What are the most interesting parts of Ted Kaczynski manifesto?

[JimmyJockstrap]

I was going to read the whole thing but it was a long article


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Indus...cannot_be_separated_from_the_.27good.27_parts

Do you think much of what he said was true?

 

[russ_watters]

He's a nut and most of what he said was gibberish. However, if you get a bunch of monkeys to poke away randomly at a typewriter, eventually they'll produce Hamlet. That doesn't make them good writers. It is easy enough to see in his thesis:

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

I sincerely hope it is easy to see why this is gibberish, but let's break it down:

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries," These two thoughts are mutually exclusive. Since the second is factually true, the first is wrong (the rest follow the same line of illogic).
"but they have destabilized society" Factually wrong.
"have made life unfulfilling" Opinion stated as fact (and I rather suspect that isn't the general consensus)
"have led to widespread psychological suffering" Same as above.
"in the Third World to physical suffering as well" Factually wrong. The third world has, in fact, improved as a result of the industrialization of the industrialized nations - it has just improved less than the industrialized nations (because the 3rd world hasn't industrialized)
"and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world." Like I said, a blind nut occasionally finds a squirrel. That one's true. But that isn't the final world: humans have shown that they are willing and able to stop and even undo damage to the environment (see: CFCs). So while it can be argued that we need to do more, he can't say that the destruction of the environment is going to continue unabated.

The beginning is so bad, there really is no good reason to read futher. He's a nut.

 

[OrbitalPower]

He loses me at the analysis of leftism. Interestingly, he seems to have about as much understanding of leftist theory as the average conservative, tying it in with "politically correct feminists and gays" and the like. The basis of leftism is actually democracy; nearly all leftist theories are supposed to have democracy and equality. Democracy is necessary as the best way to make decisions, equality is necessary so that any majority will not hurt the minority - we're all equal in rights to life, liberty, et al.

Many documents, philosophers, and so on have tidbits of leftism here and there although most of human history is that of rightism, or, rather, monarchistic or ogopolistic control.

His psychological analysis is just psycho-babble.

He tried to kill several leftist professors as well, including one at MIT.

The fact is, his philosophy is really that of "anarcho-primitivism," which is made up of some reactionary and twisted leftist/anarchistic philosophy. Even most anarchists rejected this philosophy though.

 

[GCT]

Ted Kaczynski was a nut , however he was also a case of parental neglect and brainwashing. Overall he's dispicable yet as he claimed to his mother "the damage ... can never be undone ". He's simply a total outsider, his life consisted of three stages
-his early life was soley influenced by his mother's opinions as the boy had no mind of his own , later by Harvard , all of which led to his tantrum ... and now his life is over - without ever having friends , girlfriends , he never ever entered the realm of societal existence for that matter. It's a rare case.

 

[tribdog]

He tried to kill several leftist professors as well, including one at MIT.
.

He did exclude engineering "hard science" professors from his leftist label. so he gets two points for that.

 

[binzing]

Ugh, the page was so huge it wasn't loading on my dialup, so I couldn't see the section I wanted to "The true intentions of scientists" or whatever the exact title was...

 

[OrbitalPower]

He did exclude engineering "hard science" professors from his leftist label. so he gets two points for that.

I'd put engineering in the applied sciences so I don't agree with his definitions. Natural scientists (hard scientists) deal with things in the world, whereas engineers are builders.

I consider linguistics close to the hard sciences. Google "hard science" linguistics; language is a natural development in organisms whereas engines are not. He also attacked a computer science professor who are in the engineering field for all practical purposes.

Even his definitions are crazy. Also, the linguist Chomsky gave a few lectures to engineers in the 80s/90s and some of his ideas have had application to the field of CS.

Finally, I like some social sciences, such as psychology, which is getting closer to hard science because it studies the human brain. I really like political science as well. They're all good.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Ugh, the page was so huge it wasn't loading on my dialup, so I couldn't see the section I wanted to "The true intentions of scientists" or whatever the exact title was...

It's about the motives of scientists and it's gibberish because he says that Scientists mask their true motives with claims of "curiosity" because their highly specialized fields are not "normal" modes of human curiosity. I'm sure his definition of normal is crazy.

 

[Chi Meson]

In a moment of clarity:

Final note

231. Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

In other words, "I'm just talkin'..."

 

[tribdog]

I'd put engineering in the applied sciences so I don't agree with his definitions. Natural scientists (hard scientists) deal with things in the world, whereas engineers are builders.

I consider linguistics close to the hard sciences. Google "hard science" linguistics; language is a natural development in organisms whereas engines are not. He also attacked a computer science professor who are in the engineering field for all practical purposes.

Even his definitions are crazy. Also, the linguist Chomsky gave a few lectures to engineers in the 80s/90s and some of his ideas have had application to the field of CS.

Finally, I like some social sciences, such as psychology, which is getting closer to hard science because it studies the human brain. I really like political science as well. They're all good.

I'm pretty sure he meant hard science in a different light. Hard science is the stuff that you can prove and repeat. Soft science is a bit more malleable. Linguistics, social science and political science are all soft sciences.