6 ms·
This is one of the problems with technology that Ted Kaczynski wrote about. You can't opt out. > Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the ci
by snikeris 5y ago
This is one of the problems with technology that Ted Kaczynski wrote about. You can't opt out.
> Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to
serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this
important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced
as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the
new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
Your problem is the same as the walker's. The walker has opted out of the automobile, but still has to breathe its pollution and risk being hit by it.
- jonny_eh 5y agoWe're quoting the Unabomber now? Certainly you can choose good quotes from non-serial killers.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWhy not? It is a good and relevant point.
- jonny_eh 5y agoBecause it justifies their actions. Would we be quoting him if he didn't murder innocent people?
- colinmhayes 5y agoI don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto. Luditeism has been very popular since the industrial revolution, I think it's reasonably likely we would be talking about Industrial Society and its Future or something similar if he hadn't killed people.
- jonny_eh 5y ago> I don't think his murders invalidate his manifesto That's not my point though, my point is that quoting his manifesto validates his violence. If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago>If his ideas are valid, there should be other sources to quote/promote. Why is that so sure? Do you have an equivalent quote to substitute?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoAbsolutely his murders invalidate his manifesto. The ideas that he expressed in the manifesto are the same ideas that moved him to murder people. His opposition to technology is why he was bombing computer stores and the University of Utah Engineering Building. This is why saying "but he's a murderer" isn't an ad hominem. His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThat doesn't mean they are wrong in part or in whole. >His murders are the working-out of his ideas; his ideas are worth rejecting just on that basis. This is simply saying "if he is right, I would rather be wrong". It also completely ignores that arguments can be valid in part, but not in combination.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoMost of us consider murder to be self-evidently wrong. The intersection of "right, and causing murder" is very close to empty for most definitions of "right". Your question makes me wonder what your definition of "right" is.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
- asveikau 5y agoAs someone who likes to walk in an urban environment, I'd say it's not good and relevant. It's rather detached from the actual experience of the urban walker. There's simple road design concepts that mitigate danger, as well.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThe point is simply that that one person's choice can have impact on others. This is pretty basic and true if you like like urban walking or not.
- asveikau 5y agoNo, i think this was just part of the author's delusional narrative that technological adoption is a form of violence. If it is not actually that, and if there are safety measures that can be taken, he doesn't care. I'm not a pro car person actually. And that's the vibe I'm getting from Kaczynski in this instance. Words of an out of touch person.
- twofornone 5y agoThe fact that someone did something terrible does not imply that everything they ever said or did was wrong. That's dangerous thinking. The Unabomber's short manifesto makes a number of salient points about the negative interplay between technology and the human condition, and offers a neat potential explanation for why so many people are unhappy despite being surrounded by modern conveniences.
- dogman144 5y agoFwiw, at the time and after, there were quite a few conferences and analysis of his manifesto.
- nsv 5y agoThis is an example of "ad hominem", a logical fallacy where you attack a person's character or attributes rather than the point being made.