Unabomber Manifesto

Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Unabomber Manifesto

Anyone who has actually read it, I would like to hear your thoughts. Obviously we all know that ultimately the man was insane. However I have read this and I find many things in it, very accurate. I also find many of his thoughts to be paranoid, narcissistic, and flat out weird. I will aso post a topic in the psychology and philosophy board posing a question somewhat related to this that i would like other opinions on (can some one be insane and brilliant?)

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:Anyone who

Crossover wrote:

Anyone who has actually read it, I would like to hear your thoughts. Obviously we all know that ultimately the man was insane. However I have read this and I find many things in it, very accurate. I also find many of his thoughts to be paranoid, narcissistic, and flat out weird. I will aso post a topic in the psychology and philosophy board posing a question somewhat related to this that i would like other opinions on (can some one be insane and brilliant?)

You'll have to wait for quite a while. That text is so long... So far, besides what you say, he seems to me very narrow-minded. He has his own little world in which he is separated. He notices some real problems - like the ultimate need for self-realization. But so far it seems he sees no solutions. If there is no solution in the whole manifesto, maybe that pushed him over the edge of sanity.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I quickly read the first ten

I quickly read the first ten paragraphs and it doesn't bode well...he idealizes a past that he has never experienced and utilizes very amateurish psycho-analysis in an attempt to explain why those he does not agree with are flawed.  I don't see anything insightful.

 

So, does it get better?  If it does I'll put it on my reading list.  If the next 200 paragraphs are the same I'll pass.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I quickly

mellestad wrote:

I quickly read the first ten paragraphs and it doesn't bode well...he idealizes a past that he has never experienced and utilizes very amateurish psycho-analysis in an attempt to explain why those he does not agree with are flawed.  I don't see anything insightful.

 

So, does it get better?  If it does I'll put it on my reading list.  If the next 200 paragraphs are the same I'll pass.

 

 

He does have some good insight as pretty accurately describes a few things about the future as far as liberal punishment and things like that are concerned. However, he was pointed out it is rather long and if you have better things to do than read tha ramblings of a serial killer I can't say I blame you one bit.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:You'll have to

Luminon wrote:

You'll have to wait for quite a while. That text is so long... So far, besides what you say, he seems to me very narrow-minded. He has his own little world in which he is separated. He notices some real problems - like the ultimate need for self-realization. But so far it seems he sees no solutions. If there is no solution in the whole manifesto, maybe that pushed him over the edge of sanity.

 

 

He offers some solutions...but not exactly solutions that would make any rational sense. I won't spoil the ending.

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, this guy has an

 Wow, this guy has an amazingly romantic view of history. Apparently, people in the "good old days" were really free and happy. They didn't even care about growing old and dieing. Amazing. And no doubt glorious knights in shining armor rode around protecting damsels in distress, slaying dragons and then returning to Camelot where everyone loved everyone and no one ever got sick. 

Seriously, his whole argument is based on things were better in the past, we had less technology in the past, therefore technology must be destroyed. First of all, as things in history weren't that great. History is rife with disease, warfare, starvation and generally short brutal lives. People are living longer lives today and have a lot more disposable income and time than any other point in history. 

For example, he uses a refrigerator as an example of how people "lose" their "freedom" (I don't remember what paragraph it was in and wasn't smart enough to bookmark as I read it.) He argues that a refrigerator is a lot more difficult to make than an ice house (which is only useful in a northern climate) and therefore, people are "trapped" in the system to make refrigerators. True, if you want a refrigerator you have to buy it and most people can't build one themselves, so certain people are going to be spending their days building refrigerators. However, he totally ignores that people working to build refrigerators have voluntarily chosen to build them. In this, his concept of "freedom" is warped. Now suppose we didn't have refrigerators. You can't keep food cold except in cold climates and even then only for a limited amount of time. Fruit, vegetables and meat all spoil faster so you probably have to get everything local. Additionally, many foods would have to be canned or dehydrated. Now anyone who has ever attempted to can, make jelly or dehydrate anything knows it is a time consuming and labor intensive endeavor. I don't know how long it takes a factory to whip out a new refrigerator but I bet it is less time than it would take to preserve even a months worth of food. The "good old day" image of mom canning and making jelly all day didn't come because moms used to love canning. They did it because it was the only way to preserve food. If they didn't the family would starve to death. So what is more free? Buying a refrigerator to store food for long periods of time, or having to have someone in your household can food?

A similar argument can be made for any technological advance. Technology saves time and makes things more efficient. That is why we have so much time to watch tv, go to entertainment events and sit on the internet spouting off our stupid opinions to a bunch of people we never met. We have the luxury of free time that without technology we would not have. Anyone who has grown up in farm country can testify to the amount of work farming requires, even with modern equipment. In the 1800s schools would close because the children were needed to help plant in the spring and harvest in the fall. The type of life that Ted recommends we return to is not a return to "freedom". It is a return to having to work your ass off just to put the basic necessities on the table. How much "freedom" do you have when every waking hour is dedicated to putting food on the table?

Of course, Ted thinks this is a good thing. Apparently he thinks people were not stressed or depressed when they were fighting for survival. Based on what evidence? Why do you think they all turned toward religion and found the myths of heaven so appealing? They lived miserable, uncomfortable lives and the promise of eternal happiness gave them a reason to continue fighting.

Yes technology can be used to take away freedoms and control people. It is a tool. It can be used for good or bad. So in that aspect he is right. You can't separate the bad from the good in technology. However, you also cannot separate the good form the bad that results from the lack of technology. Technology can be used to fight tyrannical governments just like tyrannical governments can use it to control people. Whether a gun is good or bad really depends on who is holding it. While I'm the first person to bitch about the loss of freedoms the US is losing that loss is not directly related to our increase in technology. The bottom line is that technology has created a lot more good than bad.

Also, many modern day people do find themselves trapped in the "system". They work to pay mortgages they can't afford, borrow money to buy junk they don't need and are then forced to work long hours. Well they made that choice. Freedom means that people make choices and suffer the consequences for better or worse. What I find ironic about the whole manifesto is that Ted lives in a country where he has the freedom to completely remove himself from the system. If he doesn't like the way things are going he could have found a home in an Amish community. He could live a life technology free. Most people choose not to because we like the conveniences and comforts of technology. However, like many people who think they found the best way to live, he is obsessed with making sure EVERYONE has to live like him. Why? For someone so obsessed with freedom does he not see that people are exercising their freedom when they decide to live with technology? Sure, stuff ties you down and puts a certain obligation on you. So does marriage, having children and going into debt. And you know life is pretty great without a wife, children, debt or stuff. It is exciting to be in a position where you don't have to go to work each day because you don't owe any money or have any obligations. However, I know many people who have spouses, kids, houses and debt that are very happy with their lives. Sure, they are tied down to a specific location and put themselves in a position where they have to work the rest of their lives. But if it makes them happy, who is Ted to decide that their way of life is inferior and has to be destroyed?

In my opinion, we should take Ted out of prison and toss him deep in the Amazon absent any technology or anything created by technology (including his clothes) and wished the best of luck and then see what he thinks about technology. Illustrates the point more than prison and is cheaper too. He is still alive isn't he?

I won't force my way of life on you if you don't force your way of life on me.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Crossover
Theist
Posts: 206
Joined: 2007-09-06
User is offlineOffline
What are your thoughts about

What are your thoughts about what he refers to as "oversocialization"? I completely agree with his technology ideas. I believe, though I am not sure, that the reason he used bombs was to hammer in his point about how destructive technology was. However, seeing as he was a Math professor at Berkley, I imagine he loved calculators!

My Master has no desire to be merely victor in a debate: he did not come into the world to fight a battle of logic just
for the sake of winning it. --Charles Spurgeon


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Crossover wrote:What are

Crossover wrote:

What are your thoughts about what he refers to as "oversocialization"? I completely agree with his technology ideas. I believe, though I am not sure, that the reason he used bombs was to hammer in his point about how destructive technology was. However, seeing as he was a Math professor at Berkley, I imagine he loved calculators!

Meh, his reasoning is weak.  Swords killed a lot of people.  Disease and starvation have killed more people than atom bombs.  He says we're slaves but I live better than most kings 500 years ago and I'm just a middle class shmuck.  I don't buy the assumption that going back to nature and dying of tetanus is the way to enlightenment.

And on the over-socialization...honestly, some parts of it he has a point, I just don't agree with his conclusions.  Like he says that 'liberals' form large groups to make up for a lack of personal power.  Well, no shit, that is political science 101 and it certainly isn't limited to the groups he doesn't like.

Again, I think his reasoning is simplistic.  He was obviously a smart guy, but I don't think he had the objectivity to make interesting conclusions about the social science stuff he was interested in.

 

To me he comes of as naive and heavily biased.  I think he started with a conclusion that technology is bad, a stereo-typical extreme right view of liberalism, and a healthy dash of psychiatric disorders.  When you start with a foundation based on that I don't think you can expect much.

He obviously isn't a dumb guy, but if you think he is impressive you should take some social sciences classes, I think that might put him into perspective.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yeah, what Mellestad

 Yeah, what Mellestad said. 

Although his description of leftists was pretty much dead on. 

I think for the most part his idea of an oversocialized person is a straw man. I don't know anyone who really fits his description except maybe a handful of religious fundys. At the end of the day, society easily tolerates a certain amount of departure from the norm and the moral values of society are constantly in flux. Most people bend accepted moral standards on a regular basis and don't feel guilty about it. People aren't "leashed" to the rails of society, they create them and over time move them all over the place. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Zapstrung (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The writer seemed very

The writer seemed very depressed. Considering the guy was in his 40's and lived a miserable and secluded life, I think he was suffering from major depression on top of a mid-life crisis. He projected his misery on the entire world population and assumed it was technology and modern economics that was causing his and the world's depression. Perhaps not having to fight for survival does give humans more time to contemplate large questions and get depressed, but it also allows us to solve problems plaguing the human race that certainly results in misery and death. 

 


metalbandsinger
metalbandsinger's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2009-04-04
User is offlineOffline
I got curious and read it a

I got curious and read it a long time ago on a link for Wikipedia. He (much like many others) tries to make technology out to be the bad guy. He tries to make it sound like there was  certain period of time where things were OK. Being a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself, I can honestly say that if he thinks people are slaves and are being controlled now, then he must not remember such things in human history such as....oh the entirety of it. there's been slaves throughout history. anyone that couldn't outrun a net and chains. someone earlier in the thread said the he lives better than a king 500 years ago, as an average joe today. a fine example of how technology has freed mankind, not enslaved it. technology cannot enslave a person. just like a gun cannot kill a person. another person weilding the gun can kill someone. just like a person would be able to use technology to enslave another person. his idea that technology itself is responisble for the enslavement of humanity is wrong. if we are indeed enslaved and forced into a life of having to work in order to provide the essentials as well as simple pleasures, then it wasn't refrigerators and the internal combustion engine that did it to us. i would say it was the PEOPLE who sought to use those breakthroughs in human ingenuity as a means of control, that did it to us.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
metalbandsinger wrote:I got

metalbandsinger wrote:

I got curious and read it a long time ago on a link for Wikipedia. He (much like many others) tries to make technology out to be the bad guy. He tries to make it sound like there was  certain period of time where things were OK. Being a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself, I can honestly say that if he thinks people are slaves and are being controlled now, then he must not remember such things in human history such as....oh the entirety of it. there's been slaves throughout history. anyone that couldn't outrun a net and chains. someone earlier in the thread said the he lives better than a king 500 years ago, as an average joe today. a fine example of how technology has freed mankind, not enslaved it. technology cannot enslave a person. just like a gun cannot kill a person. another person weilding the gun can kill someone. just like a person would be able to use technology to enslave another person. his idea that technology itself is responisble for the enslavement of humanity is wrong. if we are indeed enslaved and forced into a life of having to work in order to provide the essentials as well as simple pleasures, then it wasn't refrigerators and the internal combustion engine that did it to us. i would say it was the PEOPLE who sought to use those breakthroughs in human ingenuity as a means of control, that did it to us.

I think tech can 'enslave' a person.  Where people like him get into trouble when they start confusing metaphor with reality.  So I agree with you.

 

Totally unrelated:  You've posted a handful of times in over a year...how does that happen?  Do you just stop by very rarely, or do you read a lot but rarely post?  I'm just curious.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Moffanz (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Unabomber Manifesto

U have to remember this was a very smart man, iq 164 i think? (maybe mistaken).
The way i see the Manifesto this is a man who realised that we (humans) are destroying eath (nature) and with technology (school and so on) came alot of problems.

we know for a fact that 100 years ago the number of sick peopple (depressions / psychological sicknesess) where alot lower, so i think the unabomber thought that as we will develope even more (without any changess made) we will not only destroy Mother earth but also the human mind.
so i really dont think the Unabomber thought that everyone was happy before and everything was great, but that peopple where really free. no obligations to work or go to school and get an education, u only had to know how to hunt food and take care of yourself.

This was a very smart man but obviously his soulutions to the problem where not to good. and neithere was his way of getting attention. 
Althought i think he was right in alot of things i also realised this was a very sick mind..

: Very smart man, to bad he got sick and had to get isolated for 2 weeks as just a baby. after what ive seen abaout the Unabomber this was probably the start of his sickness.
Also ive read that a Harvard Psycholog did a test on the unabomber when he was studing at Harvard supposedly this was a very cruel test (of the mind) that made the Unabomber hate Psychologs and pushed him over the edge.

"The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people" (Unabomber)