Anybody follow the Unabomber Manifesto?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not talking about blowing people up, but about Kaczsynski's 35,000 word manifesto. I find more and more as I get older that it really makes sense. The primitive world is the best world, and by taking on evolutionary characteristics that we should not have, things such as agriculture and the tendency to build cities, we've become destroyers rather than sustainers. I don't know if there's a way to de-evolve, even the medieval world had agriculture. But it would be for the best. It's really no longer possible to live a primitivist existence, I knew primitivists when I lived in San Francisco and to them it's just another way to be individuals, to wear lots of piercings and tattoos and just be odd. Very few actually go out to a remote area and assume a hunter-gatherer life, and in most cases in a fully urbanized world it's not possible. Most humans live in cities for the first time in our existence. We have set ourselves up for failure.

Will your computer be the last thing you throw out?

I'll stick with what we have.

The world is rolling over into a new way of living, green, sustainable, less greedy. The ageing of the baby boomers will drive labour back to North America, promote cottage industry(because they prize individuality, and they have all the mass produced stuff they want). Further generations will perpetuate that, as aged people don't have consumerist needs the way the young do.

As fuel prices grow and scarcity happens, expect that towns will be come more self sustainable, travel less frequent. What this means is a return to more small town attitudes, good and bad. On the other hand, tech is here to stay, so expect increasing familiarity with other cultures.

As an effect of these two things, expect a rising birth rate among North Americans. Labour will be needed and support for the elderly will as well. The alternative would be larger old age homes and much higher support taxes. Instead people will choose larger families and keep the grandparents at home.

Some would say the birthrate is already getting higher amongst youth. As an effect of this, expect educational levels to drop. This again promotes higher birthrates. It would only take 1 in 10 couples having a third child to make a population sustainable. Less when you consider that mortality rates are falling, youth is lengthening, and live spans are reaching closer to maximum potential. If there is one.

Expect a increasingly long youth for the well off and educated. Already in cases people have full adult hood delayed until around age 30.. Lawyers and Doctors are prime examples.

Perhaps this will result in split populations of those that are well to do, and those with large families, but expect continued panmixis among the two populations. Its common enough in modern society already.

I read about him because I saw those UFO hunters episodes on the history channel and tried to look up what it was about through a book so I tried amazon.com (UFO's are linked to new age)

I found the author to a book called "The science of aliens" then I found the authors' other book "strange brains and genius". I read "strange brains and genius" (yep, the whole thing eventually). This unabomber person actually was in it but I used to see him on television when I was young then forgot. Some of what is in that book, though, has some interesting info in it relating to our times compared to the vicotorian era: claimed to be an era more supportive of "eccentrics" and "eccentric genuises".

Anyway, this unabomber fellow does make some interesting points because we do create a kind of social darwinsim in these times. I even found an article through google news that tells that because of this "tech-education" craze, our kids are more likely diagnosed with adhd or ODD etc. But thats probably the way it always was even throughout the late 1990's + for the money.

Only some personality types are good at "maths" and "sciences". But we push this on people through school. And modernity is "not about diversity" as shown by our universalism: we don't like the super-natural or learn based on experience.

Perhaps its not so much of technologies fault but our politics, government /economy, and philosophy that goes along with our culture to create a "utopian steril" society through "mental heigene".

I didn't read his manifesto simply because from what I read and heard he was crazy. My mind is open though and I realize that the media controls what we see. He was a terrorist and under terrorist laws we do not have the right to read his opinions.

Tell me what you agree with and I'll keep an open mind. So far I don't have any qualms about what was written in your opening post.

btw, the unibomber grew up a few blocks away from me. Everyone who I know that knew him thought he was just weird.
I never was one to steal opinions though.

Here is some comedic relief that reminds me of the unibomber. "Why don't you move up to the mountains and get a horse and stop bothering people."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOfHr7H4SGU[/youtube]

Wait, what? You have the right to read whatever you want. You can even read Mein Kampf if you are so inclined.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who saw just how patently ridiculous that statement ************************************* was. Are we supposed to disagree with Bin Laden when he says western society has it's head up it's own arse with mindless vacuous things *****************************************, just because he is Bin Laden, and not consider for a moment that the statement itself ******************************************************** *******************************************************************might be true?

I haven't read the whole of the Manifesto but, taken **************************************************************************************** in isolation, the first paragraph is staggeringly precise about the nature of most of the world's problems right now. Sadly I think Kaczynski was also *************************************************************** right that nobody would have listened to what he had to say ******************************************************************************* had he not been a terrorist, and ********************************************************************************************** that is a really worrying precedent.

You know who else had a manifesto? That Asian kid who shot up Virginia Tech.

The manifestos of antisocial crackpots aren't worth reading.

But....but... I like blogs!

I know what you mean. For the most part, they are uninteresting nutballs. Other than from the angle of social phenomenons, they are not worth reading about.

If it has the faintest hint of subversiveness to it, people who call themselves "truthers" will lap it up.

Yes, society is out of balance in many ways. But I prefer the ephermalization philosophy of Buckminister Fuller. From wiki: "It refers to the ability of people to use technological advances to continuously do more with less. Fuller’s vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for a growing population despite finite resources."

Ephermalization is a rational, humane approach to move things back into balance, to allow population to reduce, to stop the ever expanding destruction of the natural world, while providing a basic standard of living for every person.

I was talking about HR 1955. Citizens aren't aware of all the media censorship. Sometimes there is more to the story than we are led to believe. If you aren't aware of US propaganda in how it relates to terrorism then you need to educate yourself on this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM[/youtube]

Magnus, no doubt, there are overt and covert attempts to influence the media.

On the other hand, the Unabomber manifesto was published by several media sources, and he was captured because his manifesto was published and his ideas and writing style were recognized - his brother called the FBI to say "I think I know who the Unabomber might be ..."

I'm not a fan of the unabomber. I guess I went off on a tangent.

I remember reading that his brother recognized his writing by some of his wrong word usages in the manifesto.

Following through with that right has consequences - so really you are not totally free.

He should have bought and followed Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style"!

What consequences? In the United States there is no law against reading any material nor any way of monitoring that.