Comment

Comment on The unAbomber. Otherwise, I agree.

“We give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society’s standards. That, and we’re too plugged in. We’re letting technology take over our lives, willingly.”

Absolute insanity.

source

Sort:hotnew top

markz@suppo.fi ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
Well I didn’t need Ted to figure that out. How does the rest hold up?

source
- MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  It’s been 30 years and people are still talking about it. From WIkipedia - which is still easily accessible to everyone, thanks Jimmy!
  
  He predicted that technological advances would lead to extensive and ultimately oppressive forms of human control, including genetic engineering, and that human beings would be adjusted to meet the needs of social systems rather than vice versa.
  
  Kaczynski stated that technological progress can be stopped, in contrast to the viewpoint of people who he said understand technology’s negative effects yet passively accept technology as inevitable. He called for a revolution to force the collapse of the worldwide technological system, and held a life close to nature, in particular primitivist lifestyles, as an ultimate ideal.
  
  He hated leftist views, he hated fascism. He seemed to advocate a technological level somewhere between Native American and Amish. Call him an isolationist libertarian, I suppose. His solution to the problem is like something out of Fight Club. “Project Mayhem.” His methodology was pointlessly cruel and ineffective. But his assessment of the human condition wasn’t too far off the mark.
  
  source
- dgdft@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
  Just gonna rip from Wikipedia
  
  With its initial publication in 1995, the manifesto was received as intellectually deep and sane. Writers described the manifesto’s sentiment as familiar. To Kirkpatrick Sale, the Unabomber was “a rational man” with reasonable beliefs about technology. He recommended the manifesto’s opening sentence for the forefront of American politics. Cynthia Ozick likened the work to an American Raskolnikov (of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment), as a “philosophical criminal of exceptional intelligence and humanitarian purpose … driven to commit murder out of an uncompromising idealism”.
  
  source