8 ms·

KK on Unabomber: pounce on [technology] when it is down and kill it before it rises again

34 points by jjguy 18y ago

jacquesm 18y ago
that's quite the read, thank you for that link. The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with much of the Unabombers premises, even if I can't agree with his conclusion.
- jjguy 18y ago
  yes! I thought the same when reading, and had to share. Incidentally, Kelly has been posting on "The Technium" for a while now. I added him to my blog roll because I respect his experience and have really enjoyed many of the things his written in the past. He's allegedly using The Technium to help develop his thoughts for his next book. Many of his early posts were a little too cerebral for my tastes, but he must be getting a lot closer to pulling his book together -- his more recent posts have been more grounded. That, or I'm just in one of those moods. (shrug) Either way, he's not leaving my blogroll.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with much of the Unabombers premises What have you studied about economics? I asked once here on HN for recommendations of economics books http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683 but didn't get as many replies as I expected. I think a lot of the Unabomber's ideas are characteristic of one kind of thinking by people unacquainted with economics, but perhaps you are more acquainted with economics than I am.
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    I don't think it has anything to do with economics. The passages that strike me as somehow right have very little to do with economics, more with ecology and ethics. What makes the Unabomber a scary individual is that he's a reasonably smart guy. I don't know if this rings a bell or not but there is a movie called 'falling down', I have the exact same feeling about the main character in that movie. Of course then they have to graft on some typical hollywood ending and spoil it all, but roughly 3/4 of the movie you totally sympathize with the guy. (or at least I did).
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
msie 18y ago
@endtime: "But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas." It seems that many have not read to the end of the blog entry where KK argues against the Unabomber's most basic premise of his manifesto.
- wmf 18y ago
  msie, please learn how to reply properly on HN; we use threading, not @.
  - ahpeeyem 18y ago
    it's amusing that someone called 'msie' would ignore standards ;)
  - msie 18y ago
    Sorry, it was a brain-fart on my part. I was trying to comment on a general trend I was seeing in the comments and then I quoted what was mentioned in one comment to preface my comment.
endtime 18y ago
A lot of this seems to be gibberish: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further. Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean? This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics. Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow. Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it. What system? Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed. Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming... Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse. If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement... Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again. Again, nonsense. I know, Unabomber, of couse he's crazy. But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas. Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.
- jjguy 18y ago
  It's too late in the day for me to give a coherent reply to all your questions. But your first, I think, is easy: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? We apply new technologies in new ways to help improve and regulate our society. Each decision is well-intentioned, improves society and -- taken alone -- is a good idea. Examples: (1) Red light cameras (2) RFID passports (3) National ID Cards Each decision is also a tiny reduction in personal freedom. As the libertarians say, the incremental destruction of our liberties. Or, as Kelly condensed -- "the less our freedoms."
  - unalone 18y ago
    But every technology that lessens freedom comes with technology that increases freedom even more. Citation: the Internet.
    - 18y ago
wallflower 18y ago
> It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Reminds me of Facebook's encroachment into (most) of our lives.
- JacobAldridge 18y ago
  I don't know if I make the connection as clearly as you have, but I can share how happy I am making the decision to leave Facebook late last year. They still have my data, sure, but they don't compromise on my life through a constant urge to 'check my page' anymore.
cpr 18y ago
Kelly's basic argument is that, yes, the Unabomber was fundamentally correct in his understanding of the tension involved in a technopoly (a society where technology is no longer a tool but actually driving the society--read Neil Postman's book of that name for a good read), but that he (Kelly) disagrees with what to do about it. Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology. Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them. For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)
- alan-crowe 18y ago
  Kelly's page lacks historical depth. My short essay http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html could serve as a wake-up call, alerting people to the need to read older books and learn enough of the history of technology to appreciate the depth of its roots in human society.

34 points by jjguy 18y ago

that's quite the read, thank you for that link. The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with much of the Unabombers premises, even if I can't agree with his conclusion.

jjguy 18y ago
yes! I thought the same when reading, and had to share. Incidentally, Kelly has been posting on "The Technium" for a while now. I added him to my blog roll because I respect his experience and have really enjoyed many of the things his written in the past. He's allegedly using The Technium to help develop his thoughts for his next book. Many of his early posts were a little too cerebral for my tastes, but he must be getting a lot closer to pulling his book together -- his more recent posts have been more grounded. That, or I'm just in one of those moods. (shrug) Either way, he's not leaving my blogroll.
tokenadult 18y ago
The scary thing when I read all that is that I find yourself agreeing with much of the Unabombers premises What have you studied about economics? I asked once here on HN for recommendations of economics books http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=415683 but didn't get as many replies as I expected. I think a lot of the Unabomber's ideas are characteristic of one kind of thinking by people unacquainted with economics, but perhaps you are more acquainted with economics than I am.
- jacquesm 18y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with economics. The passages that strike me as somehow right have very little to do with economics, more with ecology and ethics. What makes the Unabomber a scary individual is that he's a reasonably smart guy. I don't know if this rings a bell or not but there is a movie called 'falling down', I have the exact same feeling about the main character in that movie. Of course then they have to graft on some typical hollywood ending and spoil it all, but roughly 3/4 of the movie you totally sympathize with the guy. (or at least I did).
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

msie 18y ago

@endtime: "But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas." It seems that many have not read to the end of the blog entry where KK argues against the Unabomber's most basic premise of his manifesto.

wmf 18y ago
msie, please learn how to reply properly on HN; we use threading, not @.
- ahpeeyem 18y ago
  it's amusing that someone called 'msie' would ignore standards ;)
- msie 18y ago
  Sorry, it was a brain-fart on my part. I was trying to comment on a general trend I was seeing in the comments and then I quoted what was mentioned in one comment to preface my comment.

endtime 18y ago

A lot of this seems to be gibberish: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? Technology destroys nature, which strengthens technology further. Some technology can preserve nature. And even if that weren't the case, why would destroying nature make technology "stronger"? What does that even mean? This ratchet of technological self-amplification is stronger than politics. Um, what? Stronger in what respect? What do the two have to do with each other, and how is either "strong"? It's like saying that insurance is stronger than yellow. Any attempt to use technology or politics to tame the system only strengthens it. What system? Therefore technological civilization must be destroyed, rather than reformed. Ah, I knew the (openly) crazy bit was coming... Since it cannot be destroyed by tech or politics, humans must push industrial society towards its inevitable end of self-collapse. If it's inevitable, why do we need to push for it? Not that that's not the only thing wrong with this statement... Then pounce on it when it is down and kill it before it rises again. Again, nonsense. I know, Unabomber, of couse he's crazy. But the article (and some of the other comments here) seem to be in agreement with his general ideas. Technology doesn't have an agenda. It's not an organism. The idea is utter nonsense.

jjguy 18y ago
It's too late in the day for me to give a coherent reply to all your questions. But your first, I think, is easy: The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms. Why? We apply new technologies in new ways to help improve and regulate our society. Each decision is well-intentioned, improves society and -- taken alone -- is a good idea. Examples: (1) Red light cameras (2) RFID passports (3) National ID Cards Each decision is also a tiny reduction in personal freedom. As the libertarians say, the incremental destruction of our liberties. Or, as Kelly condensed -- "the less our freedoms."
- unalone 18y ago
  But every technology that lessens freedom comes with technology that increases freedom even more. Citation: the Internet.
  - 18y ago

wallflower 18y ago

> It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Reminds me of Facebook's encroachment into (most) of our lives.

JacobAldridge 18y ago
I don't know if I make the connection as clearly as you have, but I can share how happy I am making the decision to leave Facebook late last year. They still have my data, sure, but they don't compromise on my life through a constant urge to 'check my page' anymore.

cpr 18y ago

Kelly's basic argument is that, yes, the Unabomber was fundamentally correct in his understanding of the tension involved in a technopoly (a society where technology is no longer a tool but actually driving the society--read Neil Postman's book of that name for a good read), but that he (Kelly) disagrees with what to do about it. Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology. Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them. For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)

alan-crowe 18y ago
Kelly's page lacks historical depth. My short essay http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html could serve as a wake-up call, alerting people to the need to read older books and learn enough of the history of technology to appreciate the depth of its roots in human society.