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

131–140 of 190 posts

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

#131

Post by wu-ikkyu »

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…

>> The "Bad" Parts of Technology Cannot Be Separated from the "Good" Parts.

This is the concept of Yin and Yang. Interestingly enough, this concept is what inspired Leibniz to invent binary arithmetic, which so much of the world's technology runs on.

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

#132

Post by wu-ikkyu »

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 does seem reasonable to wonder whether severe psychological experiments might have pushed a mind on the edge over a precipice, though

His family members and acquaintances considered him to be an undiagnosed autist, so I would expect the psyops conducted against him would be especially damaging.

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

#133

Post by pvg »

titzer wrote: post #97
pvg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? You're one of few people who think that. The 'manifesto' hits the crazy right off the bat and sticks to it for 35k words. "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism [...] When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like […

> We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. So he made a (controversial) argument about leftists which actually fits in with his broader point that humans these days are not able to self actualize and therefore suffer from repressed feelings. IMO the statement he made is significa…

I think you are conflating 'has some sort of internal logic' with 'sane'. Of course you can dig around the thing and find some idea that appeals or convince yourself of its structural soundness. But many of the premises are still nuts and the quality and style of writing poor, to put it rather charitably. He starts by pinning the source of world 'craziness' on 'leftists', a broad category that appears to include 'animal activists' and people who find words like 'chick' and 'negro' derogatory and with a helpful forward reference to some 250 odd numbered paragraphs ahead. The whole thing is, again, 35k words. Consider, for comparison, the following famous pieces of political writing:

The Communist Manifesto

Thomas Paine's Common Sense

Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal

Each of these is shorter than 35k words. In fact, they're shorter than 35k words taken together.

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

#134

Post by bllguo »

dgut wrote: post #101
bjl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a lot of hubris (all too common in the software engineering community) to suggest that Marx and Hegel, two of the most influential philosophers of all time, produced nothing of meaning.

Let's narrow things down. What did Hegel produce of meaning? Can you answer that question concretely without the gaseous word bending that is typical of Hegelians?

I find it odd that you're the one making the absurd, unpopular claim, yet the onus of proof and concrete example is on others.

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

#135

Post by TorKlingberg »

damnfine wrote: post #125
flexie wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is lots of writing out there, more than you could ever read. You would never have heard of Kaczynski if not for his murders, so if you read his writing it is only because of his murders. Should you?

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

#136

Post by m777z »

altotrees wrote: post #3

His story is tragic. Tragic in that he was seemingly so smart even he couldn't handle it. Tragic in that people lost their lives. Tragic in the fact that we lost a mind like his and the advancements he could've brought to mathematics potentially. Sad in that he was so impacted by MK ultra. It's a truly terrible, yet captivating story. His neo-Luddism has always been of interest to me also, as one of my classes read h…

Do you happen to have a good source on this experiment being part of MK Ultra? As far as I can tell this article doesn't mention MK Ultra at all, and I can't seem to find much else that explicitly says this experiment was part of MK Ultra.

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

#137

Post by gerbilly »

Some people put too much faith in reason.

When I read his manifesto it felt to me like it was logically airtight. If you agree with his premises, I think it's difficult to reject his conclusions using reason.

But of course we have much more than reason to rely on when making decisions, and it's easy to reject his conclusions if you use your whole mind, some might say your heart.

I think it's tragic that people, both individually and at the social level, are so good at reasoning ourselves into situations that we just can't live with.

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

#138

Post by Geekette »

EternalData wrote: post #130
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Indeed. It's interesting to see how people's framing of a topic sometimes communicates more than an answer to direct questioning could. This calls to mind another split where wealth is the cushion: When the poor are deemed crazy but the rich merely eccentric for perpetuating similar, negatively perceived actions.

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

#139

Post by Iv »

baursak wrote: post #100
Iv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You seem to imply that the government and laws cannot be evil and enforce evil policies.

Indeed. Not in a sane, functioning democracy guided by en educated electorate.

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

#140

Post by titzer »

pvg wrote: post #133
titzer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism. So he made a (controversial) argument about leftists which actually fits in with his broader point that humans these days are not able to self actualize and therefore suffer from repressed feelings. IMO the statement he made is significa…

I think you are conflating 'has some sort of internal logic' with 'sane'. Of course you can dig around the thing and find some idea that appeals or convince yourself of its structural soundness. But many of the premises are still nuts and the quality and style of writing poor, to put it rather charitably. He starts by pinning the source of world 'craziness' on 'leftists', a broad category that appears to include 'ani…

> But many of the premises are still nuts and the quality and style of writing poor, to put it rather charitably.

See, this is the part of the dialog where if you simply point out which premises are "nuts" and then argue simply and objectively about them, then actual conversation happens (or is finished!).

Trying to shut down the whole thing down with the vague term "crazy" (something so obviously self-evident to be in need of no justification) is really a disservice to everyone.

I am not sure what point you are making with those other works. The Art of Computer Programming is three (3!) volumes. Is Don Knuth a nut? Euclid's Elements is also huge. Nuts?

Post reply on HN