3 ms·

No, his ideas are not worthy of much debate, since they are so deeply flawed. What constitutes "technology", and who gets to decide at which level of progress w

No, his ideas are not worthy of much debate, since they are so deeply flawed. What constitutes "technology", and who gets to decide at which level of progress we say "This far and no further"? The answers to these will necessarily be completely arbitrary, since the scope of the actual problems being solved is so poorly understood. If a convincing case can be made that particular technologies are causing specific harm, they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis as best we can. Instead, Ted is a modern day Don Quixote who couldn't cope with society and chose to tilt at windmills, at the unfortunate expense of innocent blood and suffering. His intellectual value is largely cautionary.

sageikosa 14y ago
Without having read anything, his course of action to address his "felt unease" (if I may borrow from von Mises) was to attack individual innovators whose only crime in his mind was pushing technology forward. He didn't try to convince his fellow man of the rightness of his ideas, he wanted to force it upon us all in his own crusadering way, even going so far as to use the threat of force to gain access to a forum. The FBI only allowed publication because they believed someone would recognize his particular flavor of sociopathy...and they were right. Criminologists may be interested in him as a case study (like a psychological autopsy), but I wouldn't want to read him for fun.
philwelch 14y ago
Have you actually read "Industrial Society and Its Future" without going out of your way to be dismissive about it? If so, why haven't you asked the man himself to answer those criticisms? OK, I don't expect you to do all the legwork, of course, but it's not completely terrible that one out of the thousands of philosophers in this country actually has done that legwork.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  I tried and eventually had to stop, as the leaps in logic were too great for me to follow. After that, I had no desire to have any further contact with him whatsoever. Life is too short for bad logic.
saraid216 14y ago
This. Anti-technologists by and large seem incapable of actually understanding technology by any reasonable definition (and being magnanimous, I would even permit something as asinine as, "silicon-based Turing machines", if only to make the point that I don't have to agree with the definition for it to be reasonable). One of the reasons I like Nick Carr is that he argues against particular usages of technology more than technology itself. My definition is "applied science", which in a broad stroke includes constructed shelters like log cabins and loincloths.
- defen 14y ago
  1) Enrolled in Harvard at 16, PhD in mathematics from U of M, assistant professor of mathematics at UC Berkeley at 25 - I think he was more than capable of understanding technology. 2) See my earlier comment - it's not about any specific technology! Your comment and parent comment indicate that you both haven't actually read the manifesto and are thus completely unqualified to discuss it or form opinions on it.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    @defen, 1) Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you've done it. For instance, you're capable of reading comprehension, but you completely missed the fact that I wasn't attacking your damsel in distress. I am actually talking about all anti-tech commentators. 2) Of course it's not about any specific technology. That's precisely my criticism. If they were specific, then a serious discussion could be had. But because they can't quite figure out what they themselves are critical of in a precise fashion, they're unable to get anyone to listen. You're welcome to provide substance to this by pasting in Kaczinsky's definition of technology.

sageikosa 14y ago

Without having read anything, his course of action to address his "felt unease" (if I may borrow from von Mises) was to attack individual innovators whose only crime in his mind was pushing technology forward. He didn't try to convince his fellow man of the rightness of his ideas, he wanted to force it upon us all in his own crusadering way, even going so far as to use the threat of force to gain access to a forum. The FBI only allowed publication because they believed someone would recognize his particular flavor of sociopathy...and they were right. Criminologists may be interested in him as a case study (like a psychological autopsy), but I wouldn't want to read him for fun.

philwelch 14y ago

Have you actually read "Industrial Society and Its Future" without going out of your way to be dismissive about it? If so, why haven't you asked the man himself to answer those criticisms? OK, I don't expect you to do all the legwork, of course, but it's not completely terrible that one out of the thousands of philosophers in this country actually has done that legwork.

WiseWeasel 14y ago
I tried and eventually had to stop, as the leaps in logic were too great for me to follow. After that, I had no desire to have any further contact with him whatsoever. Life is too short for bad logic.

saraid216 14y ago

This. Anti-technologists by and large seem incapable of actually understanding technology by any reasonable definition (and being magnanimous, I would even permit something as asinine as, "silicon-based Turing machines", if only to make the point that I don't have to agree with the definition for it to be reasonable). One of the reasons I like Nick Carr is that he argues against particular usages of technology more than technology itself. My definition is "applied science", which in a broad stroke includes constructed shelters like log cabins and loincloths.

defen 14y ago
1) Enrolled in Harvard at 16, PhD in mathematics from U of M, assistant professor of mathematics at UC Berkeley at 25 - I think he was more than capable of understanding technology. 2) See my earlier comment - it's not about any specific technology! Your comment and parent comment indicate that you both haven't actually read the manifesto and are thus completely unqualified to discuss it or form opinions on it.
- saraid216 14y ago
  @defen, 1) Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you've done it. For instance, you're capable of reading comprehension, but you completely missed the fact that I wasn't attacking your damsel in distress. I am actually talking about all anti-tech commentators. 2) Of course it's not about any specific technology. That's precisely my criticism. If they were specific, then a serious discussion could be had. But because they can't quite figure out what they themselves are critical of in a precise fashion, they're unable to get anyone to listen. You're welcome to provide substance to this by pasting in Kaczinsky's definition of technology.