unabomber's manifesto 87-92

[Anonymous No.4326547]

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
>87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.

[Anonymous No.4326551]

(...)
>88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human race - most of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

[Anonymous No.4326554]

>89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

>90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

>91. Also, science and technology constitute a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

>92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

discuss?

[Anonymous No.4326589]

He's an idiot and is obviously only able to see things in black and white. Although I don't doubt this applies to many scientists, to use this model for all scientists is absurd, and many scientists exist solely to help mankind. Why else would men like Jonas Salk give out the polio vaccine for free? For status? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.4326644]

motives:
>status>self interest and greed>just out of habit>some fruity shit about humanity and mankind

[Anonymous No.4326650]

>>4326589
It doesn't say it applies to all scientists, read the post before you comment.

I for one believe this to be mostly true and I bring as an argument the level of scientific research that was done in other eras when being a scientists was not as profitable and as noble as it is today.If we are to accept that scientists do what they do out of curiosity and benevolence than the level of research should have been proportional with the population of educated humans who had access to reading material and we know this is isn't true.The number of scientists that were alive during the last century for example, the second half especially is greater than all the scientists that ever existed before that put together.This happened because after WW 2 business men started investing heavily in research and not just in production as they did before for ages, actually, this trend of investing in research is unheard of before the 20th century except probably some few isolated cases.
It makes sense from a psychological perspective also, greed ans self love motivates humans infinitely better than anything else except fear.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.4326655]

>implying his solution is any better

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4326658]

Are the motives of science important so long as its processes continue? Is the desire for power or status bad? Is interest in an obscure subject with little humanitarian potential bad?

tl;dr what's the point of this monologue.

[Anonymous No.4326671]

>Most scientists work on highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal curiosity.

What the hell is "normal curiosity"?

[Anonymous No.4326856]

151. In the future, the social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

While this may seem a radical comment, let me say that while a resultant feeling of malaise has fallen over the society due to numerous factors, instead of unlocking the reason for the feelings, we will likely alter the chemically-induced moods of the humans through a mass production and distribution of anti-depression drugs.

[Anonymous No.4326866]

>>4326650
>being a scientist today
>noble
>profitable
>everyone looks at you as if you're some sort of alien at best, or despise you as an autistic nerd at worst
>be hired by a dumb business major that earns 10 times at much as you

[Anonymous No.4326889]

>>4326866
Sounds like someone is bitter. Did your boss just fire you?

[Anonymous No.4326899]

What I don’t get is the way this perception of science determinates that it's negative/worse than any other activity?

[Anonymous No.4326903]

Power motivates everything, not just science. If the unabomber wasn't so crippled with ideals of "humanitarianism" and "social justice", maybe he wouldn't have been so resentful over this revelation that he felt like bombing people.

[Stinkfist No.4326905]

>>4326856
Nope, just America, the rest of the world is fine in that sense.

[Anonymous No.4326916]

ITT: relativists i.e. fence sitting cowards will bitch about black and white thinking i.e. reality.

[Anonymous No.4326938]

The motivation of the scientist, the philosopher, the logician, etc. is to discover the true forms of existing entities, and to reveal these to the laymen of the world, still trapped in a cave of ignorance and denial.

Nothing makes sense without a Platonic framework; your arguments will never achieve anything if you do not accept this simple fact.

[Anonymous No.4326945]

>>4326905

>Namefag
>"Stinkfist" for name
Edgy high school teenager detected.

[Anonymous No.4326955]

>>4326899
Science as getting knowledge 'how' things work can't be perceived as destructive or immoral, but present organisation of scientific research is - you can do your science 'freely' only if it improves highly organised technology processes or improves/cures 'human imperfections' so they will fit better highly organised technology processes.

[Anonymous No.4326966]

>>4326899
Science as getting knowledge 'how' things work can't be perceived as destructive or immoral, but present organisation of scientific research is - you can do your science 'freely' only if it improves highly organised technology processes or improves/cures 'people's imperfections' so they will fit better highly organised technology processes.

[Anonymous No.4326970]

>isopropyltrimethylmethane

[Anonymous No.4327120]

>>4326966
But even scientists themselves complain about the influence economy has on their work.

Why would anyone put the blame on them, who do as much as they can accepting low income, high competition and often a lot of wasted, non recognized effort and actually a lack of social appreciation of their work?

[Anonymous No.4328535]

>>4326866

The once who own the company do make a lot more money after all there are some people in any society that need to remain in control that doesn't change the fact that science is big business today, 100 years ago you guys couldn't even make ends meat.

>>everyone looks at you as if you're some sort of alien at best, or despise you as an autistic nerd at worst
You spend to much time on /b/, in real life the word 'scientists' is synonymous with intelligence and you guys now this.

>>4326938
>>The motivation of the scientist, the philosopher, the logician, etc. is to discover the true forms of existing entities, and to reveal these to the laymen of the world, still trapped in a cave of ignorance and denial.

That's a goal, not a motivation, read >>4326650

[Anonymous No.4328542]

unabomber was a fag. he cared about society enough to write up a manifesto and sound out mailbombs yet he hated society so much he moved to the woods and had no interactions with people. he was a fucking mess and i'm not impressed by his bullshit.

all your reading is his bizarre rationalizations for acting out in rage like the dejected cunt that he was.

[Anonymous No.4328559]

>>4326554

Why discuss the fucking obvious?

"You mean people do things because they gain satisfaction from them? B-B-But the two thousand years of Christian lying about human psychology told me otherwise!"

Of course no great thinker, let alone any thinker, is merely "curious" about things although such thinkers usually have such a surplus of mental energy that their more playful excursions dredge up discoveries that take the less-talented a grim and serious investigation to uncover.

>He's an idiot and is obviously only able to see things in black and white.

To translate from the language of the liar
"I have invested too much in my angelicization of human beings in certain professions (and as an aside, what an insult to all great and low beasts to cast them as angels!), as my unconscious inheritance from two millennium of forked-tongue liars, and therefore this man is wrong (in stating the fucking obvious)."

>Why else would men like Jonas Salk give out the polio vaccine for free? For status? I doubt it.

Altruism is one of the most intense expressions of the human desire for power, that one has legislated an interior moral law and has the power to enforce it! That one gets satisfaction from the power to raise the lower to the higher. There is no lone "good" which motivates the human creature but very beastly motivations and drives which use any resource, even of the beautiful lie to satisfy and pepetuate themselves.

And with that said, he is spot on that modern science, in so much that it is a historical phenomenon dependent on a specific mode of resource accumulation enabled by the control and perpetuation of certain types of governments, has become a part of the arms industry (in both the literal sense of weapons and in the figurative sense that governments and other organizations are constantly competing for advantages against each other).

[Anonymous No.4328563]

>>4328542

Well he was a fag in so much that instead of organizing a mass resistance to a system, he indulged in the fantasy of "individual resistance" and lived a simulation of the satisfaction of a vast megalomania (to change the entirety of society!) in his cabin. Which is why he sent mailbombs to random people instead of sabotaging things like oil refineries or metal mines or any number of raw resource extraction facilities which are the foundation for our society.

[Anonymous No.4328569]

The only relevant point is that people like that will refuse to go synthetic.
Natural selection at its finest.

[Anonymous No.4328571]

During high school I was a very angry person. At some point all my friends graduated (they were older than me) and I was left alone.

I then read the unabomer's manifesto and my feelings really crystalized. I think he had a good point. Human beings were largely unprepared for living in a large technologically advanced society. Using technology we have inflicted strange new forms of suffering upon ourselves.

I remember after I finished reading it I was in a really strange state of mind for a few weeks. I thought if the premises were correct, and the reasoning was sound, then the conclusion must be correct. Except the conclusion was to violently attack everything.

[Anonymous No.4328580]

I think he was mostly right, at least in a technical way. I'll have to read more, I'm not clear on what he means by surrogate activity. What is a non-surrogate activity?

I'm also curious how he got from here to bombing people.

[Anonymous No.4328585]

>>4328571
FBI with no-knock warrant in 3.... 2... 1....

[Anonymous No.4328602]

>>4328580

I am >>4328571

A surrogate activity is one with no real relevance consequences that people do to feel satisfaction. You could think of it like a very simple hobby, like model rocketry or trains. But it also extends into people's whole careers, like people who research obscure areas. Or really anything anyone might do to unwittingly develop satisfaction that ultimately doesnt contribute anything more than that satisfaction.

>>4328585

Haha... yeah...

[Anonymous No.4328610]

>>4328602
I think I see what he means. But, can you give an example of a non-surrogate activity? Is acquiring money a surrogate activity? Are only things with first-hand benefits like food, mates, etc... non-surrogate?

[Anonymous No.4328617]

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system. [20]

TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM

www.archive.org/details/UnabomberManifesto

[Anonymous No.4328619]

>>4328610

I think the unabomber was of the opinion that things like hunting food is a non-surrogate activity. Thats directly related to your survival. I dont know, its not black and white. I would suspect that building simple tools is not a surrogate activity. Sex, hiking, writing, sleeping.

I dont know if this makes things clear, the reason we need surrogate activities, is because we have nothing to do. We have all those power to do things, to take care of ourselves, but none of the need thanks to technology. So anything that is really an escape for nervous energy is a surrogate activity. It could be argued that one activity is a surrogate activity in one context and not a surrogate activity in another context, if that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4328624]

Most great scientists have the personality traits of psychoticism, hence why they're able to chase idealism outside of base breeding and consuming.

[Anonymous No.4328651]

>>4328619
I see. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.4328686]

>>4328559
>Altruism is one of the most intense expressions of the human desire for power, that one has legislated an interior moral law and has the power to enforce it! That one gets satisfaction from the power to raise the lower to the higher. There is no lone "good" which motivates the human creature but very beastly motivations and drives which use any resource, even of the beautiful lie to satisfy and pepetuate themselves.

You're a faggit.
Altruism is a biological function found in animals as well as in humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

Nothing to do with a power-trip.
It's just one of those features that let us live in societies. Like empathy... Which that guy was clearly lacking.

[Anonymous No.4328709]

>People who care about the properties of chemicals, are chemists
>People who aren't chemists, don't care about the properties of chemicals
Or is he saying that scientits only are only ever interested in a single discipline?

[Anonymous No.4328741]

wow people aren't motivated solely by curiosity?!?!?!

better send mail bombs to robotics professors to really win over peoples hearts and minds.

what a fucking faggot that unabomber was. if he wasn't such a fucking weirdo he would have been getting laid this never would have happened. fucking loser.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4329549]

Well I guess I am just going to be the guy who defends the unabomber.

>>4328741

>better send mail bombs to robotics professors to really win over peoples hearts and minds.

First of all, I dont know that it was ever his objective to win over people. The point of bombing people is to disrupt society, not convince people of anything.

Second of all he had always offered to stop bombing IF newspapers agreed to publish his written work. Meaning he would have rather tried to convince people of what to do than kill people.

And finally, bombing largely was effective in convincing people of his message. Do you believe anyone would know or care about what he said if he hadnt? He might have left 9 people with the impression he was just some crazy criminal, but if only 1 of 10 actually considered what he had to say, he was successful.

>>4328686

In this interview the Unbabomber is asked how he feels about violence:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Ted_Kaczynski__Letter_to_a_Turkish_anarchist.html

He refers to a large number of citations that demonstrate humans in a natural environment can display great violence. In my own personal studies about mortality of primitive peoples, I have seen that the rate at which people are killed in violent death is higher.

With that said I am not arguing that we SHOULD be like this. I am more just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Anonymous No.4329556]

Well I guess I am just going to be the guy who defends the unabomber.

>>4328741

>better send mail bombs to robotics professors to really win over peoples hearts and minds.

First of all, I dont know that it was ever his objective to win over people. The point of bombing people is to disrupt society, not convince people of anything.

Second of all he had always offered to stop bombing IF newspapers agreed to publish his written work. Meaning he would have rather tried to convince people of what to do than kill people.

And finally, bombing largely was effective in convincing people of his message. Do you believe anyone would know or care about what he said if he hadnt? He might have left 9 people with the impression he was just some crazy criminal, but if only 1 of 10 actually considered what he had to say, he was successful.

>>4328686

In this interview the Unbabomber is asked how he feels about violence:

theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Ted_Kaczynski__Letter_to_a_Turkish_anarchist.html

He refers to a large number of citations that demonstrate humans in a natural environment can display great violence. In my own personal studies about mortality of primitive peoples, I have seen that the rate at which people are killed in violent death is higher.

With that said I am not arguing that we SHOULD be like this. I am more just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Anonymous No.4329568]

It maybe somewhat true except the "no curiosity part" bullshit.

I'm not a scientist but I've worked myself up into such curiosity about things both practical and abstract so badly I couldn't sleep.

Also he forgot to mention praise and admiration positive reinforcement.

I sincerely believe a lot of scientists and engineers are actually trying to seek that "gold star" you got it right feeling, from childhood over and over again.

I'd say this is more common in soft scientists (were "right" isn't necessarily true) and least true of mathematicians and logicians.

[Anonymous No.4329579]

>The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

I agree with this, there's nothing wrong with it. Solve problems is fun, even if they have no significance at all. That's why we like to play video games or work on cars or knit/sew, whatever. Very trivial explanation.