[seesawtron]

It might be a bit unorthodox and I would possibly get flagged for writing this but I found the ideas of Kaczynski on impact of technology on us very profound and thought-provoking[0]. I try to separate the "art" from the "artist" and do not condone his violent actions thereafter. But this idea has been around in various shapes where people debate if its true that techonology is evolving at a much faster rate than our minds can evolve to cope with its impacts.

It was very insightful for me to do an introspection of how I interact with techonology and broadly with consumerism and change some aspects of it to focus on what is really meaningful to me.

[0] http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf [1] audiobook: https://youtu.be/n5ITyifcYy8

[luddite99]

Thank you for sharing this one, I agree with you that we should be able to discuss ideas on their own merits. I'm only vaguely familiar with Kaczynski's philosophy and his actions, but I look forward to giving this a read over the next 24 hours.

Just looking over the introduction, certainly some strong beliefs there, but it does resonate to some degree. It does feel like this rejection of all-encompassing technological progress in favour of simpler human living is present in a number of modern movements. Things like minimalism, mindfulness and paleo diets spring to mind. But then again, maybe these are all manufactured and part of that same technological/industrial/consumerist wave.

It often feels like I switch on my phone or computer and they are instantly steering my attention towards things which I did not intend and which my simple human mind is too weak to fight against. In an ideal world there'd perhaps exist an OS or browser which has been designed with human weaknesses in mind, something to help one direct their attention to what they initially wanted, and to put walls up where one's attention is likely to spill out into mindless consumption. But it does seem like the world is currently structured in a way that technology is incentivized to give us an overwhelming kind of freedom, both in the sense that one is free to easily give in to personal weaknesses, and also in the sense that corporations are free to prey on these weaknesses.

[zozbot234]

> Things like minimalism, mindfulness and paleo diets spring to mind. But then again, maybe these are all manufactured and part of that same technological/industrial/consumerist wave.

Of course they are. "Rebel", "counter-cultural", "subversive" anti-consumerism is the silliest and most conformist variety of consumerism. :-P

[stuntkite]

Is it? I think it’s people exploring things that are obviously broken. Even if I don’t agree with the methods and sure plenty of people wear it as a fashion. It costs a lot of money to live sparsely and look good while doing it. There is an elitism to plenty of the advertised flavors.

However, it’s pretty hard to escape how globalized disposable culture has stripped many people of tradition, useful sustainable skills, community, health in the food we can consume, and has catastrophically destroyed important and once seemingly inexhaustible natural resources. Corporate abstractions have moved our ability to feed ourselves and build in our local community in favor of branded single use items that once could enrich a wider community to a lesser degree sustainably. Now, due to a confused worship of disruptive extraction we juice a small group of folks into astronomical opulence. Forcing all of us into a minute to minute tax for just existing.

This isn’t just a problem for the poor. The rich are rudderless too. Their children also die deaths of despair due to lack of context and removal from diverse experiences. They spend their whole lives in preparatory intensive training to be the best and miss experiences that create resilience when the world doesn’t open every door. I’m not saying anyone needs to cry for the rich Harvard alum, but the gap means their bubble can only do one thing. Pop.

We have yet to see the full extent of our current supply chain disruption, but I think the Instagram star vegan van dweller trust fund hobo and the kid who just graduated high school in a dying coal mining town will be thinking about minimalism for reasons the same and different. Lack of essential medicines and variety of good shit to eat and drink spark the mind on how you might do more without depending on near literal magic to teleport essentials to you at a rate that our world obviously can’t support any longer.

[zabana]

There's a book written by Ronald E Purser called "McMindfulness: How minfulness became the new capitalist spirituality" that tackles this very question.

Certainly very enlightening.

[ceilingcorner]

Kaczynski really did everyone a massive disservice by turning to violence. He was a nut, but his criticism of industrialization is more coherent than you'd think. In an alternate universe he is a public "thought leader" giving TED talks on the subject.

[zozbot234]

His ideas are not original at all and he's no "thought leader"; the anarcho-primitivists had raised the same points a lot better and more coherently than he did. Just read the original sources, no reason to pay attention to a violent nutcase.

[tuxxy]

But don't take Anarcho-primitivism seriously. A lot of the "thought leaders" on that side of the Anarchist spectrum just use it as a means to espouse what would normally just be considered Fascism except with an Anarchist twist.

It's the same stupid arguments that people use to justify population control due to "overpopulation". There's a school of thought called anti-civilization that's a tad similar with some divergences that offers far more interesting critiques of industry. Once you get through that, post-civilization thought is also rather interesting.

But really, Anarcho-primitivism is essentially fascist dribble disguised as environmentalism and social justice.

[zozbot234]

> But don't take Anarcho-primitivism seriously.

Why shouldn't it be taken seriously when it's the only variety of anarchism that's actually self-consistent? You can't run a large, mass society on anarchist principles, because social organization on a large scale will always require some way of formally resolving disputes, and that pretty much implies that conventional politics and "rule" by some over others will be a thing.

[michaelt]

A self-consistent philosophy based on a world with a 99.5% lower population seems like a step backwards for that 99.5%, regardless of how good it is for the freedom and equality of the remaining 0.5% of the population?

I mean, in my mind that's right up there with negative utilitarianism's benevolent world-exploder in terms of clever ideas that aren't good ideas.

[partomniscient]

Unfortunately sometimes the only way to find out that a clever idea is not a good idea is to test it via implementation.

[ceilingcorner]

I didn't say his ideas were original, I said they were more coherent than you'd think. And sure, read the original sources, but I don't see the harm in reading Kaczynski himself, if only to see how a smart man went down the wrong path.

The "thought leader" thing was supposed to be a joke.

[zozbot234]

> The "thought leader" thing was supposed to be a joke.

Yes, I got your point but it could be misinterpreted. Plenty of people are quite unaware of where these ideas actually come from, and who deserves credit for them.

[mauvehaus]

Would you mind sharing some starting points for a reading list? I'd be curious to read some of the source material you're talking about.

[tuxxy]

You could begin with the Anarcho-primitivist philosopher John Zerzan. However, heed my comment above: a lot of the followers use this philosophy to justify horribly fascistic ideals. Take a peek at the alternatives to this such as post-civilization.

[zholito]

Could you name a few that you think are worthy?

[ethanwillis]

Except Ted is no anarchist.

[ambivalents]

Whether original or not I am quite shocked by how easily this reads and how much of it rings true today.

[DyslexicAtheist]

TK frequently cited Jacques Ellul's "The Technological Society"[1]. This book gives a decent treatment of whether technology is part of the problem or the solution and also helps explain TK. Considering how Ellul's writing influenced TK it's also more understandable (though not forgivable) why he radicalized himself (after withdrawing from society and living like a hermit). Ellul makes you realize the problem isn't just a recent one, and that there is no "easy" (peaceful) way back ... E.g. the Luddites resorted to violence because they already knew and understood this - they knew that attacking the tools of power (science/technology) amounted to terrorism.

[1] https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSoci...

[yesbabyyes]

I agree that this is worth pondering. Also see (Sun co-founder and vi author) Bill Joy's essay Why the Future doesn't need us, which deals with these matters.

https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

[oldsklgdfth]

I found his manifesto very insight and opened me up to new ideas about technology.

Technopolis by Neil Postman is an in depth analysis of the way technology shapes society. It’s an easy and looks at technology in the broader sense and how the tool shapes the user.

[the-dude]

Plain html : https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national...

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Henry Rollins in Johnny Mnemonic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOovtZXYqj4

[s_r_n]

Is there a different writer with a similar viewpoint we could read about, if we don't want to read his work?

[null4bl3]

I would recommend John Zerzan's "Against Civilization".

It is in the same ballpark

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=9780922915989&i=stripbooks&link...

[pbhjpbhj]

I'm curious why you don't want to read that work?

[crimsonalucard1]

Glad you didn't get voted down.

People, by nature, have one dimensional views about a world that is in actuality multi-dimensional and highly complex.

Humans evolved this way in order to navigate the complexity of the world as quick decisions and judgements aid more in survival than best decisions made at the expense of haste.

It takes a lot of effort and luck to exit our biases and see that even a murderer, child molester, pedophile, rapist, racist, dictator etc. have multiple dimensions.

Not condoning crimes, but honestly I can relate to how someone like Dennis Rodman can chill with Kim Jong Il or even Hitler if he was still alive, but I'm not sure how people in general will react to what I just said and how far above their own biases they can pull themselves.

I guess we'll see with the karma, I used some extreme vocabulary in the sentences above. I think if the OP used the word "Unabomber" instead of "Kaczynski" people would be less forgiving as my initial reaction to his post was positive simply because I didn't recall who "Kaczynski" was...

[rolph]

re garding the CIA comment, there are core values that are exactly opposite of what was stated.

Candor is a fundamental quality for any CIA associate you should be upfront and open about what you want and expect.

Recognition of the potential for positive contribution by any and all people, some volunteer this willingly, some must be managed into such a contribution or placed in a context that creates positive results from seemingly negative actions.

[crimsonalucard1]

Can dor is a stark contrast to skills it takes to be successful in the field of espionage and deception.

A person who is truly honest and open will fail to be a spy as he will reveal the true nature of his intentions way too easily. To succeed against foreign opposition you must be deceptive. To be deceptive means you cannot have candor. If the CIA requires candor as a fundamental quality of any associate then that means they require associates to have qualities that set them up for total failure.

Instead the unstated but obvious conclusion that can support two seemingly contrasting requirements to be a successful agent is this:

What the CIA truly values are people who are good at deceiving the organization itself into thinking they are honest and have candor.

Honestly, I don't think anything I said in this post is true.