Live data from Hacker News

“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

roelpeters.be

31–40 of 197 posts

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#31
I think Ted gets the fundamentals a little bit off, and the entire work is unsound as a result. Society doesn't just magically become more repressive because of the need of industrial society to be more "organized". It becomes more repressive because of powerful people who find personal profit in organizing it in a repressive way.

The powerful have always been able to oppress the weak, and abandoning all technology to go anarcho-primitivist leaves the powerful better-resourced than ever, and leaves you scraping out a marginal living. Moreover, as technology continues to advance, the need for mindless conformity is further eroded. Mass production was pretty mind-numbing, but now we have robots to do the most mindless tasks, and we are getting more of them.

The solution to control and repression, now as ever, is to structure society so that ambition can counteract ambition, to enshrine the rights of the people in law, to jealously guard those rights, and to inculcate the next generation in their value. The US Constitution does an absolutely world-class phenomenal smashing good job of the first two, such that even as society has been doing a mediocre job at guarding them and teaching their value, we're still getting by, and improving.

If you'd like to fight control, in the abstract, don't bomb people: preserve the system that protects us through civic engagement, and work to build a culture that celebrates the robust defense of rights like free speech (including, critically, of unpopular people you don't like who are targeted by the mob or by the powerful) and other civil rights (criminal justice issues in particular).

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#32
post #17

The guy was a fruit cake and his manifesto is nonsense scapegoating, just because technology can create some problems does not mean thats the unibombers point, he didn't have one and his manifesto shows that.

I think it was a good idea to preface the blogpost with an explanation, but it is hard for me to continue after unsupported statements like "Theodore J. Kaczynski is an extremely intelligent yet wounded man." I guess some evidence may be included elsewhere in the post, but just dropping a sentence like that feels very similar to 4chan-like edginess.

read it and more importantly read jacques Ellul. It's impossible to form an opinion on TK when you haven't read Ellul.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#33

First, this post title is worded like clickbait. (edit: it has been updated) Second, can someone suggest alternative readings for those of us who don't want to give attention to work that was publicized via terrorism and murder?

Teddy K really is the best read. But you could always read the classic Silent Spring if you want something more mellow. The more adventurous could try Running on Emptiness by Zerzan who AFAIK isn't a terrorist.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a reductionist view one would take away when not reading his work and just watching or reading what others say about the man or from shallow good-guys-bad-guys narratives the Netflix "documentary" pushes. Even Bill Joy thought that the dangers of Tech were real. Kaczinsky just reacted differently. In fact he didn't just "react". he "acted" - which if you have read Jacques Ellul and agree with Ellul you know th…

I mean, you say im reductionist and then describe someone that based his life believes on a book, thats a fruit cake. He then decided to blow people up because they got too close with their fancy technology... a road, double fruit cake. What was his point beyond technology bad? The only thing you mention is that Jacques Ellul had the arguments and he was just a fruit cake, which was my argument.

Excuse me asking but what is a fruit cake when it comes to assessing a human and how does it pertain to assessing his book (however you judge it)?

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#35
I have to say I had the exact opposite reaction.

I was also intrigued by the depiction in the Manhunt series and read the manifesto as a result.

In the TV show, Kaczinky is portrayed as a highly intellectual, informed, educated individual, mentally thwarting his interviewer in their debate on morals and politics. After building up that expectation of Kaczinky's intellect, the manifesto is an enormous disappointment. It's filled with base broad assumptions, ignorant and unresearched assertions on "leftism" and in particular his treatise on "oversocialization" is so transparently a defensive lashing out at the elements of society that have not been personally accepting of him.

Throughout, his arguments are made as plain, implicit statements. Nothing is approached in an evidence-based manner and there are no attempts to contradict obvious counter-arguments. His "facts" are simply stated as self-evident.

Take e.g.

> it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.

This is centred around the idea of society imposing restrictions on our autonomy through socialization; we believe strongly in our own freedom. He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. A delusion that results from their own oversocialization. At no point does he explain how/why leftists are more oversocialized than non-lefists, or why he believes that he himself is not delusional in his sense of his own autonomy.

There are some central elements in there of value (his general focus on the importance of effort and autonomy in fulfillment I would agree with), but these can be found discussed more articulately in better writings without being padded with political/social nonsense.

Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#36
post #23

Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them, and that is sad. You can hate what a person did and still try to understand why they did it. That does not equate to support for them. It's this kind of closed-mindedness that is driving people apart all over the world.

Certainly as a case study in mental illness or domestic terrorism. But not -- as the author suggests -- with the goal of understanding his politics.

Kaczynski's psychopathy is -- on face and by itself -- a good reason for not spending my time on his writing. Or, at least, only spending that time in a very particular way.

Kaczynski's manifesto is the rambling rationalization of a madman. Reading it as anything else is fundamentally a misreading.

To put this in a perhaps slightly less divisive way: maybe the time cube does have 4 sides [1], but there's a near infinity of things to learn. So, unless I'm specifically seeking out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I'll stick to spending my time trying to understand people and ideas that aren't obviously unhinged. And if I do seek out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I am not going to engage with the text in a way that "separate ideas from the person who generates them". Because that would be a misreading.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#37
post #2

I was intrigued by "Industrial Society and its Future" by Ted Kaczynski after watching the "Manhunt" series on Netflix. As a techno-optimist it helped me put my feet on the ground. If you're like me, I can recommend the book. Not a fan of books? Read my blog post.

I urge anyone who reads Kaczinski to dive into Jacques Ellul. Kaczinky was heavily inspired by his writing. I studied Ellul for around 2 years and I can't say that it didn't effect my whole attitude on "Tech as a solution" for our problems. I certainly understood (although I don't condone) why Kaczinsky did what he did: The Technological Society: https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci... Propaga…

I guess not completely inspired by his writings:

> Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence."

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#38
post #17

The guy was a fruit cake and his manifesto is nonsense scapegoating, just because technology can create some problems does not mean thats the unibombers point, he didn't have one and his manifesto shows that.

I think it was a good idea to preface the blogpost with an explanation, but it is hard for me to continue after unsupported statements like "Theodore J. Kaczynski is an extremely intelligent yet wounded man." I guess some evidence may be included elsewhere in the post, but just dropping a sentence like that feels very similar to 4chan-like edginess.

What kind of support do you need? It's a simple statement. He was an off-the-charts genius, with a PhD in math, a university professor, his thesis is still cited. Clearly he's emotionally damaged. You don't have to agree with him or like him, and I'm certainly not endorsing him, but there's no denying he was intelligent.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#39

He murdered people to publicize his manifesto. I feel that if I were to read it, I would be encouraging others to kill to get their views known. So I won't be reading it, regardless of its merits.

He was one of the youngest professors ever at his University and was one who was experimented on by the CIA. There are some novelties here that exist other than him being a random school shooter.

Re: “Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber

#40
post #27

I was stuck by this passage from an interview ( https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-an-int... ): > In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility. Once you have enjoyed tranquility long enough, you acquire actually an aversion to the thought of any very strong pleasure—excessive pleasure would disrupt your tranquility. > Fi…

It's the classical "I feel this way so everybody should feel this way".

People have been seeking pleasure since they were living in a cave.

Boredom thing also sounds completely baseless. I still remember when I was bored as a child - it had nothing to do with anxiety, frustration or anything like that (I didn't have any). Children (and then adults) simply have drive to do something interesting/enjoyable (for quite clear evolutionary reasons). I could stay for a couple of hours just relaxing in a forest, but only because I'm not so used to that. If I had to do that every day then I would get bored.

There are people who are trying to "distract away" themselves from their problems, but that's far from general boredom.

Post reply on HN