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

51–60 of 197 posts

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

#51

Post by ajkdhcb2 »

throwawaygh wrote: post #36
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.

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…

You just proved the comment you're replying to.

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

#52

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

On the other hand, there's the philosophy of "and you shall know them by their deeds."

One can read the manifesto, but should always keep in mind that any conclusions it draws are conclusions that led a man to blow up his fellow human beings who didn't even know who he was.

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

#53

Post by jonnypotty »

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 intellectually stunted way to think. You close it off because you've decided it's bad. I don't think he should have tried to kill people, he was mentally unwell, but are you saying there is no circumstance in which violence is necessary? Is the act of violence so abhorrent that it discounts his politics? Nelson Mandela was a 'terrorist'. You know the old saying, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Be careful you're not limiting what you think and feel based on a load of capitalist marketing rules.

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

#54

Post by smart_jackal »

The_Colonel wrote: post #40
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…

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 cl…

The caveman pleasures were limited to the culinary (having food) and the carnal (having sex). But today's human has surpassed any and every definition of greed for pleasure. Capitalists having billions in their banks and shareholding across companies still crave for more and more pleasure. I just don't understand what kind of pleasure people are after today.

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

#55

Post by dijit »

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…

In some ways I completely understand.

When I was a boy I was exceedingly poor, not that I often went hungry- basic needs were met.

A side-effect of that is that there's really a limited number of things you can do in a city, outside the library, playing with neighbours or the 2-3 toys you have.

I learned that doing nothing is fine, and actually grew to like it; paying attention to distinct little sounds, the feel of the cold on my skin and the porous nature of the ceiling. It sounds dark and frightening now but I became exceedingly peaceful and honestly I look back it fondly; I'm not able to get into that mindset now... there's always "something" that needs to be done (or, can be done, like checking hackernews).

That said; it speaks volumes about his mental illnesses that he states these things openly then commits acts of incredible, meticulous and calculating violence against others.

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

#57

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

shadowgovt wrote: post #46
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…

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.

timeline matters. he wasn't born a terrorist neither did he just take a black-pill and suddenly turn violent. It was a process that lasted decades in which he drove himself to isolation, alienation, hate and finally violence.

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

#58

Post by cm2187 »

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.

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

#59

Post by throwawaygh »

ajkdhcb2 wrote: post #51
throwawaygh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 meaning of the text.

When reading and interpreting a text, context, intent, audience, and purpose do matter. The purpose of Kaczynski's manifesto was not to present political ideas. The purpose of his manifesto was to rationalize his violence.

If you engage with the text in that way, then you might learn something. If you engage with the text in a way that actively ignores its purpose and intent, then you'll be wasting your time.

I'm not saying it's morally bad to read Kaczynski's manifesto in the way the article suggests, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't consider such a reading. I'm just saying that, having considered such a reading, I feel that reading Kaczynski's manifesto as anything other than rationalization would be like reading the bible as young adult pulp fiction or Harry Potter as a religious text. You can do it, but it's a waste of time and you will misunderstand most of the text in pretty extreme and fundamental ways.

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

#60

Post by crabmusket »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #26
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?

Jacques Ellul (read his "La Technique" first - don't start with "Propaganda" which builds on it): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23746429 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

La Technique is excellent and I'm stoked to see someone recommending it. But it's very dense. I imagine it would also be highly frustratig to a lot of people here for its polemic style and his fast-and-loose approach to citations. (I always remember his line "books are meant to be read, not consulted".)

The first 2/5 of the book would probably suffice to get a good understanding of his argument. I read and loved the whole thing, and it's been very influential on my thinking since then.

Two articles which cover his work:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting-the-... https://crabmusket.net/blog/it-turns-everything-it-touches-i... (disclaimer, I wrote this)

There is also the 76 questions, which you can find across the internet and which are attributed to Ellul:

https://76questions.tech

Post reply on HN