing that others can cultivate and act on bad/evil impulses without necessarily being insane. That insistence also pushes a simplistic view of mental illness: suffering from any of the numerous conditions that fall under it doesn't automatically equate to loss of awareness of self/propri…

Labeling an adversary as "insane" or "crazy" is a convenient and commonly used way to shut down any discussion or inquiry into the grievances of that person, lest they reveal an underlying problem which we don't want to address.

"Crazy" is unaddressable. It's a solution that answers any questions that might arise, including questions we might ask of ourselves.

The interesting split is to see when something is called "ideologically" driven versus something merely painted as the act of a "crazed" person.

Post reply on HN