4 ms·

I don’t agree with his methods. I might agree with his conclusions regarding modern society. Regardless, it might be good to preface any mention of him by also

I don’t agree with his methods. I might agree with his conclusions regarding modern society. Regardless, it might be good to preface any mention of him by also mentioning what he did and who he hurt.

ravenstine 8y ago
I second this. What Kaczynski did was terrible, but he was obviously very intelligent and highly observant. Upon reading Industrial Society and its Future, it was hard for me to deny the validity(note the difference between validity and soundness) of many of his arguments. I would say it's worth reading if the reader can mentally-divorce ideas from their thinkers, and it's a fascinating read at that.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Kaczynski's lack a sense of history or worse a romanticized version of it. People were less free in pre-industrial society and more controlled not less. Despite the depictions it is important to remember that nature does not give a damn about you and life is accordingly harsh because of it.
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    That's true.
  - opportune 8y ago
    Depends on what you mean by pre-industrial. I think that what you say is true for most of recorded history, but perhaps not for the paleolithic era. That was probably peak human freedom, at least in my opinion
    - mehblahwhatevs 8y ago
      > the paleolithic era. That was probably peak human freedom, at least in my opinion A bit much no? The paleolithic era was when you'd get killed by some beast while walking through a field, killed by an arrow from some tribe nearby, or die by the age of 30 from the simple common cold. By "free" you mean less responsibility? You didn't have to work and worry about a roof over your head?
      - qpooqpoo 8y ago
        There's a lot that's wrong with this post, which is at odds with all the available anthropology on hunter-gatherer tribes. For instance, the death by age 30 idea is completely misleading. While it's true that infant-mortality was very high, the life expectancy after childhood was very similar to modern man's. And you can't have it both ways: high infant mortality is just one of the mechanisms by which the biosphere maintains ecological equilibrium. Without it you end up with gross overpopulation, resource depletion, global environmental collapse etc. etc. Your understanding of freedom is also problematic. Hunter-gatherers had enormous self-responsibility if the wanted to stay alive. They had to work HARD just to survive. Freedom in wilderness circumstances does not mean what it has come to mean in modern society. It implied enormous responsibility. Nowadays, modern man has lost all conception of freedom beyond days off from work so as to fritter away his time in hedonistic pursuits.
        DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
        Dead by 30, is mistake. The high infant mortality contributes to a low average age of death. Steven Pinker goes into a lot more detail in his recent book Enlightenment Now.
        Nasrudith 8y ago
        That isn't freedom - it isn't even self determination as they are still bound to the local environment and to have any chance of surviving in the wilderness individually without later innovations basically requires technology from the scope. Even if Ted's mad dream was somehow achieved through mail-bombing (talk about insanity - at least Charles Manson's plan had the remote potential to start a race war if the frame up kept on succeeding and a cycle of violence was kicked off.) we'd be right back to where we started in rebuilding technology from scratch or worse yet scavenging it to survive better. Anyone in an actual survival situation knows that such concepts are claptrap as they'd take any unsporting advantage to survive and use up irreplaceable resources to do so. Because your life is not a sport. If you need to make multiple life or death decisions as part of your lifestyle you are clearly doing something very wrong.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - qpooqpoo 8y ago
    This is totally false. In modern techno-industrial society you have abundant freedom to do meaningless things--you have a ton of choices in how you fritter away your time in hedonistic pursuits--but in all practical, life-and-death choices, man is completely powerless and freedom-less at the hands of powerful organizations. But it is the freedom to exercise practical, life-and-death choices that is real freedom, which people need to experience to live happy and dignified lives. Purely for the sake of technical necessity, industrial society must have these practical freedoms wrested away from individuals and placed in the hands of powerful organizations. This has been a gradual process, beginning with civilization, but it has become especially acute and accelerated after the industrial revolution. Kaczynski's knowledge of history is deep and extensive on this point. I recommend you read his first book, "Technological Slavery" on this topic. You can check out his second book "Anti-Tech Revolution" as well, though this deals more with ecological issues in my opinion and less with human freedom.
qpooqpoo 8y ago
Why??? Why on earth would you want to bias a reader and make him/her prejudicial to ideas. The whole point of rational inquiry is to dispassionately asses ideas on their own merits. This is why we have double-blind review. And at any rate, the truth or validity of ideas is in no way related to the personalities behind them. That's logic 101. So why would you want to encourage prejudice and bias?

ravenstine 8y ago

I second this. What Kaczynski did was terrible, but he was obviously very intelligent and highly observant. Upon reading Industrial Society and its Future, it was hard for me to deny the validity(note the difference between validity and soundness) of many of his arguments. I would say it's worth reading if the reader can mentally-divorce ideas from their thinkers, and it's a fascinating read at that.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Kaczynski's lack a sense of history or worse a romanticized version of it. People were less free in pre-industrial society and more controlled not less. Despite the depictions it is important to remember that nature does not give a damn about you and life is accordingly harsh because of it.
- ravenstine 8y ago
  That's true.
- opportune 8y ago
  Depends on what you mean by pre-industrial. I think that what you say is true for most of recorded history, but perhaps not for the paleolithic era. That was probably peak human freedom, at least in my opinion
  - mehblahwhatevs 8y ago
    > the paleolithic era. That was probably peak human freedom, at least in my opinion A bit much no? The paleolithic era was when you'd get killed by some beast while walking through a field, killed by an arrow from some tribe nearby, or die by the age of 30 from the simple common cold. By "free" you mean less responsibility? You didn't have to work and worry about a roof over your head?
    - qpooqpoo 8y ago
      There's a lot that's wrong with this post, which is at odds with all the available anthropology on hunter-gatherer tribes. For instance, the death by age 30 idea is completely misleading. While it's true that infant-mortality was very high, the life expectancy after childhood was very similar to modern man's. And you can't have it both ways: high infant mortality is just one of the mechanisms by which the biosphere maintains ecological equilibrium. Without it you end up with gross overpopulation, resource depletion, global environmental collapse etc. etc. Your understanding of freedom is also problematic. Hunter-gatherers had enormous self-responsibility if the wanted to stay alive. They had to work HARD just to survive. Freedom in wilderness circumstances does not mean what it has come to mean in modern society. It implied enormous responsibility. Nowadays, modern man has lost all conception of freedom beyond days off from work so as to fritter away his time in hedonistic pursuits.
      - DEADBEEFC0FFEE 8y ago
        Dead by 30, is mistake. The high infant mortality contributes to a low average age of death. Steven Pinker goes into a lot more detail in his recent book Enlightenment Now.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        That isn't freedom - it isn't even self determination as they are still bound to the local environment and to have any chance of surviving in the wilderness individually without later innovations basically requires technology from the scope. Even if Ted's mad dream was somehow achieved through mail-bombing (talk about insanity - at least Charles Manson's plan had the remote potential to start a race war if the frame up kept on succeeding and a cycle of violence was kicked off.) we'd be right back to where we started in rebuilding technology from scratch or worse yet scavenging it to survive better. Anyone in an actual survival situation knows that such concepts are claptrap as they'd take any unsporting advantage to survive and use up irreplaceable resources to do so. Because your life is not a sport. If you need to make multiple life or death decisions as part of your lifestyle you are clearly doing something very wrong.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- qpooqpoo 8y ago
  This is totally false. In modern techno-industrial society you have abundant freedom to do meaningless things--you have a ton of choices in how you fritter away your time in hedonistic pursuits--but in all practical, life-and-death choices, man is completely powerless and freedom-less at the hands of powerful organizations. But it is the freedom to exercise practical, life-and-death choices that is real freedom, which people need to experience to live happy and dignified lives. Purely for the sake of technical necessity, industrial society must have these practical freedoms wrested away from individuals and placed in the hands of powerful organizations. This has been a gradual process, beginning with civilization, but it has become especially acute and accelerated after the industrial revolution. Kaczynski's knowledge of history is deep and extensive on this point. I recommend you read his first book, "Technological Slavery" on this topic. You can check out his second book "Anti-Tech Revolution" as well, though this deals more with ecological issues in my opinion and less with human freedom.

qpooqpoo 8y ago

Why??? Why on earth would you want to bias a reader and make him/her prejudicial to ideas. The whole point of rational inquiry is to dispassionately asses ideas on their own merits. This is why we have double-blind review. And at any rate, the truth or validity of ideas is in no way related to the personalities behind them. That's logic 101. So why would you want to encourage prejudice and bias?