Did Ted Kaczynski have some legitimate points?

Post Reply New Topic

First off I acknowledge that what he did was horrible. But after listening to his manifesto about the effects of industrial technological society I can't help but be blown away about how much of what he said actually came to be and how ahead of his time his characterization of leftists was, way back in 98.

A reminder that sweeping characterisations of groups of people along the lines of the Unabombers’ attacks on “leftists” or conservatives are against WrongPlanet rules.

He stated: "a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists", as in his view "leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology".

He also criticizes conservatives, describing them as "fools" who "whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

What a waste of great potential!

Henry David Thoreau and Grizzly Adams gone batshit crazy.....

Ted Kozinski was a math genius who liked to work with his hands, and to build stuff (like mail bombs).

Michael Vick was the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons who lost his career when he was arrested for running a dog fighting ring.

Both would have stayed out of trouble, and would have made positive contributions of their talents to society if only both had gotten involved with...Battlebots!

yes.

Being evil doesn't proclude genius,look at Manson,Ted Bundy was a lawyer and Hitler was pretty smart and so was Stalin.

I don't know enough about math to argue Kaczynski's theory's but the fact that he is evil doesn't mean he is not smart or even a genius,the intellectual and moral aspects of people are separate things.

His mother "At one point she was so worried about Ted's social development that she considered entering him in a study for autistic children led by Bruno Bettelheim"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Does any bat-hat crazy person ever have legitimate points?

Does a blind and rabid squirrel ever find a nut?

Such a squirrel might stumble across a nut by sheer fluke.
You wouldn’t look to it for guidance on nut location though.

In that case, you seem to fully understand my analogy.

Indeed: I found it amusing to write out the conclusion

The points in question that made me make the post were moreso his ideas on the effects of modern industrial society on people and their happiness.

"Adam Smith", the "Old Father Of Economics" (Still Trump) Has Been Revised More
than once; It's Not The Human Who Stomps on Everyone Else That Most often survives;
Humans Cooperate Best With Love; It's What all Natural Human And Even Bonobo Altruism Does BEST;
Ted Kaczynski Was Obviously Functionally Disabled By The Human Nature Of Altruistic Love; So He Spent
His Time Alone
Bombing
Folks
To Fix Something
The Killing Never Will...
Humans Cooperate Best Through
Love... 'Guns' Will Never Do It Always Failing...
On the Other Hands Men And Or Women Meek
Enough to Handle Flowers And Thorns With
Ease Do Rise As Roses Naturally Do too in
Colors
of
Blood Love;
The Red We All Share;
FLoWeRS THoRNS RiSinG Roses..
ToGeTHeR Better Yes aS oNe Blood LoVE.
The Evidence Is Real; Ted Could Have Ended Up
in a Much Better Place; 'Fred' Has the Evidence at Close to 60;
Dancing Is Much More Lucrative; A Career With All Natural
Rewards MORE than
'Bombing';
Collecting
Guns; 4 Wheel
Drives And the Such.
Poetry Works Too; Lasts a Long
Time Sailor... in Female Form at least...
There Are so many other Ways to get a 'point'
Through Than 'Guns'; By God Yes Roses are A Way
That Works Best; FLoWeRS AND THoRNS Complete;
A SMiLE IS Enough;
BuTT 'A Dance'
Of Love Comes Free First.

Last edited by aghogday on 05 May 2020, 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

You could find the same arguments on any environmentalist's website, so why give any credit to Kaczynski?

Why even mention his name?

Environmentalists indeed focus on the idea of industrial society and its impact. However much of it is on the impact on nature itself through chemical misuse and it's more of a hard science. Kaczynsky focused more on the impact of modern industrial society on the psychology of man and portrays both a micro (individual psychology) and macro (sociological) depiction of this impact. I'd recommend listening to or reading his article titled "Industrial Society and its Future".