9 ms·

I think this all boils down to what Ted Kaczynski talked about in "Industrial Society and Its Future." Specifically "The Industrial Revolution and its consequen

I think this all boils down to what Ted Kaczynski talked about in "Industrial Society and Its Future." Specifically "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" because "in modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs." I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.) It's no surprise you can end up feeling empty and unfulfilled in a career like software development, or any other modern career, you are putting energy and emotional involvement that you would otherwise have put into the search for physical necessities. I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world. Biologically speaking fulfillment should come from satisfying your physical needs (i.e. surviving) not from the pursuit of some made up goal.

jayd16 2y ago
What about attracting a mate and social status. Those are fairly ancient goals that are relevant in the modern world. How does that impact the conjecture that we're wired for survival only?
- tmarsden 2y ago
  Attracting a mate and reproduction easily falls under "satisfying your physical needs" and I would argue is a deeply wired survival instinct. In his words "the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex."
freedomben 2y ago
It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone. IMHO it's a classic example where "the author is excellent at identifying problems, not good at identifying solutions." Unfortunately almost nobody reads the first (identification) part because the solution part is so unpalatable and unacceptable. For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense, but for most people who have a sense of compassion and empathy the costs are extremely unpalatable.
- tmarsden 2y ago
  Completely agree, his ideas could stand on their own there was no need to push them with violence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - VelesDude 2y ago
    He used violence to get attention on the ideas. What this did was stifled his goals by decades all for his own selfish gains. Did more damage than good by his own definition of success.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- chubot 2y ago
  Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere? I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things. Here's a comment recommending Jacque Ellul and Lewis Mumford - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488 Another one - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601 (I haven't read them) But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers. That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades. That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts! > Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere? > I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things. I would imagine the Unabomber isn't the first or only, but it is the first place where I encountered many of the ideas/analysis. It absolutely felt like it went very much against the grain of acceptable writing of the day. It amounted to outright heresy in some cases, which I find fascinating and engaging. People who challenge the status quo are the ones who IMHO change the world the most. I'm by no means equating Kaczynski with many of the greats of the past, but they all had that same trait in common: challenging the assumptions and status quo of the day with at times heretical ideas. In particular, his observation/separation of the three different power levels in which humans can operate deeply spoke to me and resonated with me. His identification of how operating in power levels 1 and 3 can be so profoundly different than how our brains evolved to be and therefore unfulfilling and unsatisfying struck me with the same sort of intellectual force that Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative did the first time I understood it. Then he builds logically on that to identify/describe how with technology we are essentially being pushed entirely out of power-level 2 and into levels 1 and 3, and it becomes very easy and simple to understand why he believes technology to be so disastrous for humanity. > But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers. > That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades. > That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence Absolutely, I very much agree. Although if none of those other works ever made it to my attention, then they don't have the opportunity to influence me or give me the feeling of intellectual nourishment that I got from Kaczynski's manifesto. This strikes me as a very similar problem to the medical knowledge gained by Nazi scientist from doing horrifying experiments on Jewish prisoners. Do we disregard the knowledge gained because it was gained in such a disagreeable and reprehensible way? Logically, disregarding it makes no sense, only providing emotional satisfaction. Using it can benefit our future, but not using it does nothing to change the past. We could say "incentives" but that has to be addressed through punishments/repercussions to the people who did the experiments. But regardless, those other sources have reached me now, thank you! I'll be reading them :-)
brazzy 2y ago
> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.) That's one of the most absurd hyperboles (or the most detached-from-realiy statements) I have ever seen. That would mean only one out of 100,000 people is doing "real" work. Or if you spread it evenly, less than one third of a second per working day.
- tmarsden 2y ago
  You're probably right, it was a made up number to make a point. The point being that if you are not growing your own food (or hunting it) you're probably engaged in "surrogate activity" for a living and not directly satisfying your physical needs. Would you say more than 1/100,000 people in today's world grow and or hunt for their food daily?
  - edanm 2y ago
    That's an absurd definition. It also fits the kind typical HN/high-tech mold of underappreciating most people and professions. What makes you think think that your definition of "surrogate activity" is an interesting distinction? That only "growing your own food" is going to make people fulfilled, biologically? Is there any evidence of this? That hunter gatherers, or that farmers in history, were somehow happier? As far as I can tell, most people throughout history worked really hard, but tried as much as they can to do anything but what they had to do to survive. Every single human culture has music, art, science, etc.
  - brazzy 2y ago
    Now you're moving goalposts at breathtaking speeds. Previously, you defined surrogate activity as "artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal", i.e. definitely not producing anything useful. Now suddenly it's supposed to be anything "not directly satisfying your physical needs".
    - tmarsden 2y ago
randomdata 2y ago
> I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world. Or is it what the "legendary" comment in the original link calls attention to: That the pay is good? As a result, you technically only need to spend a minutes per day, if that, working on software. Everything else is fluff. This seems to match what Kaczynski is talking about. Take a job developing software that just barely covers the cost of your survival needs and I expect there is no chance you will feel empty about it.
Aurornis 2y ago
> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.) I think this level of hyperbole only feels correct when you've been trapped in the kinds of companies where everyone is at least ten steps removed from the customer. When you're sitting through meetings and pushing around abstract "work" to achieve artificial goals all day, it can seem like modern work is all made up and arbitrary. But step outside one of these absurd corporate jobs and you'll see plenty of people doing "real" work, and doing a lot of it. It's eye opening to go from a corporate behemoth to a small company where what you do actually matters to customers. Once you see the effect your work has on something up close, it makes a lot more sense. Every time I read an HN comment where someone is romanticizing Ted Kaczynski's writings, it feels like they're coming from a place of being just a bit too chronically online and a bit too disconnected from how the real world works outside of the internet and corporate life.
- denkmoon 2y ago
  You can understand why though. Those of us in corporate land swim in an all consuming miasma of unreality. Nothing matters. Logic is irrelevant. Absurdity is the norm. Of course it skews your perspective. Yet another ill corporatism inflicts on us.
wslh 2y ago
Beyond the Unabomber it is good to trace much earlier of him such as Kafka, Marx's theory of Alienation, Chaplin, etc.

jayd16 2y ago

What about attracting a mate and social status. Those are fairly ancient goals that are relevant in the modern world. How does that impact the conjecture that we're wired for survival only?

tmarsden 2y ago
Attracting a mate and reproduction easily falls under "satisfying your physical needs" and I would argue is a deeply wired survival instinct. In his words "the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex."

freedomben 2y ago

It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone. IMHO it's a classic example where "the author is excellent at identifying problems, not good at identifying solutions." Unfortunately almost nobody reads the first (identification) part because the solution part is so unpalatable and unacceptable. For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense, but for most people who have a sense of compassion and empathy the costs are extremely unpalatable.

tmarsden 2y ago
Completely agree, his ideas could stand on their own there was no need to push them with violence.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- VelesDude 2y ago
  He used violence to get attention on the ideas. What this did was stifled his goals by decades all for his own selfish gains. Did more damage than good by his own definition of success.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
chubot 2y ago
Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere? I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things. Here's a comment recommending Jacque Ellul and Lewis Mumford - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488 Another one - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601 (I haven't read them) But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers. That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades. That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence
- freedomben 2y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts! > Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere? > I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things. I would imagine the Unabomber isn't the first or only, but it is the first place where I encountered many of the ideas/analysis. It absolutely felt like it went very much against the grain of acceptable writing of the day. It amounted to outright heresy in some cases, which I find fascinating and engaging. People who challenge the status quo are the ones who IMHO change the world the most. I'm by no means equating Kaczynski with many of the greats of the past, but they all had that same trait in common: challenging the assumptions and status quo of the day with at times heretical ideas. In particular, his observation/separation of the three different power levels in which humans can operate deeply spoke to me and resonated with me. His identification of how operating in power levels 1 and 3 can be so profoundly different than how our brains evolved to be and therefore unfulfilling and unsatisfying struck me with the same sort of intellectual force that Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative did the first time I understood it. Then he builds logically on that to identify/describe how with technology we are essentially being pushed entirely out of power-level 2 and into levels 1 and 3, and it becomes very easy and simple to understand why he believes technology to be so disastrous for humanity. > But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers. > That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades. > That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence Absolutely, I very much agree. Although if none of those other works ever made it to my attention, then they don't have the opportunity to influence me or give me the feeling of intellectual nourishment that I got from Kaczynski's manifesto. This strikes me as a very similar problem to the medical knowledge gained by Nazi scientist from doing horrifying experiments on Jewish prisoners. Do we disregard the knowledge gained because it was gained in such a disagreeable and reprehensible way? Logically, disregarding it makes no sense, only providing emotional satisfaction. Using it can benefit our future, but not using it does nothing to change the past. We could say "incentives" but that has to be addressed through punishments/repercussions to the people who did the experiments. But regardless, those other sources have reached me now, thank you! I'll be reading them :-)

brazzy 2y ago

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.) That's one of the most absurd hyperboles (or the most detached-from-realiy statements) I have ever seen. That would mean only one out of 100,000 people is doing "real" work. Or if you spread it evenly, less than one third of a second per working day.

tmarsden 2y ago
You're probably right, it was a made up number to make a point. The point being that if you are not growing your own food (or hunting it) you're probably engaged in "surrogate activity" for a living and not directly satisfying your physical needs. Would you say more than 1/100,000 people in today's world grow and or hunt for their food daily?
- edanm 2y ago
  That's an absurd definition. It also fits the kind typical HN/high-tech mold of underappreciating most people and professions. What makes you think think that your definition of "surrogate activity" is an interesting distinction? That only "growing your own food" is going to make people fulfilled, biologically? Is there any evidence of this? That hunter gatherers, or that farmers in history, were somehow happier? As far as I can tell, most people throughout history worked really hard, but tried as much as they can to do anything but what they had to do to survive. Every single human culture has music, art, science, etc.
- brazzy 2y ago
  Now you're moving goalposts at breathtaking speeds. Previously, you defined surrogate activity as "artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal", i.e. definitely not producing anything useful. Now suddenly it's supposed to be anything "not directly satisfying your physical needs".
  - tmarsden 2y ago

randomdata 2y ago

> I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world. Or is it what the "legendary" comment in the original link calls attention to: That the pay is good? As a result, you technically only need to spend a minutes per day, if that, working on software. Everything else is fluff. This seems to match what Kaczynski is talking about. Take a job developing software that just barely covers the cost of your survival needs and I expect there is no chance you will feel empty about it.

Aurornis 2y ago

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.) I think this level of hyperbole only feels correct when you've been trapped in the kinds of companies where everyone is at least ten steps removed from the customer. When you're sitting through meetings and pushing around abstract "work" to achieve artificial goals all day, it can seem like modern work is all made up and arbitrary. But step outside one of these absurd corporate jobs and you'll see plenty of people doing "real" work, and doing a lot of it. It's eye opening to go from a corporate behemoth to a small company where what you do actually matters to customers. Once you see the effect your work has on something up close, it makes a lot more sense. Every time I read an HN comment where someone is romanticizing Ted Kaczynski's writings, it feels like they're coming from a place of being just a bit too chronically online and a bit too disconnected from how the real world works outside of the internet and corporate life.

denkmoon 2y ago
You can understand why though. Those of us in corporate land swim in an all consuming miasma of unreality. Nothing matters. Logic is irrelevant. Absurdity is the norm. Of course it skews your perspective. Yet another ill corporatism inflicts on us.

wslh 2y ago

Beyond the Unabomber it is good to trace much earlier of him such as Kafka, Marx's theory of Alienation, Chaplin, etc.