4 ms·

The Technium: The Unabomber Was Right (2009)

20 points by dsego 6y ago

natmaka 6y ago
Jacques Ellul work, albeit often neglected, is utterly pertinent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul#On_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul#On_technique
- aeternum 6y ago
  He just seems wrong. While in general we've become more efficient, almost every historic human activity has a strong following of artisans who preserve the old ways as a hobby/entertainment. They are becoming more popular than ever given youtube and the fact that people have more free time to enjoy things like that. I'm not sure what he considers modern technology, but I'd say almost every piece of major technology has been a total phenomenon for civilization, from fire to cave paintings, written word, printing press. Our goal should be to smooth out technology's disruptions to civilization and society rather than prevent technological progress.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    Ellus wrote about "a new social order in which efficiency is no longer an option but a necessity imposed on all human activity" Preserving old ways is a tiny fraction of human activity, and those preserved 'old ways' are themselves a tiny fraction of all 'old ways'. Very few people are doing so as their main (professional) activity. Even those preserving some old way often either say that it offers various advantages (i.e. it is 'more efficient' upon the set of criteria they chose), or (for a IMHO very minute fraction of them) are into some form of challenge expressed as 'what can I achieve, given a very limited set of resources?'... which also is a quest for efficiency (in a constrained environment). The central thesis is that technique is 'autonomous' (has it own dynamics), has a major influence on any society using it, and that there is nothing we can do to 'smooth out' this influence.
Arbalest 6y ago
A thought occured to me a couple of months ago. People so regularly forget social technology. Social technology has almost all of the above traits. Want to get rid of Money? Good luck with that. I suspect, there's an underlying assumption that is false. Humans as individuals? An ideal, I suspect. Evolution favours not individual survival, but group survival. If we accept that Evolution can also be seen as a technological ratchet, then perhaps it becomes clear, it isn't merely technology, but the very nature of Evolution itself. If this is in fact true, it means that rebelling against Technology (mechanical) is doomed, for it is not rebelling against the holistic. And if it is just a part of broader Evolution, then there is nothing to be done.
- jaggs 6y ago
  I guess it could be argued that we're heading up an evolutionary dead end. It has happened before and undoubtedly will again. It's also true though that so far no one has come up with a suitable alternative other than his sort of primitivism.
Barrin92 6y ago
>I think Kaczynski was right about these claims. In his own words the Unabomber says: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.” I don't know if this is representative of the entire essay (I have to admit I haven't read it), but I know that Kaczynski is often associated with far-right politics, or eco-racist groups. I'm very surprised because he almost sounds like a sort of super orthodox Marxist in that quote.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  Back when I was young it was common to represent the political left-right axis as a circle, with the ends almost touching. So you're not the only one to remark on this. Well spotted, though!
glial 6y ago
If you are intrigued in the argument but would like a less inflammatory author, check out “Tools For Conviviality” by Ivan Illich.

20 points by dsego 6y ago

Jacques Ellul work, albeit often neglected, is utterly pertinent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul#On_technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul#On_technique

aeternum 6y ago
He just seems wrong. While in general we've become more efficient, almost every historic human activity has a strong following of artisans who preserve the old ways as a hobby/entertainment. They are becoming more popular than ever given youtube and the fact that people have more free time to enjoy things like that. I'm not sure what he considers modern technology, but I'd say almost every piece of major technology has been a total phenomenon for civilization, from fire to cave paintings, written word, printing press. Our goal should be to smooth out technology's disruptions to civilization and society rather than prevent technological progress.
- natmaka 6y ago
  Ellus wrote about "a new social order in which efficiency is no longer an option but a necessity imposed on all human activity" Preserving old ways is a tiny fraction of human activity, and those preserved 'old ways' are themselves a tiny fraction of all 'old ways'. Very few people are doing so as their main (professional) activity. Even those preserving some old way often either say that it offers various advantages (i.e. it is 'more efficient' upon the set of criteria they chose), or (for a IMHO very minute fraction of them) are into some form of challenge expressed as 'what can I achieve, given a very limited set of resources?'... which also is a quest for efficiency (in a constrained environment). The central thesis is that technique is 'autonomous' (has it own dynamics), has a major influence on any society using it, and that there is nothing we can do to 'smooth out' this influence.

Arbalest 6y ago

A thought occured to me a couple of months ago. People so regularly forget social technology. Social technology has almost all of the above traits. Want to get rid of Money? Good luck with that. I suspect, there's an underlying assumption that is false. Humans as individuals? An ideal, I suspect. Evolution favours not individual survival, but group survival. If we accept that Evolution can also be seen as a technological ratchet, then perhaps it becomes clear, it isn't merely technology, but the very nature of Evolution itself. If this is in fact true, it means that rebelling against Technology (mechanical) is doomed, for it is not rebelling against the holistic. And if it is just a part of broader Evolution, then there is nothing to be done.

jaggs 6y ago
I guess it could be argued that we're heading up an evolutionary dead end. It has happened before and undoubtedly will again. It's also true though that so far no one has come up with a suitable alternative other than his sort of primitivism.

Barrin92 6y ago

>I think Kaczynski was right about these claims. In his own words the Unabomber says: “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.” I don't know if this is representative of the entire essay (I have to admit I haven't read it), but I know that Kaczynski is often associated with far-right politics, or eco-racist groups. I'm very surprised because he almost sounds like a sort of super orthodox Marxist in that quote.

tuatoru 6y ago
Back when I was young it was common to represent the political left-right axis as a circle, with the ends almost touching. So you're not the only one to remark on this. Well spotted, though!

glial 6y ago

If you are intrigued in the argument but would like a less inflammatory author, check out “Tools For Conviviality” by Ivan Illich.