3 ms·

I don't agree with bin Laden or his methods, but that's not in this letter. In the first section of the letter, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?", he des

I don't agree with bin Laden or his methods, but that's not in this letter. In the first section of the letter, "Why are we fighting and opposing you?", he describes atrocities committed by the United States and its allies. I think that part is what people reference as "astute points." You don't have to love a person to understand or consider their ideas. Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas, even if you find his methods horrific.

thomassmith65 1mo ago
The points in my comment are in the letter, albeit in doublespeak (eg: "You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.") I omitted the reasonable points from Bin Laden's letter to focus on those that show what a wingnut he was.
- text0404 1mo ago
  People who resort to violence against civilians are largely wingnuts. I'm saying that most people who seriously consider his ideas are engaging with his geopolitical analyses, not his religious fanaticism.
- aziaziazi 1mo ago
  You exemple supports Bin Laden's sanity, isn't ? It's a pertinent idea that is already discussed in our western society : the usage of woman corpse to produce sexual arousal may not be aligned with a better condition for the others women. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, neither if the proposition has been debunked.
karmakurtisaani 1mo ago
> Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas I read a bit of his manifesto once. You have to be very generously looking for the worthy ideas.
- text0404 1mo ago
  Here's the Wikipedia page, it's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut... It's relevant today more than ever: > [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.
xorcist 1mo ago
> many philosophically worthy ideas, Would you mind spelling them out? Because all I find hovers between old fashioned reactionism and bat shit craziness. What is the philosophical value in that?
- sidhsjsjhz 1mo ago
  Parent poster probably should have mentioned Ellul, who the unabomber was heavily influenced by. Makes it easier for people who simply pattern match based on culturally enforced taboos instead of reading the source material and drawing their own conclusions.
- text0404 1mo ago
  To begin, I'm most interested in his argument that technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate this issue and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes. From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future: > [He argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy. This leads to some interesting questions. Do human beings still have autonomy if we allow our decisionmaking to be offloaded to machines? Is technological progress for the sake of progress a good thing? Does it serve humanity? If it does serve humanity, who does it serve and at what cost? What does our society become when human beings no longer have purpose? Independently, Bill Joy quoted Kaczynski in a Wired article in 2000, arguing that unregulated technology can lead us down a dystopian path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_Us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_...

thomassmith65 1mo ago

The points in my comment are in the letter, albeit in doublespeak (eg: "You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.") I omitted the reasonable points from Bin Laden's letter to focus on those that show what a wingnut he was.

text0404 1mo ago
People who resort to violence against civilians are largely wingnuts. I'm saying that most people who seriously consider his ideas are engaging with his geopolitical analyses, not his religious fanaticism.
aziaziazi 1mo ago
You exemple supports Bin Laden's sanity, isn't ? It's a pertinent idea that is already discussed in our western society : the usage of woman corpse to produce sexual arousal may not be aligned with a better condition for the others women. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, neither if the proposition has been debunked.

karmakurtisaani 1mo ago

> Ted Kaczynski is a good example of an American intellectual with many philosophically worthy ideas I read a bit of his manifesto once. You have to be very generously looking for the worthy ideas.

text0404 1mo ago
Here's the Wikipedia page, it's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut... It's relevant today more than ever: > [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.

xorcist 1mo ago

> many philosophically worthy ideas, Would you mind spelling them out? Because all I find hovers between old fashioned reactionism and bat shit craziness. What is the philosophical value in that?

sidhsjsjhz 1mo ago
Parent poster probably should have mentioned Ellul, who the unabomber was heavily influenced by. Makes it easier for people who simply pattern match based on culturally enforced taboos instead of reading the source material and drawing their own conclusions.
text0404 1mo ago
To begin, I'm most interested in his argument that technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate this issue and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes. From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future: > [He argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy. This leads to some interesting questions. Do human beings still have autonomy if we allow our decisionmaking to be offloaded to machines? Is technological progress for the sake of progress a good thing? Does it serve humanity? If it does serve humanity, who does it serve and at what cost? What does our society become when human beings no longer have purpose? Independently, Bill Joy quoted Kaczynski in a Wired article in 2000, arguing that unregulated technology can lead us down a dystopian path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_Us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_...