5 ms·

> highly interconnected systems exposes us to an 'unnecessary' risk Kaczynski's arguments are not mostly about the risk of technology, they are mostly about ho

> highly interconnected systems exposes us to an 'unnecessary' risk Kaczynski's arguments are not mostly about the risk of technology, they are mostly about how technology forces us into ever narrowing conformist behavior. He makes the point about how it now impractical to function in North America without a car. You are largely denied your freedom to walk. Try to walk through most counties and see how that works out. Similarly, see how it's becoming almost impossible to legally live without owning a computer. You increasingly need one to remain in compliance with the IRS and so forth. Your freedom to forgo computer ownership, or even usage, is being taken.

eurleif 14y ago
>You increasingly need one to remain in compliance with the IRS and so forth Paper tax forms are still available, and tax payments can still be made with checks. How do you need a computer to stay in compliance with the IRS?
- scarmig 14y ago
  The external costs of staying in compliance with the IRS without those forms are increasing. In both a relative and an absolute sense: they become more inconvenient and hard to even do, and on top of that there's an expectation you can get taxes done in the same amount of time as someone using a computer. Have this happen a thousand different little ways, and not having a computer becomes effectively impossible.
  - zbuc 14y ago
    But this argument based on "freedom" is silly. I am rather sure Ted's argument isn't that it's difficult to pay your taxes. His argument is for "complete freedom" from what he views as technology. Social structures such as taxation are a form of technological innovation. In his view, you wouldn't be enslaved to technology because it's difficult to pay your taxes with a computer instead of paper now(which, coincidentally, is also technology) but that you are enslaved to technology by virtue of being forced into this structure of taxation and the social contract. At least that's the way I see it. It's the only way I can reconcile his philosophy. And it sounds like crap.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Is not an unreasonable philosophy to get pissed off with the bullshit of modern life and to go and live in the woods for a bit. Lots of people do that at one point or another. The unreasonable, or crazy, or just plain mean, miserable and bitter part is his thinking that he needs to save everyone else from themselves and to then try and do it by sending pipe bombs through the post. Whatever the lucidity of his arguments regarding the dangers of technology, they were all well spelled out in myth thousands of years before and are a foundation of our culture, so he is not a founder of some dangerous new philosphy, but rather is an arrogant murderous slave to one of the oldest ones.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
That's an interesting take on it. As a counter point my adult daughter lives in Portland and has no car, one of her roommates doesn't even have a license to drive, so its not even a 'temporary' thing in that case. They do however have computers, and while my wife's uncle does not, it is certainly becoming like 'not having a phone' was to my generation. That being said, how much would you say your claim of "impractical to function" includes some pre-defined notion of "function" ? Not trying to be circular here, there are real people who "function" (which I consider the basics, live, eat, work) without either cars or computers. I do not know if they use public transit to cross long distances or not.
- rubashov 14y ago
  The point is more general and it's not worth getting hung up on specific examples and technologies. The more general issue is population density and industrial society force people to behave in narrow parameters, or the "system" doesn't work. This is why 200 years ago cultures all over the world varied quite dramatically, but now in the industrial age they are ever more similar, and people behave in increasingly similar ways. Even legal systems have undergone rapid convergence in the last 50 years.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- philwelch 14y ago
  Portland is one of very few exceptions. Easily more than 95% of the US population needs a car to get around.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    No, more than 95% of the US land area needs a car. Quite a many people are actually living in the packed metro areas nowadays.
    - philwelch 14y ago
psc 14y ago
Kaczynski's view seems a bit narrow—he takes a small portion of freedom and complains about how technology eliminates this freedom. But there's more to freedom than just the freedom of not adapting. Sure, it's becoming hard to get by without a computer, so in a way, we're being forced to use computers. But at the same time, computers give us a lot of freedom we didn't have before. Ironically enough, Kaczynski could've probably used this freedom to self-publish his work on the Internet. What Kaczynski fails to realize is that technology creates an increase in net freedom. More tech means more overall freedom, which is what really matters.
- rubashov 14y ago
  You don't at all understand the arguments. Suggest you read, or at least skim, the manifesto.
  - psc 14y ago
    I've read portions of the manifesto, like the one you mentioned, and I'm not claiming that I have a full understanding of all of Kaczynski's arguments, but I don't think I deserve such a vacuous and condescending response. I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with what I said. I do know that he specifically focuses on how technologies gradually advance so that we're forced to use them. He refers to this as "control" and describes how technologies don't seem harmful independently, but as each technology forces itself upon us, the combination becomes more and more controlling, until we're completely controlled by the whole. It's as if technology is slowly chipping away at the foundation of freedom through compromise, or something like that. Now, what I said was that he focuses on the controlling aspect of what were at first seemingly innocent technologies that were absolutely beneficial, but he doesn't see the increase in freedom that the same technologies provide over the long term. Yes, there are stop lights, roads, licenses, and jobs are further away from home, forcing us to own cars—but at the same time, you can go anywhere you want within hours instead of days. Is it controlled? Yes. But even with the control, the total amount of freedom the individual has is now increased, because one is no longer confined to a small area. Kaczynski uses the neighbor scenario—there are two neighbors, and one is more powerful than the other. This more powerful neighbor asks the other to give him land, to which the weak one says "no." So the powerful one offers a compromise where he only gets half of the land he had asked for. The weak neighbor can't refuse. This goes on and on until the powerful neighbor has all the land. My argument here is that while the powerful neighbor might be taking away land, the big picture is that the powerful neighbor is also offering the weak neighbor lots more land somewhere else. Yes, technology takes our traditional freedom (the already established plots of land), but simultaneously extends our freedom in new directions (new plots of land). Kaczynski only views freedom as something that can be subtracted but not added to. Perhaps I understand his arguments incorrectly, but this is what I've gotten out of what I've read. If you don't agree, go ahead and explain what's wrong, but don't just make an empty claim like that.
VMG 14y ago
The restrictions of freedom here come from the IRS and the government, not computers and technology.

eurleif 14y ago

>You increasingly need one to remain in compliance with the IRS and so forth Paper tax forms are still available, and tax payments can still be made with checks. How do you need a computer to stay in compliance with the IRS?

scarmig 14y ago
The external costs of staying in compliance with the IRS without those forms are increasing. In both a relative and an absolute sense: they become more inconvenient and hard to even do, and on top of that there's an expectation you can get taxes done in the same amount of time as someone using a computer. Have this happen a thousand different little ways, and not having a computer becomes effectively impossible.
- zbuc 14y ago
  But this argument based on "freedom" is silly. I am rather sure Ted's argument isn't that it's difficult to pay your taxes. His argument is for "complete freedom" from what he views as technology. Social structures such as taxation are a form of technological innovation. In his view, you wouldn't be enslaved to technology because it's difficult to pay your taxes with a computer instead of paper now(which, coincidentally, is also technology) but that you are enslaved to technology by virtue of being forced into this structure of taxation and the social contract. At least that's the way I see it. It's the only way I can reconcile his philosophy. And it sounds like crap.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Is not an unreasonable philosophy to get pissed off with the bullshit of modern life and to go and live in the woods for a bit. Lots of people do that at one point or another. The unreasonable, or crazy, or just plain mean, miserable and bitter part is his thinking that he needs to save everyone else from themselves and to then try and do it by sending pipe bombs through the post. Whatever the lucidity of his arguments regarding the dangers of technology, they were all well spelled out in myth thousands of years before and are a foundation of our culture, so he is not a founder of some dangerous new philosphy, but rather is an arrogant murderous slave to one of the oldest ones.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

That's an interesting take on it. As a counter point my adult daughter lives in Portland and has no car, one of her roommates doesn't even have a license to drive, so its not even a 'temporary' thing in that case. They do however have computers, and while my wife's uncle does not, it is certainly becoming like 'not having a phone' was to my generation. That being said, how much would you say your claim of "impractical to function" includes some pre-defined notion of "function" ? Not trying to be circular here, there are real people who "function" (which I consider the basics, live, eat, work) without either cars or computers. I do not know if they use public transit to cross long distances or not.

rubashov 14y ago
The point is more general and it's not worth getting hung up on specific examples and technologies. The more general issue is population density and industrial society force people to behave in narrow parameters, or the "system" doesn't work. This is why 200 years ago cultures all over the world varied quite dramatically, but now in the industrial age they are ever more similar, and people behave in increasingly similar ways. Even legal systems have undergone rapid convergence in the last 50 years.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
philwelch 14y ago
Portland is one of very few exceptions. Easily more than 95% of the US population needs a car to get around.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  No, more than 95% of the US land area needs a car. Quite a many people are actually living in the packed metro areas nowadays.
  - philwelch 14y ago

psc 14y ago

Kaczynski's view seems a bit narrow—he takes a small portion of freedom and complains about how technology eliminates this freedom. But there's more to freedom than just the freedom of not adapting. Sure, it's becoming hard to get by without a computer, so in a way, we're being forced to use computers. But at the same time, computers give us a lot of freedom we didn't have before. Ironically enough, Kaczynski could've probably used this freedom to self-publish his work on the Internet. What Kaczynski fails to realize is that technology creates an increase in net freedom. More tech means more overall freedom, which is what really matters.

rubashov 14y ago
You don't at all understand the arguments. Suggest you read, or at least skim, the manifesto.
- psc 14y ago
  I've read portions of the manifesto, like the one you mentioned, and I'm not claiming that I have a full understanding of all of Kaczynski's arguments, but I don't think I deserve such a vacuous and condescending response. I'd like to hear what you think is wrong with what I said. I do know that he specifically focuses on how technologies gradually advance so that we're forced to use them. He refers to this as "control" and describes how technologies don't seem harmful independently, but as each technology forces itself upon us, the combination becomes more and more controlling, until we're completely controlled by the whole. It's as if technology is slowly chipping away at the foundation of freedom through compromise, or something like that. Now, what I said was that he focuses on the controlling aspect of what were at first seemingly innocent technologies that were absolutely beneficial, but he doesn't see the increase in freedom that the same technologies provide over the long term. Yes, there are stop lights, roads, licenses, and jobs are further away from home, forcing us to own cars—but at the same time, you can go anywhere you want within hours instead of days. Is it controlled? Yes. But even with the control, the total amount of freedom the individual has is now increased, because one is no longer confined to a small area. Kaczynski uses the neighbor scenario—there are two neighbors, and one is more powerful than the other. This more powerful neighbor asks the other to give him land, to which the weak one says "no." So the powerful one offers a compromise where he only gets half of the land he had asked for. The weak neighbor can't refuse. This goes on and on until the powerful neighbor has all the land. My argument here is that while the powerful neighbor might be taking away land, the big picture is that the powerful neighbor is also offering the weak neighbor lots more land somewhere else. Yes, technology takes our traditional freedom (the already established plots of land), but simultaneously extends our freedom in new directions (new plots of land). Kaczynski only views freedom as something that can be subtracted but not added to. Perhaps I understand his arguments incorrectly, but this is what I've gotten out of what I've read. If you don't agree, go ahead and explain what's wrong, but don't just make an empty claim like that.

VMG 14y ago

The restrictions of freedom here come from the IRS and the government, not computers and technology.