PDA

View Full Version : The Unabomber's Manifesto



bighead384
05-25-2012, 10:08 AM
I did some quick research on him, and some of the things he says are thought-provoking:

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

- - -

From Wikipedia
(Kacynski) explains how the nature of leftism is determined by the psychological consequences of "oversocialization." Kaczynski "attribute[s] the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions." He further specifies the primary cause of a long list of social and psychological problems in modern society as the disruption of the "power process", which he defines as having four elements:

The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later.[...] We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group.

Degstur Lolland
05-30-2012, 07:08 AM
So, what's your conclusion bighead?

bighead384
05-30-2012, 08:11 AM
It's just interesting to think about how technology, specifically the industrial revolution, creates a conflict with the morality that earlier humans evolved with.

Here's something I always wonder about, but haven't read much about because I don't know what to read.I guess I'm bringing it up here because it's considered "immoral" not to work by many people.

As everyone knows, technology has replaced jobs. Maintaining or creating new technology creates jobs that help make up for the manual labor jobs that technology has replaced. But, why does it seem that we assume that this trade-off will occur in a way that provides enough jobs for society?

Who's to say that we're not having unemployment crises because technology has replaced too many jobs? When I've brought this up before, people answer it with a theory that claims that technology has replaced some jobs, but it's not really a crisis. But wouldn't empirical evidence be needed in this case, and not a theory? Basically, where is the research on this issue?

Llamas
05-30-2012, 09:55 AM
Basically, this thread/your last post sounds like, "I'm not going to do any research on this topic at all, so I want you people, random strangers on the internet, to prove to me that this opinion I have is wrong. Ready? Go! Show me the research that I'm too lazy to do myself!"

Well here you go. Good article, tons of other sources you can check out underneath. http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/unemployment.html