Industrial Society And Its Future
“Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate,” as one 2016 BuzzFeed article put it, showed up in feeds even if the people didn’t follow those groups. All of this seemed farfetched when Kaczynski’s words were put in front of a mass audience. In 1994, audiences were being told suave cyberterrorists like the ones in the movie The Net were the ones looking to steal your information online and do whatever they please with it. Small-scale technology is not inherently harmful, and is handed down from generation to generation with little change.
Conservatives, on the other hand are “fools” because their promotion of technological progress will inevitably lead to the breakdown of the communities, way of life and traditions they purport to defend. That split was manifest during “What Can We Learn From the Unabomber?”, a packed panel discussion Friday at South by Southwest in Austin, between Skrbina, a philosophy professor at the University of Michigan and Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor at Northwestern. In order to read or download industrial society and its future ebook, you need to create a FREE account. In the months that followed, a social worker named David Kaczynski came to believe the language and ideas in “Industrial Society and Its Future” echoed letters David’s brother, Ted, had written him. After much agonizing, David shared his suspicions with the FBI, who raided Ted’s cabin in Montana and charged him with making the bombs that had killed three men and maimed 23 other people. Kerr tackles his subject by disaggregating societies into nine component parts and testing the convergence hypothesis.
If it isn’t universally true, then everything that follows is irrelevant. It certainly applied to him, but even his anthropological studies cannot confirm it applies to everyone. Personally I cannot deny that there is something wrong with the scenario of children sitting all day in a classroom for example. The author’s thought on one half of the manifesto meshed into modern conservative thought and had no more depth than what Donald Trump is capable of believing. The manifesto states colleges are a hot bed of collectivist politically correct thought and freedom is squashed by the leftist .
The unabombers actions ultimately show his words where meaningless to him. Hypothetically, enough people using the same strategy could destabilize the society to the point it cannot defend its people and it loses legitimacy and cohesion. But that’s just a “might makes right” argument, and is philosophically uninteresting (and, worth noting, could be used by the “technologists” against people like the Unabomber, so it sheds no light on moral correctness whatsoever).
Kaczynski’s idea of publicizing his work is to mail bombs around the country, then threaten the police that he will do more, unless his manifesto is published on the front page of America’s newspapers. Overall, when reading this book, you have a feeling that the book was written 1 day ago. I know Kaczynski thought it was a necessity, but he should’ve talked about leftists after having talked about technology and its harmful outcomes. And maybe, he shouldn’t have used the word “leftist”, but rather “progressive” or “over-socialized”. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by how logical and well argued this was.
Other problems, such as environmental degradation and the destruction of nature, are highly important, but will not be considered here. We are not capable of solving even simple and obvious problems like environmental degradation, and if we ever do it will be because it is in the best interest of society. Industrialization is a far more complex and hidden problem, and its destruction would not be in the best interest of our society. This brief summary is followed by more detailed summaries of each of its 27 chapters. My interpretation might of course be biased or wrong, so reading the original paper, which contains more explanations and details, is strongly recommended.