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

Ted Kaczynski has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 823 posts

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#591

Post by jaredhallen »

nine_k wrote: post #556
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for posting and sorry for your loss. I've heard the name TK first when reading Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us". 15 years later I was burnt out and increasingly aware that Tech was not a force of good. I went on a 3 year journey trying to understand what made TK chose violence. It can't just be the struggle of a Pollak getting people to pronounce his name correctly, however hard that is. I started b…

Thank you; this elucidates a lot. So it boils down to a question: would you exchange the life of a lone top predator (in a forest with a firearm) to any other kind of life? For some people the answer would be in favor of the top predator life. To choose the life of a tiger, one just should stop loving anyone. After this, killing becomes mere killing (predators do not "murder"), and the whole idea of destroying everyo…

I think characterizing the contempt for technology only in terms of the advantage it conveys to the "adversary" is kind of an incomplete analysis. There are true and valid reasons outside that. I'm in the camp that it (technology) is a double edged sword. It's hard to argue with the improvements in medicine, reduction in basic suffering, etc. But it wreaks a lot of havoc in its own right. The question is whether the good outweighs the bad. At one point that was a resounding yes. Currently? Harder to say. And if the answer to that question is no longer yes, then is there any meaningful way for a group of billions to coordinate conscious decisions and limitations about how technology should be approached, developed, and applied? Heavy stuff. Especially for a bunch of tech geeks.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#592

Post by onethought »

emodendroket wrote: post #564
lm28469 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People might know or not know each opinion he expressed, and might reasonably agree or disagree with each one Isn't that the definition of agreeing (or not) with someone ? > but that's not the same thing. How so ?

He forced his way into the conversation through terrorism. It seems reasonable enough to reject his ideas out of hand rather than give them respectful hearing.

Exactly if your ideas aren’t compelling enough to garner attention without murdering people… probably your ideas suck.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#593

Post by retrocryptid »

boppo1 wrote: post #332
local_crmdgeon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media will report on this as the death of a terrorist. None of the real terrorists will be brought to justice - the CIA has done so many abhorrent things here and abroad. We act like the KGB/FSB is this unfathomable, foreign evil. We have the bigger, scarier thing that killed it in our backyard.

The CIA has done some bad shit, even to their own citizens, but are they really on the level of the KGB? Seems like the KGB was a more overt daily-life terror, whereas the CIA has a more 'occasional' history of atrocities.

Always seemed to me the CIA were more creative: fish robot, sewing transmitters inside cats, arranging for their former director to die days before he was to give testimony. KGB and GRU were just "we're going to push you out the window" or "murder your family."

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#594

Post by arp242 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #53
mihaic wrote: post #25

The one thing I still wonder about Ted is actually how many more actually good and thought provoking "manifestos" like his are out there, only for nobody to push them to in the public's eye. After all, almost all smart people that identify uncomfortable truths won't go to extremes to convince strangers of actually giving their non-mainstream ideas a chance.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "manifestos" are inherently elitist. I'm only aware of manifestos coming from people who speak with an air of self-importance. Kaczynski seems no different.

It's just a name; might as well call it a "book", "publication", "article", "website", or "blog post". It's also a name given by the FBI and the media, not Kaczynski himself.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#595

Post by onethought »

pixl97 wrote: post #589
emodendroket wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He forced his way into the conversation through terrorism. It seems reasonable enough to reject his ideas out of hand rather than give them respectful hearing.

This gets messy quick. If for example you lived under a dictator and that dictator didn't like your conversation then you wouldn't expect to have a venue unless you took extreme measures. Now let's say that you think AI was an existential threat to humanity and we were all going to die because of it. In your mind would it matter if you blew up 10 people? 100 people? 1000000 people? I mean in your mind they are all de…

Yes, it should matter, because sane people admit there is a chance they could be wrong. You can walk back ideas, you can’t walk back deaths.

Also unless you’re a government you probably shouldn’t be applying utilitarian ideas of ethics to your actions, you do not have a right to decide on behalf of anyone but yourself as an individual, so even by utilitarian standards you are likely being unethical.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#596

Post by [deleted] »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #429
bkohlmann wrote: post #352

One of my good friend’s dad was brutally murdered by Kaczynski when she was a young teenager. A small bomb in a package that used razor blazes, nails, and other bits of metal to nearly tear his head off while his young family was in the house with him. And it turns out the victim was the “wrong” man, as he didn’t even work on the project Kaczynski wanted to bring “retribution” for. Kaczynski May have said some intere…

thanks for posting and sorry for your loss. I've heard the name TK first when reading Bill Joy's "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us". 15 years later I was burnt out and increasingly aware that Tech was not a force of good. I went on a 3 year journey trying to understand what made TK chose violence. It can't just be the struggle of a Pollak getting people to pronounce his name correctly, however hard that is. I started b…

[deleted]

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#597

Post by happytoexplain »

pixl97 wrote: post #589
emodendroket wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He forced his way into the conversation through terrorism. It seems reasonable enough to reject his ideas out of hand rather than give them respectful hearing.

This gets messy quick. If for example you lived under a dictator and that dictator didn't like your conversation then you wouldn't expect to have a venue unless you took extreme measures. Now let's say that you think AI was an existential threat to humanity and we were all going to die because of it. In your mind would it matter if you blew up 10 people? 100 people? 1000000 people? I mean in your mind they are all de…

First, I'm not sure you're using "quick" properly here. There is no trajectory - only individual cases. We can easily consider his actions unjustifiable and yet consider similar actions against a brutal dictator justifiable without straying into hypocrisy.

Second, the "imagine you truly believed X" defense is a good argument for sympathy, but not a good argument for justification or credence.

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#599

Post by bbor »

lumb63 wrote: post #567
spencerchubb wrote: post #557

I don't find Ted Kaczynski's manifesto to be insightful. It points out that technology has flaws, which is frankly quite obvious and is a fact that everyone already agrees with. Furthermore, his proposed solution is crap. He proposes that we just go back to wilderness, which is bad for many obvious reasons. Technology and division of labor has allowed us to spend our days improving humanity rather than finding food j…

I had a different take on his writings than yours. Rather than thinking his solution was bad, he encouraged me to question why we “spend our days improving humanity”. What does “improving humanity” even mean? What’s the metric we are optimizing for? Are we, humanity, any happier than we were when we were hunter-gatherer tribes? I don’t think so - we’ve just found new metrics to focus on and to be disappointed in ours…

> Are we, humanity, any happier than we were when we were hunter-gatherer tribes? I don’t think so - we’ve just found new metrics to focus on and to be disappointed in ourselves in.

This seems crazy to me, leaning heavily on the proof that you yourself obviously are not choosing that life when you easily could. It’s possible in the same way that anything is possible, but cmon - the world is objectively less violent, sick, and ignorant. Sure we might be sad because the economy sucks, but I’d rather be sad than, ya know, fighting for my life…

A basic rundown from GPT expresses why I think this. Curious to hear where you disagree!

“Sure, let's consider these factors:

1. *Pleasure (Epicurus)*: Likely harder in a tribal society. Threats of violence and disease may significantly limit opportunities for pleasure and heighten experiences of pain.

2. *Virtuous Life (Aristotle)*: Potentially harder in a tribal society due to the pressures of survival, which might necessitate actions that conflict with virtues like honesty and generosity.

3. *Self-Actualization (Maslow)*: Much harder in a tribal society. The constant threats of violence and disease could make fulfilling basic needs a priority, leaving little room for self-actualization.

4. *Moderation (Confucius)*: Easier in a tribal society, as the threat of violence or disease could necessitate moderation and caution to ensure survival.

5. *Freedom (Sartre)*: Likely easier in modern society. The risks of violence and disease in tribal societies may limit the opportunity for individual freedom and choice.

6. *Inner Peace (Buddha)*: Likely harder in tribal societies, where the constant threat of violence and disease might disrupt efforts towards finding inner peace.

7. *Authenticity (Heidegger)*: Likely harder in a tribal society, where survival concerns might pressure individuals to adopt roles for the group's benefit rather than personal authenticity.

8. *Community (Marx)*: Likely easier in tribal societies, as the constant threats would necessitate cooperation and mutual support, fostering a strong sense of community.

9. *Mindfulness (Thich Nhat Hanh)*: Likely harder in a tribal society, where the constant threats could make it difficult to focus on the present moment and achieve mindfulness.

10. *Acceptance (Stoics)*: Equal in both societies; acceptance is about personal perspective and can be challenging in any circumstance, including violence or disease.

11. *Physical Well-being (Plato)*: Much harder in a tribal society due to a higher risk of injury from violence, more limited medical knowledge and treatment, and potential prevalence of disease.

12. *Purpose (Nietzsche)*: Likely harder in a tribal society, where survival threats might narrow the scope of one's purpose to primarily physical survival.

13. *Knowledge (Socrates)*: Easier in modern society due to broader access to information, whereas tribal societies may lack the resources to gain knowledge beyond immediate survival needs.

14. *Creativity (Fromm)*: Harder in a tribal society where threats of violence and disease might limit the time, resources, and mental energy available for creative pursuits.

15. *Love (Fromm)*: Possibly harder in tribal societies, where the constant threats could overshadow relationships and the expression of love.”

Re: Ted Kaczynski has died

#600

Post by bbor »

spurgu wrote: post #527
shrimpx wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "third position" is basically anarchy, or anarcho-primitivism. It's not really a political position, it's more like a pathological insistence that civilization should be destroyed. Kaczynski went as far as saying we're biologically wired to live primitive lives and we're misusing ourselves in perversions that he calls 'surrogate activities', which include science and art. To him, hunting or trying to survive whi…

I'd say it's more about autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, rather than just "living primitive lives". Technological progress tends to stifle all of the above, in the grand scheme of things. Think about owning horses back in the day, which you could simply breed to get more of. You could travel freely pretty much anywhere, no roads required. Compare that to a car which is manufactured somewhere far away with tons…

> Think about owning horses back in the day, which you could simply breed to get more of. You could travel freely pretty much anywhere, no roads required.

Ok A) I don’t know much about the past but I’m pretty sure trying to travel unmapped backcountry terrain was super dangerous and hard and slow, horse or no, unless you were in the Great Plains or smtn.

B) saying that all it takes to get horses is “simply breed some” is like saying all you need to get a car is “simply build one”. Do you think the untold millions who died (and continue to die) of starvation in subsistence-farming based society were just dumb? It’s hard, dangerous, luck-driven work, assuming you don’t get killed by animals or other humans.

> We are quickly losing the skills required to adapt to a "lower" level of technology, meaning any quick disruption in the system could be catastrophical.

Disregarding the fact that modern population densities in most of the western world would make subsistence farming impossible, why is self-sufficiency an unquestioned virtue, so much so it gets to be up there with heavyweights like Autonomy and Freedom?

To illustrate my concerns more explicitly: If I invented a machine that could make any material or object appear instantly, would you destroy it, under the logic that it’s better to remember how to struggle? Or more near term, are you strongly against the prospect of interstellar travel?

Post reply on HN