Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.54 AVERAGE
3.54 AVERAGE
Let me see if I can walk through the argument as Kacyznski has presented it.
Human beings derive satisfaction in life from exercising the "power process," which is an inherent drive in the Nietzschian mold to exercise power over nature, other people, and oneself. In a state of nature, man utilizes this power process to survive and meet his basic biological needs, and in so doing derives satisfaction with life. The world is balanced, peace on Earth, koombayah.
The problem with modern, technological society is that it makes the satisfaction of those biological needs way too easy. What does it really take for most people to survive these days? A moderate degree of intelligence, Kaczynski says, and OBEDIENCE.
The problem is that human beings still have this inclination for the power process leftover. What most people try and do to satisfy this need is throw themselves into what he calls a "surrogate activity" -- a hobby, religion, social activism, sports team, or really anything that will give you a goal whose attainment will require struggle on your part.
So far, so good, as far as I'm concerned. I've long been aware of the boredom of basic survival in the system today. I'm also far too cynical about surrogate activities to derive total fulfillment from them... excepting of course running against the wind.
The only way to get rid of the alienation and anomie caused by the system, he says, is to throw out all of it. Most important is to banish technology, because technology is what isolates us from one another, and allowing it to exist at all is just encouraging it to progress and isolate us further. And the only way to cast off the shackles of technology and the existing world order that creates it, is revolution.
I'm still with him here. Personally, I'm not sure that I'd like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, but I do acknowledge that the system that supports me today also greatly limits my freedom, is accelerating the pace of ecological and environmental disaster, and contributes to the mental anguish and anomie of any truly thinking person. I also accept that it probably can't be changed from within.
But this is where we diverge. Kaczynski goes on a rant on the inevitable evils of genetic engineering. He argues that society will inevitably, and with the best intentions, seek to engineer away traits that are negative responses to strains imposed by the system. This would not only enshrine the opinions and proclivities of the decision-making class into the very genetic code of human beings, but would make people more resistant to the strains imposed by the system and make things worse, on aggregate.
He also speaks with great seriousness about the possibility of a takeover of the means of production by robots and artificial intelligence, exploring a nuanced variety of possible scenarios for the robopocalypse, replete with various degrees of human/robot control.
To avoid this nightmarish future, a group of revolutionaries based around a core of true believers needs to be assembled. This group, recruited only on the basis of rational arguments, needs to call for economic and social change, while avoiding any overtly political movements. A shallower version of the ideology can be cultivated for mass consumption, but its creation should be subordinate to the core of rationally-motivated believers.
This revolutionary group should work to increase the social stresses within the system to hasten the day when it breaks down or is sufficiently weakened to be subverted. This will involve death on a massive scale. And all technology must be destroyed so that society cannot reconstitute itself.
Kaczynski has a certain amount of internal logic to his arguments, but it's all based on a bunch of assumptions that he pointedly (and admittedly, in various parentheticals) refuses to prove. In rejecting our technological society, he demonstrates that he believes in one of modern society's essential myths: the myth of progress.
That was what I was wondering amidst his rants. Why bother destroying technological manuals when the very fossil fuels that underpin the economy are finite, and will disappear of their own accord? Why worry about the takeover by Skynet, when we actually find that true artificial intelligence is a fantasy? His revolution may well occur, but if society tips over the edge, it's not necessarily because it's been pushed.
Also of concern his rambling damnation of "leftists" of various stripes. I mean, sure, I take a few of his points. Leftists (can we call them liberals?) are more likely than not to be statists, and thus to resist the fall of modern, technological society. It's also highly likely that the revolution that Kacyznski's calls for would be gobbled up and consumed on the lefty fringe into some bastardized politicized version of the green party.
But all the nonsense about how feminism and gay rights necessarily stem from low self-esteem is just out of place. Sure, the looney left fringe of the sort one might see on Tumblr these days is a little out of control, but I don't think they control any major liberal platforms. They're just there. Political correctness is not the ultimately evil of a society.
And then of course, there are his deadly methods, with Kacyznski addresses briefly, if directly:
Right.
There are a surprising number of good points in here. The fragility of the existing world order is something that occupies my attention more and more as the years go by. I think humanity might find more stability and personal satisfaction on the other side of revolutionary change. But I also have no wish to live the chaos that would be the fulcrum for this new order (or have my children live through it, for that matter.)
Nor would I be willing to mail bombs to people just to get the press to pay attention to my manifesto — that kind of narcissism is hard to forgive, even in an imagined future in which Kaczynski's revolutionaries come to be.
In all, a lot of interesting ideas to be had here, but it's based on some shaky assumptions and was enacted with unvarnished egotism.
Human beings derive satisfaction in life from exercising the "power process," which is an inherent drive in the Nietzschian mold to exercise power over nature, other people, and oneself. In a state of nature, man utilizes this power process to survive and meet his basic biological needs, and in so doing derives satisfaction with life. The world is balanced, peace on Earth, koombayah.
The problem with modern, technological society is that it makes the satisfaction of those biological needs way too easy. What does it really take for most people to survive these days? A moderate degree of intelligence, Kaczynski says, and OBEDIENCE.
The problem is that human beings still have this inclination for the power process leftover. What most people try and do to satisfy this need is throw themselves into what he calls a "surrogate activity" -- a hobby, religion, social activism, sports team, or really anything that will give you a goal whose attainment will require struggle on your part.
So far, so good, as far as I'm concerned. I've long been aware of the boredom of basic survival in the system today. I'm also far too cynical about surrogate activities to derive total fulfillment from them... excepting of course running against the wind.
The only way to get rid of the alienation and anomie caused by the system, he says, is to throw out all of it. Most important is to banish technology, because technology is what isolates us from one another, and allowing it to exist at all is just encouraging it to progress and isolate us further. And the only way to cast off the shackles of technology and the existing world order that creates it, is revolution.
I'm still with him here. Personally, I'm not sure that I'd like to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater, but I do acknowledge that the system that supports me today also greatly limits my freedom, is accelerating the pace of ecological and environmental disaster, and contributes to the mental anguish and anomie of any truly thinking person. I also accept that it probably can't be changed from within.
But this is where we diverge. Kaczynski goes on a rant on the inevitable evils of genetic engineering. He argues that society will inevitably, and with the best intentions, seek to engineer away traits that are negative responses to strains imposed by the system. This would not only enshrine the opinions and proclivities of the decision-making class into the very genetic code of human beings, but would make people more resistant to the strains imposed by the system and make things worse, on aggregate.
He also speaks with great seriousness about the possibility of a takeover of the means of production by robots and artificial intelligence, exploring a nuanced variety of possible scenarios for the robopocalypse, replete with various degrees of human/robot control.
To avoid this nightmarish future, a group of revolutionaries based around a core of true believers needs to be assembled. This group, recruited only on the basis of rational arguments, needs to call for economic and social change, while avoiding any overtly political movements. A shallower version of the ideology can be cultivated for mass consumption, but its creation should be subordinate to the core of rationally-motivated believers.
This revolutionary group should work to increase the social stresses within the system to hasten the day when it breaks down or is sufficiently weakened to be subverted. This will involve death on a massive scale. And all technology must be destroyed so that society cannot reconstitute itself.
Kaczynski has a certain amount of internal logic to his arguments, but it's all based on a bunch of assumptions that he pointedly (and admittedly, in various parentheticals) refuses to prove. In rejecting our technological society, he demonstrates that he believes in one of modern society's essential myths: the myth of progress.
That was what I was wondering amidst his rants. Why bother destroying technological manuals when the very fossil fuels that underpin the economy are finite, and will disappear of their own accord? Why worry about the takeover by Skynet, when we actually find that true artificial intelligence is a fantasy? His revolution may well occur, but if society tips over the edge, it's not necessarily because it's been pushed.
Also of concern his rambling damnation of "leftists" of various stripes. I mean, sure, I take a few of his points. Leftists (can we call them liberals?) are more likely than not to be statists, and thus to resist the fall of modern, technological society. It's also highly likely that the revolution that Kacyznski's calls for would be gobbled up and consumed on the lefty fringe into some bastardized politicized version of the green party.
But all the nonsense about how feminism and gay rights necessarily stem from low self-esteem is just out of place. Sure, the looney left fringe of the sort one might see on Tumblr these days is a little out of control, but I don't think they control any major liberal platforms. They're just there. Political correctness is not the ultimately evil of a society.
And then of course, there are his deadly methods, with Kacyznski addresses briefly, if directly:
As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don’t mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.
Right.
There are a surprising number of good points in here. The fragility of the existing world order is something that occupies my attention more and more as the years go by. I think humanity might find more stability and personal satisfaction on the other side of revolutionary change. But I also have no wish to live the chaos that would be the fulcrum for this new order (or have my children live through it, for that matter.)
Nor would I be willing to mail bombs to people just to get the press to pay attention to my manifesto — that kind of narcissism is hard to forgive, even in an imagined future in which Kaczynski's revolutionaries come to be.
In all, a lot of interesting ideas to be had here, but it's based on some shaky assumptions and was enacted with unvarnished egotism.
"Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised."
A fascinating read. Kaczynski brings forward very uncomfortable truths about modern society and makes some startlingly accurate predictions about the 21st century. However, this is still clearly written by someone unfocused, angry, and prone to distraction (and also prone to committing crimes, but everyone knows that). The multiple chapters focused on the dangers of leftism when many of his large-scale complaints derive from the capitalist class is a bizarre choice, even if some of his criticisms of leftists weren't inaccurate. Seems like he had some chip on his shoulder about people he met in university and decided that needed to be included for whatever reason.
I'd also add that his focus on technology seems overly misplaced. A lot of passages in the book make more sense if you replace the anti-technology language with anti-capitalist rhetoric, but I guess that would be too leftist for Kaczynski.
A fascinating read. Kaczynski brings forward very uncomfortable truths about modern society and makes some startlingly accurate predictions about the 21st century. However, this is still clearly written by someone unfocused, angry, and prone to distraction (and also prone to committing crimes, but everyone knows that). The multiple chapters focused on the dangers of leftism when many of his large-scale complaints derive from the capitalist class is a bizarre choice, even if some of his criticisms of leftists weren't inaccurate. Seems like he had some chip on his shoulder about people he met in university and decided that needed to be included for whatever reason.
I'd also add that his focus on technology seems overly misplaced. A lot of passages in the book make more sense if you replace the anti-technology language with anti-capitalist rhetoric, but I guess that would be too leftist for Kaczynski.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
tense
fast-paced
dark
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
informative
This book rings true in so many ways, it’s hard to see this as ramblings of a madman like it’s been portrayed as. You can see how his points seem to have become even more pertinent as we continue down a path of technological progression. This is certainly a must read
challenging
dark
reflective
fast-paced
reflective
fast-paced
dark
informative
fast-paced
dark
informative
medium-paced
Expected to find a critic of non-violence and the danger of technology ; found a rant against leftists and progressives without me being really able to understand the logical link behind that…he argues as if it wasn’t conservatives and billionaires who are responsible for the destruction of the planet
challenging
dark
inspiring
tense
slow-paced
Sort of fascinating to observe these ideas, but like any manifesto it contradicts itself toward the end. Very interesting!