[tmarsden]

I think this all boils down to what Ted Kaczynski talked about in "Industrial Society and Its Future." Specifically "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" because "in modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs." I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

It's no surprise you can end up feeling empty and unfulfilled in a career like software development, or any other modern career, you are putting energy and emotional involvement that you would otherwise have put into the search for physical necessities. I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world. Biologically speaking fulfillment should come from satisfying your physical needs (i.e. surviving) not from the pursuit of some made up goal.

[freedomben]

It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone.

IMHO it's a classic example where "the author is excellent at identifying problems, not good at identifying solutions." Unfortunately almost nobody reads the first (identification) part because the solution part is so unpalatable and unacceptable. For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense, but for most people who have a sense of compassion and empathy the costs are extremely unpalatable.

[Aurornis]

> It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone.

It's pseudo-profound, but not really insightful at all. It's the kind of writing that seems brilliant to people going through difficult times in life or edgy teenagers who are angry at the world, but to be blunt it falls flat for people who are well-adjusted and thriving.

That's the crux of that type of writing: Ranting about the world in pseudo-profound prose is always going to feel brilliant to people who are struggling with something and want to identify with others who are also struggling, but that doesn't make it insightful or good writing.

> For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense,

Treating his writings and actions as two separate, unrelated things is really downplaying the manifesto. The fact that he took the ideas he wrote down and came to the logical conclusion that violence and destruction were the way forward should tell you something about his writings. Specifically, that they were hyperbolically incorrect.

To be honest, the way that you're identifying with his writings and thinking that even his actions make "logical sense" suggests that you may need to take a step back and reevaluate. It seems his prose got its hooks into you, but it's not actually brilliant content.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>brilliant to people going through difficult times in life or edgy teenagers who are angry at the world, but to be blunt it falls flat for people who are well-adjusted and thriving.

Quote: It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

[yowlingcat]

What a thoroughly lazy critique. To suggest that reading an author with cutting insights whose end conclusions you thoroughly disagree with is akin to agreeing with them is very black and white thinking, and frankly a childish assertion for an adult to make.

You don't actually engage with any of the ideas Ted Kaczynski brought up or offer a thorough critique, so ironically you yourself are engaging in writing a "pseudo-profound" comment, which boils down to a giant ad hominem. Ad hominems aren't wrong because of moral turpitude, they're wrong because they are devoid of information.

If you really did want to critique his worldview, you'd understand pretty intimately Kaczynski's intellectual influences, and you'd be able to identify and articulate which parts you agree with and which parts you don't. It's telling but unfortunate that you opted not to do that and instead reached for the lazy ad hominem.

My advice to you: if you truly do vehemently oppose the actions of this individual (as do I), it's even more incumbent upon you to inform yourself their worldview and influences so that you are equipped to intellectually oppose its potential resurgence. If you aren't willing to do that, you have no right to judge others who have.

[alecst]

Honestly, ouch -- I'm not even the person you replied to and I feel attacked somehow, haha!

You basically just said, "That guy's not all that smart, and if you think he is, take a hard look in the mirror!" Maybe you can say more about why you think his writing falls short and who you'd recommend to read as a counterpoint?

[chubot]

Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere?

I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things.

Here's a comment recommending Jacque Ellul and Lewis Mumford - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488

Another one - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601

(I haven't read them)

But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers.

That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades.

That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence

[freedomben]

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts!

> Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere?

> I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things.

I would imagine the Unabomber isn't the first or only, but it is the first place where I encountered many of the ideas/analysis. It absolutely felt like it went very much against the grain of acceptable writing of the day. It amounted to outright heresy in some cases, which I find fascinating and engaging. People who challenge the status quo are the ones who IMHO change the world the most. I'm by no means equating Kaczynski with many of the greats of the past, but they all had that same trait in common: challenging the assumptions and status quo of the day with at times heretical ideas.

In particular, his observation/separation of the three different power levels in which humans can operate deeply spoke to me and resonated with me. His identification of how operating in power levels 1 and 3 can be so profoundly different than how our brains evolved to be and therefore unfulfilling and unsatisfying struck me with the same sort of intellectual force that Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative did the first time I understood it. Then he builds logically on that to identify/describe how with technology we are essentially being pushed entirely out of power-level 2 and into levels 1 and 3, and it becomes very easy and simple to understand why he believes technology to be so disastrous for humanity.

> But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers.

> That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades.

> That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence

Absolutely, I very much agree. Although if none of those other works ever made it to my attention, then they don't have the opportunity to influence me or give me the feeling of intellectual nourishment that I got from Kaczynski's manifesto.

This strikes me as a very similar problem to the medical knowledge gained by Nazi scientist from doing horrifying experiments on Jewish prisoners. Do we disregard the knowledge gained because it was gained in such a disagreeable and reprehensible way? Logically, disregarding it makes no sense, only providing emotional satisfaction. Using it can benefit our future, but not using it does nothing to change the past. We could say "incentives" but that has to be addressed through punishments/repercussions to the people who did the experiments.

But regardless, those other sources have reached me now, thank you! I'll be reading them :-)

[Starlevel004]

His manifesto is crying about SJWs 40 years before the concept existed. There's nothing insightful in there at all.

[VelesDude]

Yeah that part is weird. He did clarify later on that it wasnt meant to just be them but more of an example of over socialisation.

27 years in the slammer to clear up some ideas means there is A LOT of additional reading material from him in form of letters, essays and books.

It seems the longer he thought about it the more he could not find a path to stop technology progress but figured we just need to ride through it until collapse, if that happens.

[freedomben]

I think we both agree that the people now who cry about SJWs are not particulary insightful or interesting.

But you equating his manifesto to that makes me think you didn't read it, or at least didn't do so with an intent on understanding it. There are millions of shallow/lazy summaries online, so if you read a summary or blog post about it, you've done yourself and the text a disservice.

It's the very much not "crying about" what he calls "leftists" which I'm guessing you are translating into "SJWs," particularly in the current sense. He goes into significant analytical detail about why he thinks what he thinks. You also have to consider his background and experiences, from being severely isolated/deprived of human contact as a child due to the medical advice of the day, to his experience as a rare math prodigy and one of the youngest professors. From wikipedia[1]:

> In late 1967, the 25-year-old Kaczynski became an acting assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught mathematics. He assumed the position as the youngest assistant professor in the history of the university.

Think about the different environment that was than today! This was the late 60's. Leftists then were very different than they are now, and he was at Berkeley. If you're unaware, there was a significant cultural development going on at Berkeley in the late 60s. Further[1]:

> Without any explanation, Kaczynski resigned on June 30, 1969.[35] In a 1970 letter written by John W. Addison Jr., the chairman of the mathematics department, to Kaczynski's doctoral advisor Shields, Addison referred to the resignation as "quite out of the blue".[37][38] He added that "Kaczynski seemed almost pathologically shy", and that, as far as he knew, Kaczynski made no close friends in the department, noting that efforts to bring him more into the "swing of things" had failed.

This period undoubtedly had a huge impact on his life, and not considering this when evaluating his text is a mistake IMHO. Also there is so much more depth to this than what I've said here, but I'm unfortunately out of time for the moment.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

[Starlevel004]

Don't caree, not reading.

[tmarsden]

Completely agree, his ideas could stand on their own there was no need to push them with violence.

[VelesDude]

He used violence to get attention on the ideas. What this did was stifled his goals by decades all for his own selfish gains. Did more damage than good by his own definition of success.

[Aurornis]

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

I think this level of hyperbole only feels correct when you've been trapped in the kinds of companies where everyone is at least ten steps removed from the customer. When you're sitting through meetings and pushing around abstract "work" to achieve artificial goals all day, it can seem like modern work is all made up and arbitrary.

But step outside one of these absurd corporate jobs and you'll see plenty of people doing "real" work, and doing a lot of it. It's eye opening to go from a corporate behemoth to a small company where what you do actually matters to customers. Once you see the effect your work has on something up close, it makes a lot more sense.

Every time I read an HN comment where someone is romanticizing Ted Kaczynski's writings, it feels like they're coming from a place of being just a bit too chronically online and a bit too disconnected from how the real world works outside of the internet and corporate life.

[denkmoon]

You can understand why though. Those of us in corporate land swim in an all consuming miasma of unreality. Nothing matters. Logic is irrelevant. Absurdity is the norm. Of course it skews your perspective. Yet another ill corporatism inflicts on us.

[brazzy]

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

That's one of the most absurd hyperboles (or the most detached-from-realiy statements) I have ever seen. That would mean only one out of 100,000 people is doing "real" work. Or if you spread it evenly, less than one third of a second per working day.

[tmarsden]

You're probably right, it was a made up number to make a point. The point being that if you are not growing your own food (or hunting it) you're probably engaged in "surrogate activity" for a living and not directly satisfying your physical needs. Would you say more than 1/100,000 people in today's world grow and or hunt for their food daily?

[edanm]

That's an absurd definition. It also fits the kind typical HN/high-tech mold of underappreciating most people and professions.

What makes you think think that your definition of "surrogate activity" is an interesting distinction? That only "growing your own food" is going to make people fulfilled, biologically? Is there any evidence of this? That hunter gatherers, or that farmers in history, were somehow happier?

As far as I can tell, most people throughout history worked really hard, but tried as much as they can to do anything but what they had to do to survive. Every single human culture has music, art, science, etc.

[brazzy]

Now you're moving goalposts at breathtaking speeds. Previously, you defined surrogate activity as "artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal", i.e. definitely not producing anything useful. Now suddenly it's supposed to be anything "not directly satisfying your physical needs".

[tmarsden]

They’re not my definitions, that’s straight from the source material. The idea of “surrogate activity” as I understood it was any goal "not directly satisfying your physical needs.” The aspect of it being made up is because it’s chosen by the individual and not a direct requirement of survival. To me that’s just two ways of saying the same thing.

[jononor]

1 in 100k is a stretch. But 1 in 10 maybe? Physically we need water, food, shelter and medical care. Around 10% of US workforce is in agriculture, but a decent chunk of that is probably for providing non-essentials foodstuffs. So maybe only 10% work on actually providing all the essentials for human life.

[sebastianz]

Last time I was at the doctor's for a bone fracture I have been treated by people with tens of years of experience and education, in a gigantic building, and my bones were scanned by tools that cost millions and were science fiction 2 generations ago.

Water food and shelter are not all there is to a comfortable life.

[jononor]

Agreed. That I why I had "and medical care" in the post :)

[joquarky]

"Comfortable" is a relative value.

[jayd16]

What about attracting a mate and social status. Those are fairly ancient goals that are relevant in the modern world. How does that impact the conjecture that we're wired for survival only?

[tmarsden]

Attracting a mate and reproduction easily falls under "satisfying your physical needs" and I would argue is a deeply wired survival instinct.

In his words "the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex."

[randomdata]

> I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world.

Or is it what the "legendary" comment in the original link calls attention to: That the pay is good? As a result, you technically only need to spend a minutes per day, if that, working on software. Everything else is fluff. This seems to match what Kaczynski is talking about.

Take a job developing software that just barely covers the cost of your survival needs and I expect there is no chance you will feel empty about it.

[wslh]

Beyond the Unabomber it is good to trace much earlier of him such as Kafka, Marx's theory of Alienation, Chaplin, etc.