
The Unabomber's Pen Pal - gruseom
http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Unabombers-Pen-Pal/131892/
======
ChuckMcM
_"The primary concern of Kaczynski's writings is freedom, and he argues that
the complex systems required by modern technology necessarily force
individuals to give up too much liberty in the bargain."_

Wow, where have I heard that before?

There is a common theme, in a number of these rants, whether its Kaczynski,
Stallman, or Joy. The theme is that complexity begats obscurity and our
inability to predict the behavior of mostly obscured, highly interconnected
systems exposes us to an 'unnecessary' risk.

I am not persuaded by the 'enslaving', 'grey goo', or 'police state'
scenarios, but I do recognize the potential harm here. Generally however we've
been adapting as these challenges have come up and I expect to continue
adapting. I have yet to hear a credible argument for going back to living in
caves (other than its demonstrable that with population management and
technological restrictions one could create a stable non-growing human
population).

~~~
rubashov
> highly interconnected systems exposes us to an 'unnecessary' risk

Kaczynski's arguments are not mostly about the risk of technology, they are
mostly about how technology forces us into ever narrowing conformist behavior.
He makes the point about how it now impractical to function in North America
without a car. You are largely denied your freedom to walk. Try to walk
through most counties and see how that works out. Similarly, see how it's
becoming almost impossible to legally live without owning a computer. You
increasingly need one to remain in compliance with the IRS and so forth. Your
freedom to forgo computer ownership, or even usage, is being taken.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That's an interesting take on it. As a counter point my adult daughter lives
in Portland and has no car, one of her roommates doesn't even have a license
to drive, so its not even a 'temporary' thing in that case. They do however
have computers, and while my wife's uncle does not, it is certainly becoming
like 'not having a phone' was to my generation.

That being said, how much would you say your claim of "impractical to
function" includes some pre-defined notion of "function" ? Not trying to be
circular here, there are real people who "function" (which I consider the
basics, live, eat, work) without either cars or computers. I do not know if
they use public transit to cross long distances or not.

~~~
philwelch
Portland is one of very few exceptions. Easily more than 95% of the US
population needs a car to get around.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
No, more than 95% of the US land area needs a car. Quite a many people are
actually living in the packed metro areas nowadays.

~~~
philwelch
The term "metro area" almost belies the argument though--most people who live
in any given "metro area" are in the rings of suburban hell, not in the city
center. And precious few city centers actually have functional public
transportation by first-world standards.

------
WiseWeasel
No, his ideas are not worthy of much debate, since they are so deeply flawed.
What constitutes "technology", and who gets to decide at which level of
progress we say "This far and no further"? The answers to these will
necessarily be completely arbitrary, since the scope of the actual problems
being solved is so poorly understood.

If a convincing case can be made that particular technologies are causing
specific harm, they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis as best we
can. Instead, Ted is a modern day Don Quixote who couldn't cope with society
and chose to tilt at windmills, at the unfortunate expense of innocent blood
and suffering.

His intellectual value is largely cautionary.

~~~
saraid216
This.

Anti-technologists by and large seem incapable of actually understanding
technology by any reasonable definition (and being magnanimous, I would even
permit something as asinine as, "silicon-based Turing machines", if only to
make the point that I don't have to agree with the definition for it to be
reasonable). One of the reasons I like Nick Carr is that he argues against
particular usages of technology more than technology itself.

My definition is "applied science", which in a broad stroke includes
constructed shelters like log cabins and loincloths.

~~~
defen
1) Enrolled in Harvard at 16, PhD in mathematics from U of M, assistant
professor of mathematics at UC Berkeley at 25 - I think he was more than
capable of understanding technology.

2) See my earlier comment - it's not about any specific technology! Your
comment and parent comment indicate that you both haven't actually read the
manifesto and are thus completely unqualified to discuss it or form opinions
on it.

~~~
saraid216
@defen,

1) Being capable of doing something doesn't mean you've done it. For instance,
you're capable of reading comprehension, but you completely missed the fact
that I wasn't attacking your damsel in distress. I am actually talking about
_all_ anti-tech commentators.

2) Of course it's not about any specific technology. That's precisely my
criticism. If they were specific, then a serious discussion could be had. But
because they can't quite figure out what they themselves are critical of in a
precise fashion, they're unable to get anyone to listen.

You're welcome to provide substance to this by pasting in Kaczinsky's
definition of technology.

------
koeselitz
It's really too bad that Kaczynski was trying to publish his work back in the
1970s and 1980s. These days, he could have just published it on the internet,
and that way plenty of people would have been able to read it.

~~~
J3L2404
His last two bombs were in '94 and '95 and both were fatal. So he could have
published on the net, but he chose violence. He chose wrong.

~~~
keithpeter
Yes, but perhaps he did not see the 'net/Web as natural? Perhaps a new
unabomber now would? Technology gets naturalised over time, as the teacher in
the original article was saying about Plato and writing. A modern maths
textbook is a pretty sophisticated piece of technology.

~~~
zbuc
Which is a very good reason that his argument doesn't make sense. Naturalism
is silly, as is separating things as "human-created" or "man-made" versus
"natural". It all comes out of the same matter of the universe.

I really don't understand the allure this professor feels for his luddite
ideals.

> "It's always around the same theme of, This system is irreconcilable, it has
> to be ended," Skrbina says. "How can we make this clear? How can we convince
> people that technology is the root cause of the problem? It's not bad
> government. It's not the capitalists. It's not minorities. It's not illegal
> immigrants. He really wants to get away from blaming anything else or
> anybody else."

Maybe he has difficulty convincing anyone of that because it's not a
particularly compelling argument?

~~~
keithpeter
"Which is a very good reason that his argument doesn't make sense. Naturalism
is silly, as is separating things as "human-created" or "man-made" versus
"natural". It all comes out of the same matter of the universe."

And it is part of the human story to use tools/manipulate their environment.
However, when you abandon the idea of 'natural' you also loose the reassurance
of some kind of limit to our particular random walk. The human journey could
lead to our destruction, or to a life among the stars. We have to work on
internal evidence and read the data we have effectively.

------
Alex3917
"Is it even morally or ethically right," he asks, "to be studying the works of
a societal criminal."

Clearly this student didn't learn anything from their earlier reading of
Phaedrus.

~~~
jackfoxy
So reading _Phaedrus_ is supposed to automatically turn you into a complete
Platonist? I and many others give broad credence to Platonism in the realm of
mathematics, but the students question is in the realm of ethics, and Dr.
Skrbina (as summarized in the article) brushes this question off all too
easily.

~~~
Alex3917
I was referring to the fact that the mean character in the book is Socrates,
who was put to death for being a 'societal criminal.' This doesn't really have
anything to do with Platonic ethics.

edit: Especially since Socrates was put to death for 'corrupting the youth'
and 'teaching new gods', which is more or less the usual argument against
teaching Kaczynski.

"And there's the chance that a serious consideration of the Unabomber's ideas
could encourage others to send bombs to get attention." --> corrupting the
youth

"The primary concern of Kaczynski's writings is freedom, and he argues that
the complex systems required by modern technology necessarily force
individuals to give up too much liberty in the bargain" --> teaching new gods

(In this case 'the bargain' is literally straight out of the Adam and Eve
story in the bible, and a direct challenge to western religion/civilization.)

~~~
jackfoxy
That was actually the first thing that came into my mind upon your reference
to _Phaedrus_ , but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were
referring to something deeper. Socrates _crime_ in his time was defying the
state's moral code. For which he was put to death. He was a soldier in Athens'
army, and possibly killed other men in that role (for which most societies
forgive to this day), but he never murdered. Kaczynski murdered in cold blood.
Comparing him to Socrates in any way is vacuous. This is called ethics.

------
defen
A lot of people on here are arguing in favor of technology, which leads me to
believe that they haven't actually read the manifesto and are just going by
Kaczynski's reputation or bombing targets or the title. It's not about
technology! It's about human psychology and the form of society - technology
is just an enabler for that. His arguments would be just as valid in ancient
Egypt as they would be in the 21st century.

------
tnash
I think this is telling: "In his personal life, Skrbina says he generally
tries not to use technology if he can avoid it—he refuses to carry a
cellphone, has never owned a microwave oven, and does not have a laptop
(though he does use computers for his work)." So he advocates understanding
Kaczynski's point of view, but he doesn't attempt to understand technology?
That seems rather one-sided.

~~~
eurleif
If he uses a computer for work, it sounds like he understands technology, but
makes the choice not to use it.

~~~
tnash
I think that's a broad leap from "uses a computer for work" to "understands
technology". My grandparents use computers for work, but they do not know much
about technology.

------
firefoxman1
> "Humanity, the author writes, is at a crossroads, and we can either turn the
> clock back to a happier, more primitive time or face destruction."

Has anyone else read a book called Ishmael? That's basically the premise
except instead of being an opinionated rant, the points are made through
dialog (a talking gorilla) and instead of forcing opinions on the reader, it's
much more philosophical and nudges you logically toward the conclusion. Pretty
enjoyable book.

~~~
AznHisoka
I actually accidentally discovered Daniel Quinn's work through the Unabomber's
Manifesto. I agree with a lot of what the Unabomber and Quinn says - the
Unabomber just chose a more violent way to spread this message.

------
rubashov
The overall tone of the Unabomber Manifesto is pretty crazy, but substantial
parts are rather profound, or at least concise and effective restatements of
important ideas.

In particular, Kaczynski's discussion of the Power Process, Autonomy, and
Surrogate Activities rings true and explains a lot. I get the impression a lot
of this stuff has only been further confirmed in recent years: people without
autonomous, difficult, and meaningful tasks are unhappy.

<http://xahlee.org/p/um/um.html>

I also thought his discussion of the psychological character of the Left has
some value.

~~~
balsam
It reads like Nietzsche (all that Will to Power & slave morality stuff)
updated for century XXI. (I skimmed the text by highlighting the word "goal".)
Frustratingly, the Unabomber doesn't give any examples of "real goals". Does
helping startups succeed count?

~~~
philwelch
That's not a very helpful comment; if you're going to discuss the text, you'd
better read it, and carefully. If you did, you'd know the answer to your
questions. It's extremely straightforward.

------
moldbug
Oh, that's lovely. I'm sure Professor Skrbina is also pen pals with Eric
Rudolph, the abortion bomber:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph>

Every other week, he teaches his adoring young undergrads to understand
Rudolph's subtle, nuanced position on the sanctity of human life... not.

FWIW, both Kaczynski's and Rudolph's philosophical opinions are worthy of
debate. Their persons, however, are icky. Icky rubs off - even if you're a
professor.

~~~
gruseom
You seem to be saying something, but I can never figure out just what it is.

~~~
moldbug
What I'm saying is that it's immoral to play kissy-face, even intellectual
kissy-face, with murderers.

Somehow this is controversial. But you can see it easily if you flip the
political polarities. Hence, Eric Rudolph.

Something obvious you can't see is called a "blind spot." Is there anything
else in your blind spot?

~~~
knieveltech
Define "murderers". Depending on how widely you spread that blanket you could
cover every government employee in the world. Include "or through inaction" as
a modifier to your definition and you and I are just as guilty.

~~~
NoPiece
Murder almost always is defined to include premeditation (malice
aforethought). So you're in the clear, along with most every government
employee in the world.

