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

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

#151

Post by skrebbel » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:44 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #90

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?

Eh? Are you implying that violent police offers are violent because they want people to read their "manifesto"?

And, in fact, yes. I think that if police officers or military wings blow stuff / people up, just to make a point, then we should ignore that point. But I don't think that's why they do it.

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

#152

Post by dangerface » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:04 PM 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…

> what determines if people lean left or right

What if people don't lean left or right but instead that there is only enough signal to noise in a group of 300 million people trying to make a decision to have a multiple choice answer of yes or no, more or less, yellow or green?

Under a system like that peoples natural tendency toward tribalism would cause them to group people under the two camps yellow or green, me and other. They might naturally assume that the other group just always vote other because they are the voters that vote other. The idea that it's actually a large group of people with diverse and changing opinions who vote of their own freewill rather than a loyalty to a colour is lost in the noise.

Thats my pet theory.

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

#153

Post by ethanwillis » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #148

ethanwillis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing my arguments with my personal belief on whether or not murder is acceptable. I'll just say fullstop it's not. Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been, yet reality does not reflect this. At best they have only slowed the destruction of the environment. At worst they enable a technologica…

> Now, as to your current argument that these organizations have been more successful than Ted ever could have been. I want to believe they have been, yet reality does not reflect this. They demonstrably have been. Organized NIMBY campaigns, including campaigns containing a part of illegal land occupation but no part of mailing package bombs to individuals, have shut down all manner of development, including both nuc…

It's not my strong metric. It's his strong metric. You only quoted the first part but I'll try to streamline the point.

The point is that their approach is only going to slow down the status quo, not permanently change it. Whether his approach was successful or not is besides my point. His approach was not successful, no.

However some of the criticisms he levies are valid. Which the one I'm trying to convey. That some alternative approach must be formulated that will have a lasting impact. Partial success is not a substitute for actual success. Neither is a failing approach.

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

#154

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

nicolas_t wrote: post #86

Swenrekcah wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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...

> 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...

That's most of the actual right; “economic freedom” is a libertarian viewpoint more than a right-wing one, though in the US system the more-right-wing of the major parties also frequently uses libertarian rhetoric, which can confuse the issue.

From the outset of the left/right or liberal/conservative divide, the right/conservative side has been centrally about protecting the position of established elites against forces that would transfer (principally, in the case of the left, more widely distribute) power, largely justified by appeals to traditional, especially religious and nationalist, values.

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

#155

Post by ethanwillis » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #150

ethanwillis wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The separate argument buried in here is that you can in fact control other people's actions by restricting their possible options. Which is what the technological system attempts to do by subjugating the natural world and moving people into urban areas.

You are correct, I retract the argument that you cannot influence other people's actions. The method of mailing bombs to strangers is demonstrably ineffective. Society interprets eco-terrorism as damage and routes around it. If anything, if society accepted it, it would accelerate the anthropoforming of the planet; if violence against the politically opposed is acceptable, who wins an open violent conflict? Those hop…

My opinion is that the technologists would win. That's actually one of the points he brings up at one point. That after a certain point there absolutely is no turning back. His rationale was that the sooner that system is dismantled the easier it would be (Obviously making the assumption that it's even possible).

It really all depends however. As we're seeing something as simple as a single virus is putting on our current technological system under strain. As time goes on the technological system creates tools that radicals such as Ted can more cheaply and easily utilize to attack the same system. It also depends on these radicals' ideological purity. Ted was not above using the postal service to carry out his attacks, but he did want to make the bombs himself. It's actually quite a concerning problem.

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

#156

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

ethanwillis wrote: post #155

shadowgovt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, I retract the argument that you cannot influence other people's actions. The method of mailing bombs to strangers is demonstrably ineffective. Society interprets eco-terrorism as damage and routes around it. If anything, if society accepted it, it would accelerate the anthropoforming of the planet; if violence against the politically opposed is acceptable, who wins an open violent conflict? Those hop…

My opinion is that the technologists would win. That's actually one of the points he brings up at one point. That after a certain point there absolutely is no turning back. His rationale was that the sooner that system is dismantled the easier it would be (Obviously making the assumption that it's even possible). It really all depends however. As we're seeing something as simple as a single virus is putting on our cu…

That makes sense. FWIW, my opinion is that Ted missed the point by naming "technologists" his enemy.

Technology is just what people do. It's not divorced from nature, or from humanity; it's the process of using nature's laws to make nature more palatable for our existence. Because nature does not care about us and would see humanity extinguished as fast as any other organism in the long history of life on Earth. While Ted found a certain tranquility in the woods, most people find the kind of survival activities he had to undertake to be toil---dull, dangerous, deadly. And not even Ted lived completely off the grid; the oats he sustained himself on came from a farm, and that implies agriculture, transportation, and distribution---roads and fossil fuels. The gun he used to shoot rabbits implies bullet and gunpowder manufacture; he didn't mention it explicitly in the interview, but I don't assume he had his own sulfur and saltpeter sources or was smelting his own bullets. So really, his world is divided into two types of technology: the kind he'll bomb people for using and the kind he's okay with. As you noted, ideological purity is lacking. I think it's lacking because it's basically impossible. People vastly underestimate how much dependence basic quality-of-life has on technology.

Rather than bomb people to stop them from changing the world (which doesn't work), we have to work with people to find how to not use technology in a short-sighted and self-destructive fashion. Without further information, I can't say for certain how the timber roads that so inflamed his rage fit in that story. Probably they aren't worth the cost. But the point is, it's a dynamic process of working with people, generally, to find solutions, and setting yourself at odds with civilized society by bombing it guarantees failure.

We passed the point of no turning back the day we tied a pointy stick to a rock and enhanced our predatory power to take down things that evolved tougher skin and sharper claws than we could kill with our physical traits. The only way forward is through.

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

#157

Post by unethical_ban » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

tokai wrote: post #76

phaus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For about a hundred years it has also been pretty commonly used as a slur for mentally ill people.

Oh sorry, then it's a-okay I guess. /s

It is not homophobic. Don't move the goalpost.

Fruitcakes are full of nuts. You are nuts if you are a fruitcake.

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

#158

Post by crocodiletears » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

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?

I really don't think you can beat Kaczynski's piece. He does have a work that he published in prison (Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How), but I think he predominantly builds on, rather than reiterates the point he makes in industrial society.

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

#159

Post by dangerface » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 4:31 PM UTC

kryogen1c wrote: post #89

throwawaygh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> this isnt an argument.

Correct, the rest of his comment is the argument that backs up the statement he made. They explain how a source that isn't sound cant make a text that is sound.

In the same way that a stoped clock can still tell the time and it may even tell the correct time twice a day but that does not mean the clock is sound.

You can't find understanding in a text that comes from a source that is unsound in the same way a stopped clock can't keep time, its ability to do so is compromised.

Even if the clock is coincidentally correct twice a day how would you know? Without a sound source to tell the time you don't know if the broken source is telling the correct time even when it is.

There is understanding to be had from reading the manifesto but its not understanding on the subject of technology and society. In the manifesto he talks about society as something he is subjected to that he has to struggle through. Technology is used as a scapegoat for his anger and is only really talked about from a general perspective almost as if it where a type of magic.

Without first reading other sound texts to give you an understanding of topic it would be impossible to separate sound arguments from unsound as they are all presented from the same unsound source.

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

#160

Post by cameldrv » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #103

"The concept of “mental health” in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress." This part made me question the mental health of our society today. This are large swaths of the population that use amphetamines, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medication just to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. Ma…

This was also Foucault's point in Madness and Civilization. You can see this clearly when society's needs change. Someone who might be diagnosed as a psychopathic mass murderer in peacetime might be given a medal in wartime.