That is the saddest thing. He had some great ideas and knew how to communicate them. He just didn't think he would be taken seriously unless he used the bomb cheat code on life to get notoriety. I suspect that if he had gone the path of writer with publishing, not only would his works be more popular, there would have actually been a realistic means of implementing some of his ideas.
He had some great ideas and simultaneously pushed back any real change by decades for his own self gain interest.
Read his manifesto, they’re detailed. I was shocked for a straight week when I read it, I couldn’t believe I have been lied to my entire life. Or better yet his book Technological Slavery: https://archive.org/details/tk-Technological-Slavery
Yeah... I appreciate you taking the time to respond but "read this 35,000 word manifesto by a schizophrenic idealogical serial killer whose conclusions you already know you find vapid and deplorable" is not a great pitch lol. Was just hoping to hear some highlights. I think I'll just have to wander along for the rest of my life without gaining any insight as to why Hacker News is so in love with that work, beyond some variety of SV-guilt!
Since we had know TK had been sick for a while and that this was coming soon, for about a month for I have been trying to distill TK's work down as an article about how others have gravitated towards his writing. It is not in praise of him it is just a study of some key points and as to why so many have seen solace in these works - especially over the last decade.
Normally I could write something like that over a week end but this article... it is an absolute doozy and the further in I go the worse it gets!
The issue is, you cannot really condense his writings down without doing a total dis-service to the points being made. Either you are going to misrepresent a point and it get wildly misinterpreted OR you come off a little to in praise of it.
It is very clear that TK had an academic background, even going so far as numbering the paragraphs - and in his book, The Anti-tech revolution : Why and how - he is very clear at the beginnings that these writings are not meant to be just read but studied. I don't disagree, they are written in a very tight manner. So while Industrial society and its future is 35,000 words, it is very specific in those words. It is about a 2 hour read, or you can just find a audio version on youtube.
If I had to summarize the essence of his works, he had a very decent analysis of the flaws of technology based societies. He had absolutely no idea on how to actually bring about change or even know where to start. The subsequent 27 years of writing from jail showed that he could analyses the problems and potential failings of revolutionary tactics but had no idea of how to actually analyze what technology as good or bad.
There is a reason he was called an insane Genius.
Personally speaking, yeah he was right on a lot of things... now what?
I ain't going to do what he did and try to bomb the world into submission, that is just idiotic. It is all just a some really good analysis but with no means of achievable execution. I more worry about others that are coming after him that will do a lot more damage. Anders Beivik who killed many at a youth summer came in 2011 also deeply reference TK's works in his manifest - an example of how this line of thinking can only lead down a dark and terrible path. But doesn't mean you shouldn't read these things.
One can read these things and take away some very good points without having to internalize the whole thing. Aristotle said something like that, you can read and think about ideas as though they are true and not necessarily have to believe them.
What points resonate with you? With as much sincerity as I can express, I’ve gotta ask: why aren’t you living in the woods if you think the guy who said that industrial society was a mistake “had some good points”?
If you think that Buddhist monks have some good points, do you need to go live in a remote monastery? Kaczynski's critique can make us think about the extremes of modern life; it can encourage us to step back a little and live in more harmony with nature and less so in the grind of industrial society.
So you (y’all) are focusing on some of his incidental points, not the conclusions/purpose of the manifesto. Makes sense! Thanks for taking the time to explain.
I was writing a whole thing about why I find looking for nuggets of wisdom in a work that you fundamentally find severely flawed is a waste of time, but I think it’s best dropped. “Did you find these critiques interesting” isn’t even something I could really convince somebody to change their mind on lol, given all the paragraphs in Hacker News
Oddly, the "why don't you go live in the woods", is the extremist view. Like "if you believe in God, why are you not going to church every day and out proselytizing", "If you are a vegan why aren't you out shutting down factory farms.", "If you care about environment why don't you live in a hut".
Why do you have to be an extremist about something or it doesn't count.
Think this is all the same mistaken view that a lot of extremists have. IF you can't be 100% dedicated without any slips then you are a failure and hypocrite.
So what if a vegan is stuck in an airport and has to cheat once and eat a burger, or I have family over for dinner and we do 'waste' more, or if I am vegan but on Thanksgiving, it is easier to eat some turkey and not argue about it.
You see, your view is the extreme one.
And also there is always Moloch. I may see technology and capitalism heading toward a brick wall, but I still do have to eat and live in the world. I'm not an extremists.
I don’t think he had just some “good points”, I think he’s completely right on the matter that modern (post steam engine & guns) technology is harmful for human life.
