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

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

roelpeters.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 197 posts

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

#91

Post by Fricken »

Barrin92 wrote: post #73
daenz wrote: 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.

Because it's not always appropriate to separate the ideas from the person. When reading the book it is quite evident that it's not only some sort of abstract philosophical work, but more of a personal feud between Ted Kaczynski and society, which is of course also reflected in his actions. It's not closed-mindedness to treat the word of a terrorist critically, that is to say keep in mind what the author of the book i…

I haven't read the manifesto, just the article, but none of the major ideas or themes presented in it originate with the unabomber. I've read bits and pieces of these ideas from Buddhism, Bertrand Russel, Marshall McLuhan and Jared Diamond, among others.

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

#92

Post by oldsklgdfth »

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.…

"Those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles"

To me this reads like a decent description of groups like SJWs and anti-fa, which resort to violence and at time suppressing the rights of others to match the model of the world they have.

"The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."

I think this is roughly valid in the context of technology changes they way we live in unpredictable ways. A much better read of this is Technopoly by Neil Postman.

I tend to agree that the society critique parts read like an angry rant against society, that a structured critique. It's unfortunate these subjects don't get discussed openly (the manifesto opened a door to these topics), rather than getting them from Kaczinky.

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

#93

Post by bad-apple »

daenz wrote: post #20
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.

Do you think you are doing your part to discourage future murderers from publishing manifestos? It's hard for me to follow the logic of how what you describe works.

You seem to have it backwards. The goal is to discourage future manifesto-publishers from murdering.

Just as school shootings used to be a good way to get your face on TV, murder is a good way to market your manifesto. We can fix that.

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

#94

Post by Synaesthesia »

LatteLazy wrote: post #88

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 wh…

It’s up to us to make the society we want to. The US need fear no other country, it’s probably the most secure nation in history right now.

So they could be free to conduct any social experiment.

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

#95

Post by Synaesthesia »

cm2187 wrote: post #58

I am no fan of cancel culture / deplatforming people but I do make an exception for terrorists. I don’t think we should be promoting the manifesto of terrorists as it creates horrible incentives, and vindicates their action. I agree with the approach of obfuscating their names and not reporting on their manifesto. If you want to make a grand standing against science and technology, please find another source.

Why don’t you say what you disagree with and provide a criticism?

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

#96

Post by oldsklgdfth »

LatteLazy wrote: post #88

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 wh…

I have had this thought many times.

Unfortunately the necessity argument is what keeps defense research and spending high in the US and around the world. Because at the end of the day if we don't invent [next gen technology], some other country will and they will use it for evil.

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

#97

Post by Synaesthesia »

We can have a society in which people don’t need to work hard, and all our material needs are satisfied. That would be much preferable to the current one, in which much of the population lives precariously, stressfully and frustrated.

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

#98

Post by voxl »

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…

I agree with your sentiment but you're arguing to the wrong audience. This is the same place that, despite any real evidence, has a user base that aggressively defended the usage of hydroxychloroquine.

Perhaps it's a simple matter of Trump Cultism being able to infect any audience, but more likely I would bet it's an insidious anti-science. When you think so highly of yourself (as many HN posters do) as to ignore the recommendations of experts and insist that your pet theory is correct, you are also much more likely to entertain someone like the Unabomber. To even identify with him.

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

#99

Post by totalZero »

stared wrote: 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…

Here's the HN way of saying what I want to say:

The striking part of this passage, to me, is that Kaczynski deprived innocent people of the very tranquility that he valued and sought for himself. He sought his own form of peace despite causing generalized anxiety for millions of Americans, and suffering for those who lost loved ones or were themselves injured.

There could have been no peace or tranquility in that man's mind, because peace and tranquility are not consistent with actions like his. Violence, impulsivity, and narcissism are not peaceful and tranquil traits.

Here's the Reddit way of saying what I want to say:

  "i LiKe TraNqUiLiTy AnD BlOwInG PeOpLe Up"

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

#100

Post by dri_ft »

stared wrote: 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…

The lines on tranquility are great.

I will note that Ted Kaczynski was thought by at least one forensic psychiatrist[0] to have schizoid personality disorder[1], and that this seeking after tranquility is a very schizoid trait.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

[1] N.B. Not schizophrenia. The two are not really as alike as their names suggest: one is a psychosis, the other's a personality disorder. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at the time of his trial, but two prison psychiatrists later described this as 'ridiculous' and a 'political diagnosis'.

Post reply on HN