Ted Kaczynski's Low-Tech Lifestyle | Hacker News Reader

Ted Kaczynski's Low-Tech Lifestyle

thetedkarchive.com

42 pointsSajarin23 comments

502 error; archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240529085544/https://www.thete...

I do not support in any way the crimes perpetrated by this terrorist.

His crimes were (ironically) the perfect gift to his perceived enemies because it provided a reason to discredit and ignore him.

Yep. His efforts were completely counterproductive and worthless. Right analysis but entirely wrong and stupid prescription. I read several of his books out of tackling of infamous works like Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. I couldn't bring myself to read Henry Ford's books, however.

100% agree on that. I think he did have some good arguments that were lost in his manifesto, but as they say a broken clock is wrong twice.

Its a shame he used such violent and extream means, I think some of his points, not most of them, but some of them were interesting when I self reflect on how I depend on society and how technology is basically become a part of human evolution.

That said I can't condone what he did or how he used violence to further his own agenda.

Is it really any different from what we see these days with protesters? They don’t care at all when they block highways and bridges and tunnels. Lots of people get impacted - including those needing to get to hospitals or loved ones. What about when protestors use physical force and violence to destroy businesses and property. In my opinion, all of it is terrorism based on the definition, but we just stopped using those labels.

"What about when protestors use physical force and violence to destroy businesses and property"

Then they're no longer protesters, but rather rioters.

Which specific protestors? You're painting with a huge brush.

The lack of integrity and human values of the person is orthogonal to the issue but the issue is forevermore tainted and set back with such an infamous association. Antihero in not a good way, a ruinous villain who did infinitely more harm and zero good. Whatever the issue, the means to the end matter.

If youre looking to an ascetic lifestyle there are dozens of other people you could reference besides ted.

Alaskan off grid YouTube is a great resource, as are a lot of sustainable off grid tiny home channels.

Theodore kazynskis manifesto alone does irreparable harm to the thesis that any person should look to his deeds or acts as a source of self improvement.

The same could be said about the US Government.

Well yeah? That’s obviously easier, more convenient and more readily accessible. But people are curious about his life apparently.

How did the Mongolian Horde manage to travel and live in the horseback? No, please don’t do that. There are hundreds of peaceful horse riders out there you could learn from. Those other guys killed people.

>Alaskan off grid YouTube

isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

Wonder what his take on dithering vs compression was

Leaving his terrorism aside, I wonder what HN readers think of his ideas and writings. A glance at what he wrote makes it look pretty interesting. But I feel whatever he wrote has been dismissed and shadowed by what he did, so the ideas within never got much of a debate.

Notably, Bill Joy found them significant:

"Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (2000)

<https://web.archive.org/web/20170801001546/https://www.wired...>

I do not think Kaczynski offered a terrible amount beyond what Jacques Ellul wrote. He does have a fascinating story, and he contributed through his manifesto, at least, the idea of oversocialization which has been expanded on by the likes of Byung-Chul Han (indirect as it might be). The other point I can think of would be the introduction of whataboutists to right wing movements and the detriment it has, but I think that thought will occur in places with heavy-handed bureaucracies. I don’t think I had seen the statement expressed so bluntly though.

I found the manifesto interesting, but it wasn’t compelling beyond the few strokes of wisdom. In academia, you see exactly what he is talking about, especially nowadays.

I’m not familiar with the others you named - got anything from them you can point me to? I’m also not plugged into the “whataboutists” and didn’t understand the point with bureaucracies - could you please explain?

Ellul wrote “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” and “The Technological Society”. Both, I think, address a lot of what Kaczynski was addressing in Industrial Society and Its Future (ISaiF).

In saying whataboutists, I was referring to a section of ISaiF called, “The Danger of Leftism.” I was trying to avoid a direct callout to a political practice by saying this, but it may have obfuscated the point too much. Here, he talks about the derailing of discussion that happens when your space includes leftists. As I remember, he says this is due to the rabbit hole creation that happens in attempting to address issues pertaining to minorities. In this way, your discussion veers away from the point at hand,which is actually a part of the CIA guide to disrupting dissidents (get people to fight over definitions and what the purpose of conversations is).

The bureaucracy point is my own playfulness. I think a lot of people in governmental or academic circles have dealt with people who are more concerned with the rules at hand and the perception of following those rules than they are with the creation of good work. The section on oversocialization in ISaiF may clarify what I mean. It points at a class of people who are very, very concerned with the perception of others that is very common in the academic world.

Edit: I forgot to address Byung-Chul Han’s relation. He writes short books in the style of Baudrillard, in that, it is heavy on social criticism. Specifically, I am thinking of “In the Swarm” and its critique of group thought in the social media age.

It has been a long time that I read his manifesto. While he has many correct conclusions, I don't remember him arguing in any way how he got them.

There are much better writers. E.g. Ugo Bardi, Gail Tverberg that have a skeptical outlook on our future.

Not to be cheeky but... so what?

Without absolving him of his crimes, I think Kaczynski's writings are fascinating, but the interviews from this page are pretty mundane. There's nothing particularly remarkable or "unabomber" about anything said on that page.

while I find kacziynski contemptible, I live rurally and what he describes about relating to nature is accurate. your ear and other senses change. when you hunt you are the forest, or at least in nature of it. you can watch a fire burn at least as long as you might have watched a movie, and the experience of imagination is purer. you get a sense of what's left and essential about yourself without reinforcement, and psychologically of what's furniture and what's foundation.

what made him pathetic was he never escaped the system he hated. what he struck out at were not its mechanisms and gears, but yet still just symbols he thought he could destroy to direct its attention to his writing. imo he never found the base reality that is immediately accessible to anyone who doesn't impose their conditions on it. ask a parent about what's true and real and good or someone missing a hand about compassion.

If you're interested in this stuff, read just Walden and go camping, he didn't have any particularly meaningful insight into anything that's worth following.

>what made him pathetic was

untreated (untreatable?) mental illness

the guy killed three people and maimed a couple dozen others to get his rambling manifesto in a newspaper. he wasn't some troubled eccentric or even a plausible revolutionary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com