“Industrial Society and its Future”: the writings of the Unabomber • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:31 AM UTC

ethanwillis wrote: post #74

shadowgovt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nice words, but a man who mails bombs to other people instead of just letting them exist apart from himself clearly hasn't achieved tranquility, regardless of what he would have other people believe.

Not to argue that it's valid to mail bombs as a result of ideology but this part is disingenuous. > instead of just letting them exist apart from himself From his vantage point they weren't letting him exist apart from themselves. "The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these r…

The tranquility he's describing would, I imagine, guide one to understand that you can't control other people's actions. And even if the wilderness around him was shrinking, he still had plenty of it.

A tranquility that kills people that harshes its buzz isn't tranquility.

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

#82

Post by skrebbel » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:32 AM UTC

Most western societies have some core values that, although often under pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech, bothsidesism, etc.

I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes.

Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the one by Anders Breivik is the only recent one that got attention because he killed an island full of young politicians. This bothers the shit out of me. How can media that pretend to hold high journalistic values do this?

Same of Kaczinsky. The moment he started blowing up buildings, he lost the right to be part of the debate in my opinion.

This is basically the media version of "we don't negotiate with terrorists / kidnappers / hostage takers / etc". In each individual case, it usually does make sense to negotiate. The reason states and organizations often take the position to not negotiate by policy, is because it encourages more terrorism, kidnappings and hostage situations.

As it stands, we're actively encouraging the use of violence to amplify an argument, and this blog post takes part in that. I have no doubts about the authors good intentions, but I'm flagging it nevertheless.

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

#83

Post by raxxorrax » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:33 AM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61

lucideer wrote: post #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.…

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a prod…

I don't think so. What would it matter if one or the other would be correct? I think this question is philosophical masturbation in most instances. I think you will find both on either side of the political isle and also that there isn't one fundamental position on anything that determines your camp.

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

#84

Post by crabmusket » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:33 AM UTC

valvar wrote: post #33

shmageggy wrote: post #22

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.

I've heard Walden cited in this context too?

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

#85

Post by PJDK » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:34 AM UTC

jonnypotty wrote: post #53

jamesdhutton wrote: post #12

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.

Perfect example of people thinking that the ideas they allow into their head will somehow affect the future of humanity. In a world lead by pr and marketing, we now see ourselves as extensions of this thought controlling manipulative system. It is socially responsible to evaluate your behaviour as something that will either encourage or discourage good behavior and thought in other people. I think it's an intellectua…

Not the OP - but to my mind this is missing the point.

It would be totally unfair to criticise a piece of anarcho primitivist writing by saying "I'm not reading this, this is what Ted Kaczynski believed".

But Kaczynski murdered people to get his ideas read - I don't want that to be a way that political ideas make it into the mainstream.

If the ideas are good enough they can stand on their own two feet - plenty of not unabombers have written similar stuff so why not have articles about them?

Also I feel like the majority of political systems discourage letter bombing as a marketing technique - it's not unique to capitalism.

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

#86

Post by nicolas_t » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:36 AM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61

lucideer wrote: post #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.…

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a prod…

The problem is that right and left is a bit of a strange spectrum, there are a lot of people on the right that vote for right wing policies not because of economic freedom but because they instead are deeply religious and want to enforce their religions on others...

So, I certainly wouldn't call the religious right as believing they are free and autonomous from society and their environment...

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

#87

Post by andrepd » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:37 AM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61

lucideer wrote: post #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.…

>He proposes that "leftists" have this belief in their own freedom, but that this freedom is a delusion. Interesting, because my pet theory is that what determines if people lean left or right is their belief in their own free will. Those that truly believe they are completely free and autonomus from society and their environment will naturally favor right wing policies, but those that believe they are largely a prod…

Doesn't really matter what you "believe" if it's demonstrably true that you're shaped by your environment.

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

#88

Post by LatteLazy » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:37 AM UTC

Plenty of people have pointed out that changes to society create problems and even leave us worse off in terms of happiness or health or freedom etc. I'd recommend Jared Diamond on agriculture for a shorter, better written, non homicidal alternative:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mist...

But here is thing: you don't get to decide. You're whole society doesn't get to decide. You have to do what guarantees your survival, not your happiness/freedom/comfort/honour etc.

If you reject technology or agriculture or weapons, you may well be happier for a while. Then you're technological/agricultural/militaristic neighbours will come over and wipe you out.

American Indians were famously happier, healthier, freer people than European settlers. Now they're mostly gone. It's not nice, but it's reality.

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

#89

Post by kryogen1c » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:38 AM UTC

throwawaygh wrote: post #59

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just proved the comment you're replying to.

Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. Engaging with the text in a way that doesn't admit that fact would be like reading the Declaration of Independence as if it were a piece of Science Fiction, or reading a scientific article as if it were a love letter. You can of course proceed in that way, but it'll result in a fundamentally erroneous understanding of the meani…

> Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger.

this isnt an argument. either the text is sound or it isnt; either the arguments are presented clearly from first principles with evidence or theyre not. the intent or state of the writer is irrevelant.

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

#90

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 11:38 AM UTC

skrebbel wrote: post #82

Most western societies have some core values that, although often under pressure, most people generally subscribe to. Eg freedom of speech, bothsidesism, etc. I wish we could add one to the list: if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said, no matter how much or how little sense it makes. Like, there's millions of weird extreme right manifestos out there, but the one by Anders Breivik is the only recent…

> if you commit violent acts, we will ignore what you said

Does that also apply to the police and military?