cb_10 21 hours ago
"So the question is, Can the ideas stand on their own merit regardless of who said them?" This assumes that a particular idea or set of ideas is unique to an individual. As Winner posits, the more rational of Kaczynski's are not. So, why give additional attention to an individual who has caused so much pain and threatened so many? The thrill of engaging a sociopath? Drawing off Kaczynski's infamy for attention-seeking? It's hard to find a noble or responsible answer to the question.
It should be added that the moral ambivalence found in Skrbina's approach, notwithstanding his understandable disclaimers rejecting Kaczynski's violence, is a sign of the real problem in human society. Technology will always be with us, whether the tool is a stick or a supercomputer. Whatever problems we have as humans are the result of our own fallibility, including the stubborn tendency towards moral pragmatism and relativity.
Resisting the technological advancements that have saved millions of lives through medicine, computers, robotics, and agriculture is not a sign of a moral superiority. Whatever evils have been accomplished through technology are evils of human behavior. Kaczynski's grievances became excuses to attack and kill defenseless civilians, but the Rosseauian temptation to turn back the clock to some romanticized natural state threatens the well being of billions while only indulging the moral hypocrisy that truly threatens us.
Fuck you Zerzan - FUCK OFF!
Post a comment in response:
|© 2002-2008. Blurty Journal. All rights reserved.|