3 ms·
This is not so different from the arguments behind what motivated the Unabomber. One key difference is that Ted Kaczynski saw it as necessarily political. Peop
by nickysielicki 9y ago
This is not so different from the arguments behind what motivated the Unabomber. One key difference is that Ted Kaczynski saw it as necessarily political.
People should read Kaczynski's manifesto. It's rough at parts, but it's really an interesting perspective.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...
- 3pt14159 9y agoI read it long ago and came to the conclusion that he was essentially right with how he framed the problem but the solution he picked out of the two alternatives was the wrong one. Running away from technological progress into the wilderness somewhere might be good for you but the only long term solution that is good for everyone is to alter humanity to be better adapted to its new environment. Though there are probably a multitude of ways of doing it, the two that stick out as most likely / agreeable to all are Gattaca and AI + Cyborg. Though I could also see strong AI either just replacing humanity[0] or simulating / uploading the minds of the good humans and merging with them. [0] I'm not convinced that this would be a bad thing, a hypothetical AI that comes with all of the benefits of humanity with none of the rape or war might just be better ethically in a global sense.
- clarkevans 9y agoIt's a fundamentally pessimistic essay, offering no workable solution to the articulated challenges other than a complete rejection of technology.
- buvanshak 9y ago>It's a fundamentally pessimistic essay... Why is future optimistic by default? By the way humanity is progressing, do you see any reason for hope? Do you disagree that we are in a technological runaway?
- Sileni 9y agoNo, but it's the same argument for something like SpaceX. A quick analysis says being optimistic makes the most sense because it has the best outcomes in all situations. If we're optimistic and correct, we're building the things that will be useful in the future. We know we have to get off the planet to survive as a species, so we have to hope that we can do so. If we're optimistic and wrong, we're distracting ourselves until we die. Pessimistic and correct, we wait for death and die. Pessimistic and incorrect, we watch the future run away from us while we argue over what remains on the planet to be used by the technology we stagnated in. I don't want to know what 2050 looks like if we're still dependent on oil. The worst case only exists if we're pessimistic as a species. The best case only exists if we're optimistic.
- buvanshak 9y agoIt did't ask if being pessimistic is useful. I asked if future looks hopeful for you, from where we are standing right now..
- Sileni 9y agoAnd I'm saying we're fallible. We need mechanisms to avoid fatalism when looking at a downward slope, because history says we don't actually know how things will turn out, no matter how obvious they seem.
- 131012 9y agoAn ideology that requires killing random people always seems flawed to me.
- Andre_Wanglin 9y agoThis is a nonsensical comment. He used bombs to gain the notoriety to get published in the New York Times.
- manjushri 9y agoIs there a prominent ideology that hasn't lead to murders?
- ionised 9y agoGot to the bit about 'leftists' and then had to roll my eyes and close the page. It's stereotypical generalising of entire segments of the population into a straw-man caricature he can rage and rant against. Honestly, I believe anyone who still thinks in traditional terms of left/right politically, isn't adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.