Commercial World as well as Potential

A Summary Of “industrial Society And Its Future”

As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society—well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. Many such glaring oversights are to be seen everywhere in this manifesto, he decries the ruling classes but without tying them to the profit motive and capitalism, somehow only to “technology”. Yea so the guy went a bit to far, the ideas he presented in this work , show a man of compassion(?) fed up with the direction he believed the world was heading and wishing to make things better. It has been said the extreme makes an impression, and while I do believe what he did was wrong, I can not question the idea’s for which he did them. 2.) A massive, heavily populated world where cybernetic and generic modifications to humans is commonplace, and even necessary to get ahead in the increasing fast-pace society. Eventually, we will alter our generic and physical makeup so much that we are no longer even really human.

His writings aren’t something that everybody owns or that’s taught in school. I don’t believe a majority would know the author if you asked them who wrote “Industrial Society and its Future”. It’s not closed-mindedness to treat the word of a terrorist critically, that is to say keep in mind what the author of the book intents to accomplish with his work, rather than just taking text off the pages at face value.

I also read the manifesto after watching manhunt and its concepts deeply resonated with me. And to think how much deeper technology is ingrained into our society today compared to when he wrote it. The intent and state of the founders is highly relevant to interpreting the declaration of independence. The intent and state of Marx is highly relevant to interpreting the communist manifesto. Even scientific revolutionary documents such as Darwin’s Origins are not possible to read deeply & understand completely without learning more about the man.

One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waihng on each other’s tables, etc.

Unlike Kaczynski, I didn’t flee to a cabin in Montana; I left physics for the humanities, made myself into a writer, found friendship, fulfillment, love. A year before the manifesto came out, I moved from Boston to Ann Arbor to take a job teaching in the creative writing program at the University of Michigan. One of the Unabomber’s victims, Nicklaus Suino, was a graduate of our program. Although Suino had earned his degree long before I arrived on campus, several of my colleagues knew him well. An aspiring writer and martial arts enthusiast, Suino had stayed in town and gotten a job for a psychology professor whose studies in behavioral modification attracted Kaczynski’s ire; when Suino opened his boss’s package, he got sprayed with shrapnel. Luckily, he survived, but my friends had no sympathy for the terrorist who had caused their former student so much pain and anguish.

They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway. The anarchist too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *