> The "Bad" Parts of Technology Cannot Be Separated from the "Good" Parts. [1]<p>I thought this was one of the most prophetic statement from his Technology Manifesto. Written in 1995, still true today. Take any technology, and you'll see it has been used for doing "good" things as well as "evil" things, and it's impossible for anyone to separate the two and enforce usage of only the "good" parts. Example: Drones. Used in many countries now to send recon to remote areas for rescue missions [2], drop food or medicinal supplies in conflict zones. Same drones also used by the same countries to remotely kill "suspected terrorists" and by ISIS Jihadis (in Iraq) to drop bombs on Iraqi soldiers [3].<p>You cannot invent drones and tell people it should only be used for good things, not bad things. Same with Facebook. Used to organize events, connect with family, find missing people, start revolutions and protests. Same Facebook also used to spread fake news, lure unsuspecting victims for robbery and even murder, recruit Jihadis.<p>Every time a new technology is invented, human find a way to use it in a bad, destructive way.<p>Too bad blogging and Podcasting or youtube weren't around when Ted Kaczynski's wrote his technology manifesto, cos maybe then he may have resorted to online medium to spread his message, instead of killing people to get attention for his manifesto.<p>[1] Source:
The Unabomber Trial: The Manifesto => <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...</a><p>[2] Source: Drones Help Rescue Missing Hikers => <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1VPZ5jt5Xw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1VPZ5jt5Xw</a><p>[3] Source: Footage of ISIS drone dropping grenade bombs on Iraqi soldiers => <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uw0KWhYAoY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uw0KWhYAoY</a>
His story is tragic. Tragic in that he was seemingly so smart even he couldn't handle it. Tragic in that people lost their lives. Tragic in the fact that we lost a mind like his and the advancements he could've brought to mathematics potentially. Sad in that he was so impacted by MK ultra. It's a truly terrible, yet captivating story.<p>His neo-Luddism has always been of interest to me also, as one of my classes read his essays in college. They just seem so uneven, like they are trying to grasp at a logical idea but fall short. Yeah, interesting and really sad.
<i>"Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy?"</i><p>I've always marveled at people's insistence on not believing that others can cultivate and act on bad/evil impulses without necessarily being insane. That insistence also pushes a simplistic view of mental illness: suffering from any of the numerous conditions that fall under it doesn't automatically equate to loss of awareness of self/propriety, societal mores, etc. And even in acute cases involving reduced consciousness/self-awareness, it doesn't mean that it occurs 24-7 or crucially, during the planning and execution of a crime.<p>I was also struck by the noted increase in certain types of “single-issue” terrorism:<p><i>"Last year the director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, told Congress, “The most recognizable single issue terrorists at the present time are those involved in the violent animal rights, anti-abortion, and environmental protection movements. … the potential for destruction has increased as terrorists have turned toward large improvised explosive devices to inflict maximum damage.”</i>
The article reminded me of the two cultures lecture by CP Snow, from 1959. Where Snow argued Western intellectual culture was sharply divided between the humanities and the sciences, and great harm was being done by each trying to poison and undermine the other to claim greater cultural cachet.<p>I wonder if this played some role in Kaczynski's strange tragedy. As the article describes, he seemed to have adopted parts of each approach -the moral nihilism and dualism of the sciences, coupled with the anti-technology and anti-empiricism of the humanities. Almost as if he absorbed only those things each camp said to damage the other as true. Of course he ultimately did end up murdering scientists and engineers, so it's clear which side his sympathies fell toward in the end.
Wittgenstein gave away his fortune. He left academia and taught kids math. Never equate trinket lusts and synthetics peddlers with sciences. Kaczynski was specifically a young victim of wholly inferior bad men playing with superior men who should be named, denigrated and brutally punished if still breathing. Tit-for-tat for children of bad men is counseled by Harvard game theorists like Thomas Schelling. These are misadventures and not always good jobs at good wages.
Very interesting article.<p>But I think it's a mistake to believe the ideas he was exposed to as an undergraduate lead to him becoming the unabomber.<p>In his manifesto he works through a lot of these ideas and shows us the world view he's developed around them, but the impetus for it all -- it seems clear to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society.<p>It causes him great pain and distress and he's been unable to find a way to make it stop. He's finally decided that society needs to go, and violently. And he's come up with a meticulously constructed world view to support this... (1) that this is somehow OK and (2) that it's possible.<p>While it looks like he clearly used ideas from his Harvard days to create his world view, the motivation existed independent of them. I think he was simply using the materials at hand and would have used other ideas had he not been exposed to the the "Gen Ed" ones... a world view different in details but supporting the same conclusion.<p>It does seem reasonable to wonder whether severe psychological experiments might have pushed a mind on the edge over a precipice, though.
I am in a double-bind. On the one hand, I agree with some of his ideas about society's unspoken capacity for alienation.<p>On the other hand, were his actions + manifesto not the pinnacle of cultural junk food? Practically <i>designed</i> for mass-consumption, and hence complicit in consumption's deleterious effect upon humanity itself -
- because of how he knew it would receive attention? He deliberately chose to express himself in a way so as to attract the attention of the various distant story-tellers (essayists and journalists and news anchors, etc..) he knew would be drawn to his story like moths to flames. How is it more prophetic than O.J. Simpson's highway chase in The White Bronco, <i>even if academia's chorus say "This is a message that actually is addressed to us!"</i>, and <i>even if O.J.'s event was spontaneous, but the Unabomber's was premeditated</i>..?<p>To be honest, mine isn't a totally original idea. I got it from watching a tiny video yesterday about Adorno, on pop music -- <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7Fhaji8ow" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd7Fhaji8ow</a>
this section:<p><pre><code> its research committee approved my request to view the
records of this experiment, the so-called data set, which
referred to subjects by code names only. But because
kaczynski’s alias was by then known to some journalists, I
was not permitted to view his records.
</code></pre>
is straight-up B.S.. the only (putative) purpose of withholding records is to protect confidentiality. but in this case, the journalist was researching with Kaczynski's consent. they might have been playing games with the author (alston chase) and omitted this detail so that he didn't come back with the signed slip of paper, but any of the subject's data should absolutely be available to the subject.<p>I say "putative" because the _real_ purpose seems apparent... to hide from an investigation.
I don't mean to preach, but that is a damn good article, don't just read the comments, read it.<p>So many nuggets, particularly around the maturation process that is mentioned in college where one goes from having a "dualistic" perspective to learning that the world's environment is relative, what happens to to people who reject that view, etc.
Some people put too much faith in reason.<p>When I read his manifesto it felt to me like it was logically airtight. If you agree with his premises, I think it's difficult to reject his conclusions using reason.<p>But of course we have much more than reason to rely on when making decisions, and it's easy to reject his conclusions if you use your whole mind, some might say your heart.<p>I think it's tragic that people, both individually and at the social level, are so good at reasoning ourselves into situations that we just can't live with.
<a href="http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/08/22/545168709/fbi-profiler-says-linguistic-work-was-pivotal-in-capture-of-unabomber" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/08/22/545168709/f...</a>
Here is a podcast with FBI agent who played a pivotal role in solving this case.
I strongly recommend technologists read the work of Fredy Perlman. It is essential that the builders start thinking about social consequences of their creations.<p><a href="http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan" rel="nofollow">http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against...</a>
Another article made the rounds on Reddit a while back and it motivated me to write to Ted (the Unibomber). I explained that I was a software engineer and found some algorithms intrinsically interesting (Sieve of Eratosthenes, etc.). It's too bad I never heard back from him.
A really interesting read and imho it's quite relevant to our current times. This is the current political climate in a nutshell:<p>> Dualists in a relativistic environment tend to see themselves as surrounded; they become increasingly lonely and alienated. This attitude “requires an equally absolutistic rejection of any ‘establishment’” and “can call forth in its defense hate, projection, and denial of all distinctions but one,” Perry wrote. “The tendency … is toward paranoia.”<p>Reading parts of the manifesto, rambling on about "leftists/collectivists/socialists", also reminded me about rather recent "alt-right" arguments. I guess we humans just prefer our realities to be neatly dualistic or else we might be wasting too much energy actually "thinking" about stuff, what a hassle that would be!
ive read a little about this before so i havent bothered to read the article. but as i understand it, ted was cross-examined by someone at harvard as a part of the mk ultra program. and as i understand it, this cross examination was not aided with any kind of drug -- it was a simple verbal exchange. i think a lot of people assume that ted was already crazy, and that is unfortunate because that point of view overlooks the fascinating observation that a persons mind can be broken with nothing but words. i really do find it fascinating. if you pay attention, you will notice that there are many clues floating around. high intelligence has an anecdotal connection with being sensitive or prickly. the flight or fight response is activated when presented with ideas that counter yours, politically. and, there are other events that cause similar symptoms to ted, like a bad breakup. overall, everything points to this vague concept of "identity crisis." i think we have all experienced that feeling at least once. but what is an identity crisis really? it seems to be triggered when our core concepts and ideas about who we are contradict each other. and when its triggered, it can have very serious consequences. so does this mean that someone is justified in keeping their core ideas and principles private? does it mean those things shouldnt be discussed? it is interesting to note that ted could have gone through the examination without any ill effect by simply refusing to disclose things too close to his "core." and there is another interesting concept: the idea of purposefully restructuring ones framework of the mind in order to prevent an identity crisis and similar things. for example, instead of trying to create a logical reason for doing certain things, either during rumination or during cross examination, one could simply say that "i did it because i felt like it." or "because i wanted to." this avoids a cross examiner from pointing out two actions one has taken whose proclaimed motivations contradict each other. "because i felt like it" cannot be contradicted. i think that there are probably a lot of things one might do like this to "harden" ones mind.<p>i think that intelligent people are often more vulnerable to cross examination because they ruminate more often and deeply than other people, and during their ruminations they give structure and motivation to their actions and ideas. once that structure is proven wrong or that multiple parts contradict each other, an intelligent person is unable to ignore it. this causes the brains machinery to grind and in some way stop working correctly. that is what really fascinates me, that an identity crisis is not a conscious thing but the literal gears of the mind grinding against each other. an identity crisis is a manifestation of something low level going wrong in the brain, in my opinion. i wonder if there are drugs or therapies that might stop the gears from grinding.
Not sure what the point of all this is. Thousands of very smart, accomplished men and women have gone through GenEd at Harvard without murdering multiple people.<p>Personally I think Kaczynski was influenced more by his inability to get a date in his entire life.