And given that not even Der Trihs buys into it, it’s remarkably [del]stupid[/del]impracticable. Doesn’t prevent the UCC folks down the block from suggesting it, but it makes it easy to suggest they leave their antique sanctuary to bridal parties and funerals, which they already do.
The kitty-corner Methodists are led by the guy who raised a fuss when a pastor came out and claimed to still be a pastor. Our little burb can be surprisingly eventful.
:rolleyes:
FFS.
Do you know that a nuclear holocaust would cause death and suffering? Have you ever lived through a nuclear holocaust? No? So you wouldn’t know. So if Kazinsky had posited starting a nuclear holocaust to relieve suffering, you’d agree with that too?
This is probably the most worst argument from ignorance I’ve ever seen presented on these boards. Anyone with half a brain doesn’t need to actually stick their hand in a food blender to know it’s a bad idea. We can learn from people who have done that or other things, we can extrapolate based on what we know of the laws of physics and physiology.
Jeez. “You haven’t done it so you can’t know” is an argument haven’t heard used since seriously by anyone over the age of 13.
Oh god no. World Wars have killed maybe 150 million people. In contrast the most peaceful HG societies had a post-infancy homicide rate of 2%. If we assume 100 billion people have lived tribal lifestyles that’s 2 billion people killed in “ petty tribal squabbles”. And that is the most extreme low end estimate. The reality will be closer to 4 billion.
So? Does it hurt less if you get speared through the lung by someone who lives next door, rather than on the next continent?
There were always global epidemics. How do you think diseases spread?
That is simply wrong as matter of established fact.
And I know that everything you have said here is wrong, only I can provide references to support it, rather than relying on assertion.
I’ll repeat: It’s all Leftist child-of-nature fantasy with no basis whatsoever in the real world. At least when Kazinsky believed it he had the excuse of being a psychotic lunatic.
Yes.
Well of course it is. What, do you think they go and pick their wagons from the wagon tree, and dig up the bulbs of the jacket lilly and the dress vine to get their clothes? Do you think the land is ploughed by friendly bison and the crops are sown by the friendly squirrels? Amish society is every bit as much based on technology as our own. They would starve without their technology even faster than we would. The only difference is what technology they use.
Once again this is all Leftist child-of-nature fantasy with no basis whatsoever in the real world. At least when Kazinsky believed it he had the excuse of being a psychotic lunatic.
We can;t know exactly. But we can know with certainty that it was more than the planet could support. And we can know that because the population wasn’t increasing. That’s one of those immutable laws of nature. If the population isn’t increasing then it must have exceeded carrying capacity.
And since we know that the human population was too great for te system to feed when we were using technology, how the hell could it support more people using no technology at all?
That’s lunacy.
Hmm. So why didn’t the population explode before this do you think? What was happening to all those extra people that were being born? Do you think they were being lifted up to heaven by the friendly greys? Or were they, like every other species, all dying before they could reproduce, thus maintaining a stable population at carrying capacity?
Leftist, child-of-nature lunacy. Through and through leftist, child-of-nature fantasy. At least when Kazinsky believed it he had the excuse of being a psychotic lunatic.
Even that isn’t correct. Tribal squabbles actually killed orders of magnitude more people. It just took longer to do so. But the absolute body count is much, much higher for tribal squabbles than for world wars
Note to other readers:
Note that I live a couple blocks from Ted Kaczynski’s mom. Same place where he built his first bombs. Same place where, years later, bomb residue was found. Does this win me any recognition in a Unabomer thread? And you are not surprised? I do not like you. 
I iz in your town bommin ur stuff!
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~kdavis5/terrorist-bomb-cat.jpg
While I agree completely with the general thrust of your argument, I must take issue with your repeated characterisation of the referenced stance as “leftist”. That kind of “rugged individual making his way in nature” is as far from my conception of the Left as I can think of. To me (who is unashamedly Left - possibly one of the Left-ist on this board), the Left is essentially and definitionally about favouring collectivism over individualism. It encompases both an embrace of technology as liberation and a focus on the urban proletariat. So it goes all the way to Marx and Proudhon. You seem to be conflating Left with Hippie, and I wish you wouldn’t. Individualism and a hate of the City is far more characteristic of the Right than the Left. Just because America has a particularly screwed-up conception of what actually constitutes Right vs Left Wing is no excuse for perpetuating it.
What Blake said (well, aside from ascribing everything to Leftists); you may as well use “No U” as a counter-argument. I’ve never poked both my eyes out with sticks, so I guess I wouldn’t know if being blind would make my life more difficult until I do it.
I gotta wonder where cholera, typhus and influenza rank.
I’m not an expert at all in these kinds of things, but my understanding is that in hunter-gatherer societies human-on-human violence and disease are typically the leading causes of death, though seems to differ significantly per group.
some examples (link to full study at the bottom of that page):
(Emphasis added). Doesn’t sound like such a great place to live in to me.
I always find it curious that people like Kaczynski or Pol Pot always seem to think the cure for the ills of industrial civilization is murdering a bunch of people.
Basicaly, the Unibomber’s entire theory can be summed up in one quote:
“So we need machines and they need us, is that your point…?”
-Neo
I’ve been camping. I think it sucks. And I still had modern conveniences with my like tents and sleeping bags and propane stoves.
I’m sure any one has killed more people than all the wars in history combined.
Then, by your own standard, you ought to be more careful about saying you do.
So, in the spirit of ignorance-fighting, how about you go try it for a while, then come back, log on, and tell us all about it? If a nontechnological life sounds good to you, you should be eager to go live it.
Worst. Sestina. Ever.
I have not read it and I refuse to read it. As I see it, the man would not have gotten any publicity at all unless he’d been a terrorist. If people decide to respond to his terrorism by reading the manifesto, that gives other crackpots a motivation to turn violent in order to get publicity for their rants.
I’m perfectly willing to entertain the idea that freedom has been on a general decrease recently in some places, including the United States, Britain, and perhaps most of the industrialized world. Worldwide, however, the last 20-odd years have been excellent years for humanity. Those who live in India, China, South Korea, Vietnam, Bolivia, or any one of dozens of other countries that have made giant strides towards democracy and prosperity could testify to that. (Coincidentally, Jesse Walker published an article on that today.)
As for the effects of technology, I believe that can go both ways, either towards freedom or against freedom, depending on the people who wield it. Any technology, whether it’s airplanes, cell phones, or the internet, can be used for justice or for injustice.
The Black Death killed an estimated 100 - 150 million people (some where in the region of a third of the population of Western Europe). 300 years of technology later, Hitler, Stalin et al could only manage around 50 million. I’ll take my chances and live in the 21st century.
I don’t know. A lot of people who think that way go to live on communes and don’t bother anyone except maybe their neighbors, until they or their kids get sick and tired of grubbing in the dirt and decide to move some place real.
I think what he is saying is that the advance of technology has resulted in the creation of ever increasingly sophisticated and complicated networks of systems - communications, transportation, power, water, social, and so on. As we become more and more dependent on these systems, by necessity, a greater amount of our time and effort becomes dedicated to maintaining them. The threat to freedom is not some totalitarian boogieman looking to subjugate everyone. It is a dehumanization and loss of personal freedom to be able to live a life you want to lead by being forced to be part of a system.
Think of it like this. Many, if not most people work jobs where they are inconsequential cogs in a giant corporate or government machine. They typically have little to no personal interest in what their company actually does. They are typically at the whim of economic and business forces they often don’t understand and have no control over. There are intense pressures to “fit in” and be a “team player”. They are “free” only in the sense that they have some choice in choosing which master they want to serve and how they want to serve it.
For a specific example, think of cell phones. 15 years ago no one had them. Now nearly everyone has phones that allows them to stay connected via voice, email, text message, internet and GPS anywhere all the time. And the price of this convenience is that your office can call you anytime, anywhere.
Perhaps their society isn’t as driven to create new technology, but their society is based on the use of technology. They simply have chosen not to adapt new technologies at the same rate as other parts of the world.
The horse and buggy is technology. Plows are technology. Any tool or weapon is essentially technology. Humans simply could not survive in many places on Earth without the use of technology. Waterskins, fur coats, preserved food – this is all because of technology that we have developed in order to survive.
Could we survive with less technology? Sure, people did it for thousands of years. But why should we? Because technology doesn’t always alleviate suffering? It’s in the hands of humans. Even if we had nothing but our fists, some people will cause suffering in others. The bigger ape will take the food from the smaller one. Yes, as technology becomes more sophisticated, so do weapons, which can be used for ill. But they can also be used to create societies like ours where people are prosperous and live lives of relative safety. Oh, and by the way, those modern weapons protect people like the Amish, who – without the protection of a modern nation – would have been wiped out by people who wanted their land and stuff.
I don’t know about you, but I’d just as soon live in a world with the Internet, modern medicine, and readily available food and deal with the A-bombs rather than going back to eking out a subsistence living.
The OP might enjoy reading Technopoly, an interesting book on the same subject, making some of the same points that Ted did, but without the somewhat sketchy “therefore, let’s murder CEOs of tech companies, which will persuade society to return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle” conclusion.
And you are posting this on the internet…
FTR Kaczynski is against all industrial technology, which I take to mean from the Industrial Revolution and after. However, he differentiates himself from the true primitivists like John Zerzan. When it comes to those guys, we’re talking extremely primitive; they even think human language, let alone banging the rocks together, was a bad move.
(Sorry, but I have no cite regarding my statement on the Unabomber, but it’s more or less what he said in a letter to a European kid, who had written to him in gushy admiration about her detestation of cities.)