Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.54 AVERAGE
3.54 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I generally agree with what was said here about the basic idea of the three types of goals and about leftism as a movement. Also there are interesting things sprinkled here and there.
But everything was told in really broad strokes and using generalisations. Also contains 1001 lengthy footnotes.
85% of water and demagogue-like ramblings, 5% of interesting things, 10% "this may be false or not really like that!" disclaimers.
My small thoughts:
But everything was told in really broad strokes and using generalisations. Also contains 1001 lengthy footnotes.
85% of water and demagogue-like ramblings, 5% of interesting things, 10% "this may be false or not really like that!" disclaimers.
My small thoughts:
1. Limiting invention of technology also means limiting freedom (Paradox?)
2. No, justifying revolution because all people will die anyway from something else is a moot point. Then why start a revolution at all if everyone will just die this or that way?
3. Return to monke, eat ze bugs and live in zepod tree. Nothing else is allowed because art and other 90% things are considered surrogate activities. But who will enforce and police this rule? Is this way of life considered free at all?
4. Numerous logical errors.
5. Still has some food for the thought. Provokes to think deeply about every single thesis and form own opinion (Although this was originally created as an instruction manual)
6. Some people just want to be scientists and computer nerds.
3.75 monke out of 5
3. Return to monke, eat ze bugs and live in ze
4. Numerous logical errors.
5. Still has some food for the thought. Provokes to think deeply about every single thesis and form own opinion (Although this was originally created as an instruction manual)
6. Some people just want to be scientists and computer nerds.
3.75 monke out of 5
Thought provoking. Interesting how much of this is very evident today (2016 Presidential election, modern social justice movements, push for political correctness, etc.). At the same time, the text is outdated and (in my humble opinion) takes a flawed and over exaggerated approach to the evils of technology/industrialization. From a micro perspective I do believe it's easy to think technology is an impediment on modern happiness, but near the end where "FC" says (paraphrasing) that refrigerators wouldn't be a part of the ideal post-technology society he's pushing for, you really have to ask if "FC" drank a bit too much of his own Kool-Aid.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
Innacurate and biased as may be it remains a good outline to understanding the current situation of the technological revolution
PREMISE: We are "over-socialized" by a worldwide totalitarian techno-industrial system which imposes upon us unnatural moral restraints driving us to repressed rage. We displace this rage through surrogate activities like televised sports and pool party barbecues. "Leftists" focus on victimization issues such as racism and sexism that distract from the greater threat of technological suicide. Conservatives glorify industry which conserves neither society nor nature. Scientists threaten humanity by gambling with human welfare and destroying nature. Technology enslaves us by subverting our illusory superficial political freedoms. The solution is revolution which is easier than reform. Revolution means conflict between anarchists for nature and the "power-elite." After we eliminate modern technology, we'll be too busy scratching out a bare subsistence to luxuriate in repressed rage.
CONTEXT: Ted was a mis-born Amish-turned mathematics professor with an IQ of 167 who pipe-bombed academics and businessmen and was reported to the FBI by his brother. At Harvard he participated in a 200-hour psychological torture study that may have been part of the CIA's project MK-Ultra. After the Berkeley math department appointed him its youngest professor ever, he sought counsel for a potential sex change operation, but instead kept his penis and changed his surroundings. Retreating to the edge of the Montana wilderness, he became radicalized against industrial society after his favorite slice of wilderness was replaced with a road. He later criticized Tim McVeigh for indiscriminate bombing despite his own early attempt to bring down an airliner. He made it personal by targeting individual academics and businessmen. His bombs contained the initials 'FC' which stood for "Freedom Club." He mail-bombed people for eight years before one of his bombs killed someone, with a final tally of three killed and 23 maimed. His penultimate bomb killed an advertising shill for Exxon Mobil, which begs the question: Which is worse, killing the defender of Exxon, or defending Exxon?
CRITIQUE: Ted was a frustrated transsexual trapped in a math professor's body. Even Berkeley in the 60s could not coax him from the chrysalis of the mind palace of pure math. He transferred his sexual repression and aesthetic revulsion onto murdering the male techno-industrial rapists of nature. He dedicated his life to symbolic pursuits, first of complex number theory, and then political assassination. His first pursuit died out after most of his theorems were proven. His second pursuit failed to change the world, but his main objective is within view: Industrial society may destroy itself and leave behind a few destitute survivors scratching out a bare subsistence on some non-equatorial habitat greatly reduced in carrying capacity by global warming.
CONTEXT: Ted was a mis-born Amish-turned mathematics professor with an IQ of 167 who pipe-bombed academics and businessmen and was reported to the FBI by his brother. At Harvard he participated in a 200-hour psychological torture study that may have been part of the CIA's project MK-Ultra. After the Berkeley math department appointed him its youngest professor ever, he sought counsel for a potential sex change operation, but instead kept his penis and changed his surroundings. Retreating to the edge of the Montana wilderness, he became radicalized against industrial society after his favorite slice of wilderness was replaced with a road. He later criticized Tim McVeigh for indiscriminate bombing despite his own early attempt to bring down an airliner. He made it personal by targeting individual academics and businessmen. His bombs contained the initials 'FC' which stood for "Freedom Club." He mail-bombed people for eight years before one of his bombs killed someone, with a final tally of three killed and 23 maimed. His penultimate bomb killed an advertising shill for Exxon Mobil, which begs the question: Which is worse, killing the defender of Exxon, or defending Exxon?
CRITIQUE: Ted was a frustrated transsexual trapped in a math professor's body. Even Berkeley in the 60s could not coax him from the chrysalis of the mind palace of pure math. He transferred his sexual repression and aesthetic revulsion onto murdering the male techno-industrial rapists of nature. He dedicated his life to symbolic pursuits, first of complex number theory, and then political assassination. His first pursuit died out after most of his theorems were proven. His second pursuit failed to change the world, but his main objective is within view: Industrial society may destroy itself and leave behind a few destitute survivors scratching out a bare subsistence on some non-equatorial habitat greatly reduced in carrying capacity by global warming.
Premised upon a mixed bag of surprisingly cogent and sensible arguments and fallacious logic leaps, Kaczynski then proceeds to conclude, Thanos-style, that the only way to improve and change the system is to destroy and reset it. I suppose that's Kaczynski's allure and scariness.
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
I decided to read this after seeing my roommate read it. I am in no way condoning what Ted Kaczynski did. With that being said, Kaczynski does make some excellent points about how technology is taking away peoples choices and their freedom. I do think that society is too dependent on technology and we are teetering on the edge of becoming fully reliant on it. However, I think we as a society have reached the point of no return. Technology will continue to advance as long as the human race is alive. The illusion of choice is real and to gain that choice back, we as a whole need to re evaluate our relationship with technology. Unfortunately, I do not think that evaluation will ever come to fruition. I gave it three stars because of who Kaczynski was as a person. I do not condone violence-especially against the innocent. However, I think there needs to be a radical makeover of society. Will that happen? Most likely not.
informative
reflective
medium-paced