6 ms·

From the same interview I linked in my parent comment. He was killing in the name of protecting tranquility itself. Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen

From the same interview I linked in my parent comment. He was killing in the name of protecting tranquility itself. Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but protecting it is not? "I decided to relate to him the story of how one of my graduate advisors, Dr. Resnick, also a Harvard alumni, once posed the following question in a seminar on political legitimacy: Say a group of scientists asks for a meeting with the leading politicians in the country to discuss the introduction of a new invention. The scientists explain that the benefits of the technology are indisputable, that the invention will increase efficiency and make everyone's life easier. The only down side, they caution, is that for it to work, forty-thousand innocent people will have to be killed each year. Would the politicians decide to adopt the new invention or not? The class was about to argue that such a proposal would be immediately rejected out of hand, then he casually remarked, "We already have it--the automobile." He had forced us to ponder how much death and innocent suffering our society endures as a result of our commitment to maintaining the technological system--a system we all are born into now and have no choice but to try and adapt to. Everyone can see the existing technological society is violent, oppressive and destructive, but what can we do?"

notahacker 6y ago
> Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but protecting it is not? 'Protecting tranquility' is perfectly politically acceptable: environmental and NIMBY lobbying organizations are often widely admired and achieve significantly more success than the Unabomber could ever have hoped to achieve. He is not criticised for seeking to 'protect tranquility' but for a campaign to murder people connected with things he despised in a manner which carried not even the slightest hope of a net increase in tranquility.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  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 technological society to carry on with their destruction with a clear conscience. If you look at the world today and in 10 years will these organizations have ceded ground or will the machine continue on? That is, do these organizations make further environmental destruction net 0 (or in a good case reverse said damage?). I would say no. Even from Ted's time to today the environment is worse and shrinking day by day. The reason Ted felt that "violent rebellion" was necessary is because these organizations can't possibly stop the inevitable results of what technological society does. They're only a stymie, a stopgap, not a long term solution. The more INTERESTING argument is, is technological society acceptable?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    > 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 nuclear power plants and oil pipelines. All the Unabomber accomplished was a lifelong stay in prison, the death of three people, and the injury of dozens more. By your strong metric, neither approach is successful. By a weaker metric, an organized campaign that doesn't include bombing people is partially successful.
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      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.
      - qpooqpoo 6y ago
        "His approach was not successful, no." According to what criteria do you make this determination?
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        He's in jail, and the course of history has basically gone unchanged. Development, both in the town he was living in and nationwide, has gone on.
        qpooqpoo 6y ago

notahacker 6y ago

> Why is it that shrinking tranquility is seen as politically legitimate but protecting it is not? 'Protecting tranquility' is perfectly politically acceptable: environmental and NIMBY lobbying organizations are often widely admired and achieve significantly more success than the Unabomber could ever have hoped to achieve. He is not criticised for seeking to 'protect tranquility' but for a campaign to murder people connected with things he despised in a manner which carried not even the slightest hope of a net increase in tranquility.

ethanwillis 6y ago
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 technological society to carry on with their destruction with a clear conscience. If you look at the world today and in 10 years will these organizations have ceded ground or will the machine continue on? That is, do these organizations make further environmental destruction net 0 (or in a good case reverse said damage?). I would say no. Even from Ted's time to today the environment is worse and shrinking day by day. The reason Ted felt that "violent rebellion" was necessary is because these organizations can't possibly stop the inevitable results of what technological society does. They're only a stymie, a stopgap, not a long term solution. The more INTERESTING argument is, is technological society acceptable?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > 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 nuclear power plants and oil pipelines. All the Unabomber accomplished was a lifelong stay in prison, the death of three people, and the injury of dozens more. By your strong metric, neither approach is successful. By a weaker metric, an organized campaign that doesn't include bombing people is partially successful.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    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.
    - qpooqpoo 6y ago
      "His approach was not successful, no." According to what criteria do you make this determination?
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        He's in jail, and the course of history has basically gone unchanged. Development, both in the town he was living in and nationwide, has gone on.
        qpooqpoo 6y ago