# The Unabomber was right **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706 "2009-12-18T02:54:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/161 "2009-12-28T16:58:07Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > As has been said before in this thread the problem is not with technology in and of itself, but rather with human implementation of and interaction with it. We, as a species, are too immature to handle the technology we possess and to use it apropriately. Nonsense. Define “immature” first, then make a compelling argument. I predict whatever definition of “immature” you use will leave you without a compelling argument, because that is the wrong way to approach it. Technological advancement is inevitable once evolution created humans the way it did. Read “Understanging Media” by McLuhan. > [@](#): > > It is analogous to handing a three year old a pistol - likely someone is going to get shot. Huh? I am not exactly pro-gun, but huh? 3 year olds have and have had pistols since pistols were invented. Most of them are toys, or imaginary. Most of the rest are unloaded. Handing a 3 year old a pistol is not “Likely” to get someone shot. Your terms are being defined by you to make your point, but in doing so you are limiting the terms to the breaking point. That is not persuasive as a rational argument, although it may be fine as propaganda. > [@](#): > > Our uses of technology have resulted in a society (Western at least) where, outisde of family and friends, people have no real connection to each other. That again is your speculation. And I am sure, even beyond my anecdote below, is demonstrably false. I personally feel far more connected to people outside my friends and family in 2009 than I did at any time past, precisely because technology for managing the connections is improving and widely available. People have always felt lonely (close to home) and sought to improve communications in order to reach out to people on a economic, diplomatic, or personal scale. It is the nature of being human. If you want to point out a time when people were not lonely, and being disconnected on all levels was beneficial, and that you would like to go back to, and you can propose a way it can be reached as an equilibrium, go ahead. But personally, I see laments like this (not just here on the SDMB of course) and think it is just that - a lament - rather than something deep or practical. > [@](#): > > We have seperated ourselves from the idea of community in favour of networks. No because there never was any “community” absent “networks”. See McLuhan. > [@](#): > > We no longer seem to be willing to suffer a little bit of individual privation for the betterment of the whole. That is precisely the OPPOSITE of what others have been saying, that people have become cogs n the wheel for the benefit of broader society but at detriment to themselves. > [@](#): > > We don’t socialize now, we tweet, we facebook, we diggit. BFD - in the old days we phoned, wrote letters, or did without. How is this any different? > [@](#): > > We no longer seek out real human contact Speak for yourself. Not “We”. I see plenty of human contact everywhere, and I recall the same arguments being made in the 60s and probably always. That was probably what led McLuhan into looking into the patterns of technological innovation and communication throughout history in the first place. Really, this is a universal lament across history, and that is why I suggest that if you were to undo it, it is a reductionist argument and you would be left with a “pre-history” state of affairs, hence the “hunter-gatherer” society. There was no other time which even has the potential of satisfying your lament. I would argue that pre-history doesn’t either, but at least that is the base so I acknowledge the potential would be worth discussing. > [@](#): > > We have lost much of our sense of empathy and personal responsibility because in the self-centered and insular world we now live in there is no payoff for helping your fellows because they are distinct from you and thus their pain is not yours If you are speaking for yourself, than probably the “first person singular” is the better choice. You are not talking for me, your experience is not mine, so “first person plural” is the wrong choice. > [@](#): > > Personally I’d like to see a hundred year moratorium on most (if not all) scientific inquiry. Really? For 5 generations, you would have us stop asking questions about stuff and making sense of our world? How pray tell do you plan to do that? Who would measure it, police it, enforce it, store today’s knowledge to be unlocked for 2110? > [@](#): > > I’d like to see our humanity given a chance to catch up. Again with the undefined terms: “humanity” and “catch-up”. How will that happen if we are not allowed new knowledge, awareness of patterns? Some kid shouldn’t grow up to try to predict the weather better, or learn how to fill a pothole in a road with a material that will last longer? How are you going to teach 5 generations that they are not allowed to synthesize existing knowledge and observations into something new? To me, the ability to do that is precisely what “humanity” is, as opposed to being “non-human”. So what do you think is going to happen in that 100 years exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/162 "2009-12-28T18:03:41Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > As has been said before in this thread the problem is not with technology in and of itself, but rather with human implementation of and interaction with it. We, as a species, are too immature to handle the technology we possess and to use it apropriately. > > It is analogous to handing a three year old a pistol - likely someone is going to get shot. The shooting wouldn’t be out of malice but ignorance. The toddler doesn’t get that supersonic bits of metal can kill. The toddler doesn’t, in any meaningful way, understand dead. They just know that the pistol is neat and shiny and makes noise. > > Our uses of technology have resulted in a society (Western at least) where, outisde of family and friends, people have no real connection to each other. We have seperated ourselves from the idea of community in favour of networks. We no longer seem to be willing to suffer a little bit of individual privation for the betterment of the whole. > > We don’t socialize now, we tweet, we facebook, we diggit. We no longer seek out real human contact and accept instead this simulcrum upon which I’m posting this. We have lost much of our sense of empathy and personal responsibility because in the self-centered and insular world we now live in there is no payoff for helping your fellows because they are distinct from you and thus their pain is not yours \<— except in the case of recreational outrage (which I suspect was unheard of in HG societies). > > Personaly I’d like to see a hundred year moratorium on most (if not all) scientific inquiry. I’m not anti-intellectual or anti-science. Nor am I a primitivist. I do think that, as Einstein said, “our technology has surpassed our humanity.” I’d like to see our humanity given a chance to catch up. Then maybe threrads such as this will become unecessary. > > _There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so_ And what if in that hundred years extraterrestrials invaded or an asteroid approached Earth or a new epidemic broke out? Are you opposed to inquirty on medicene also? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/163 "2009-12-28T21:03:49Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > That is non-sense. I grew up near there [NJ] Yeah… I can tell. > [@not\_alice](#): > > What is “human scale” anyway? In what way is the CPU in my computer or phone any more “human scaled” than the East Coast megalopolis? It is not. But there is no such thing as “human scale”, and if you use that as a measuring stick, you are reduced to an argument of reduction, reducing humans to slightly more sophisticated animals without the ability to capitalize on their unique brainpower. Which is silly. It’s a concept in urban planning and architecture. It means creating spaces and environments that are designed for people to live or work in. For example, most of Manhattan is designed on a human scale, in spite of the size of the buildings. Distances between buildings are walkable. Side streets are narrow. Store fronts are designed to be viewed by people walking past. So on and so forth. By constrast, urban sprawl is designed on an automobile scale. You can’t walk from building to building. At least not safely or pleasently since they are a thousand yards apart and separated by 6 lane highways and acres of parking lots. The railyards and shipyards in New Jersey are designed at an even larger scale to accomodate the massive machines used to ferry cargo between Jersey and the rest of the world. Mostly my point is that is just that it’s an impressive bit of engineering. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Let me know specifically what part of my argument you don’t agree with, if any. But I am guessing you didn’t understand my point at all if you thought I was being ironic. I guess maybe I don’t understand your point. > [@Zeke N. Destroi](#): > > We don’t socialize now, we tweet, we facebook, we diggit. We no longer seek out real human contact and accept instead this simulcrum upon which I’m posting this. It also allows us to connect with and reconnect with people and organize our social activities in ways we couldn’t a decade ago. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/164 "2009-12-28T22:25:57Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Yeah… I can tell. Because things on an urban scale, serving many millions of people doesn’t faze me? > [@](#): > > It’s a concept in urban planning and architecture. It means creating spaces and environments that are designed for people to live or work in. For example, most of Manhattan is designed on a human scale, in spite of the size of the buildings. Distances between buildings are walkable. Side streets are narrow. Store fronts are designed to be viewed by people walking past. So on and so forth. Oh so you are using concepts from technology to define why technology is bad. Nice cherry picking! More seriously though, is there evidence that the market wants that or can accommodate it everywhere in all circumstances? I would guess not. Nor is there any practical way to rebuild what we already have jsut to make it “human scale”. On the level of worldwide society, which is what we are talking about, it is meaningless, it is like deciding to put wax on a car or jut leave the paint as is. > [@](#): > > By constrast, urban sprawl is designed on an automobile scale. You can’t walk from building to building. At least not safely or pleasently since they are a thousand yards apart and separated by 6 lane highways and acres of parking lots. I do all that safely all the time. And nt everywhere is separated by 6 lane highways. Truth is, the US as whole is probably only waht 10-20% built out? If that? We were spread out and spreading out long before anyone dreamed of the automobile. See McLuhan for great explanations why that is. > [@](#): > > The railyards and shipyards in New Jersey are designed at an even larger scale to accomodate the massive machines used to ferry cargo between Jersey and the rest of the world. Are you kidding? They are compact given the size and nature of the job they are there for. How else would you lay them out? > [@](#): > > Mostly my point is that is just that it’s an impressive bit of engineering. Was the overall part of it “engineered”, or is it the (ongoing) aggregation of many smaller and loosely connected engineering projects? > [@](#): > > I guess maybe I don’t understand your point. My point was that Unabomber and McLuhan are discussing different facets of the same problem, and McLuhan did a better job in addressing it in his well known and oft-quoted but rarely-read classic “Understanding Media”. My point was to encourage folks here to read that book or re-read it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/165 "2010-01-06T07:16:48Z")
> [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](#): > > Personaly I’d like to see a hundred year moratorium on most (if not all) scientific inquiry. I’m not anti-intellectual or anti-science. Does not compute. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/166 "2010-01-06T16:31:04Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Life-span only a century ago was 42 in the US now it’s 77. What would it be if abortion is factored in as the death of a person? Did our lifespan really increase or did it just shift from one person to another and the average remain the same? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/167 "2010-01-06T18:55:30Z")
Well, just for laughs: 300 million people \* 77 years = 23.1 billion human-years expected from the current U.S. population Add a million extra “people” with a lifespan of 0, representing a typical number of abortions per year: 23.1 billion human-years / 301 million people = 76.74 years So… no? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/168 "2010-01-06T19:04:47Z")
Just for the record, life expectancy in the US in 1909 was 50.5 for men and 53.8 for women. It was 46.3/48.3 in 1900. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/169 "2010-01-06T20:25:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > What would it be if abortion is factored in as the death of a person? Did our lifespan really increase or did it just shift from one person to another and the average remain the same? In the “good old days” far more wanted children died. And abortion is hardly new, and back then infanticide was common. So no; I see no reason to think your idea is correct; even if a fetus WAS a person, which it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/170 "2010-01-06T21:34:46Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, just for laughs: > > 300 million people \* 77 years = 23.1 billion human-years expected from the current U.S. population > > Add a million extra “people” with a lifespan of 0, representing a typical number of abortions per year: > > 23.1 billion human-years / 301 million people = 76.74 years? Just for non-laughs, life expectancy doesn’t work that way. You’d weight the abortions with the live-born in one year, not with all the people currently alive. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/171 "2010-01-06T21:36:37Z")
Well, feel free to show your work. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/172 "2010-01-06T21:50:18Z")
According to the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm), there are 233 abortions for every 1,000 live births in the United States. [(233_0) + (1000_77)] / 1233 = 62.4 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/173 "2010-01-06T22:16:39Z")
Well, that still beats any of the 1900 or 1909 figures given. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/174 "2010-01-07T22:56:04Z")
As a late afterthought, we should also include all pregnancies that naturally terminate (i.e. miscarry), since death by natural causes is of course figured intro conventional life-expectancy calculations. ---
**Author:** ![Dunkelheit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dunkelheit/32/248_2.png) [@Dunkelheit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunkelheit)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706/175 "2010-01-11T23:09:59Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I don’t want to downplay the recent economic situation, but people have been managing to find decent-paying professional jobs, even in this market. But it is certainly tough and competetive. It’s the people who aren’t qualified for decent-paying professional jobs who are struggling most to find enough work to support themselves and their families. The peon jobs are the first to go to protect the profit margin. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-unabomber-was-right/521706.md?page=8)