[tmarsden]

I think this all boils down to what Ted Kaczynski talked about in "Industrial Society and Its Future." Specifically "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" because "in modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs." I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

It's no surprise you can end up feeling empty and unfulfilled in a career like software development, or any other modern career, you are putting energy and emotional involvement that you would otherwise have put into the search for physical necessities. I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world. Biologically speaking fulfillment should come from satisfying your physical needs (i.e. surviving) not from the pursuit of some made up goal.

[freedomben]

It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone.

IMHO it's a classic example where "the author is excellent at identifying problems, not good at identifying solutions." Unfortunately almost nobody reads the first (identification) part because the solution part is so unpalatable and unacceptable. For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense, but for most people who have a sense of compassion and empathy the costs are extremely unpalatable.

[Aurornis]

> It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone.

It's pseudo-profound, but not really insightful at all. It's the kind of writing that seems brilliant to people going through difficult times in life or edgy teenagers who are angry at the world, but to be blunt it falls flat for people who are well-adjusted and thriving.

That's the crux of that type of writing: Ranting about the world in pseudo-profound prose is always going to feel brilliant to people who are struggling with something and want to identify with others who are also struggling, but that doesn't make it insightful or good writing.

> For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense,

Treating his writings and actions as two separate, unrelated things is really downplaying the manifesto. The fact that he took the ideas he wrote down and came to the logical conclusion that violence and destruction were the way forward should tell you something about his writings. Specifically, that they were hyperbolically incorrect.

To be honest, the way that you're identifying with his writings and thinking that even his actions make "logical sense" suggests that you may need to take a step back and reevaluate. It seems his prose got its hooks into you, but it's not actually brilliant content.

[chubot]

Did the Unabomer have any ideas you couldn't read elsewhere?

I imagine there are tons of philosophers who have said similar things.

Here's a comment recommending Jacque Ellul and Lewis Mumford - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4015488

Another one - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24658601

(I haven't read them)

But we probably don't remember or cite them because their manifestos weren't published on the front page of newspapers.

That was due to the serial violence of the author, and it was subsequently talked about for decades.

That is, the notoriety of his crimes could be the reason that you read and recommend his work, rather than somebody else's work -- as opposed to it being a coincidence

[Starlevel004]

His manifesto is crying about SJWs 40 years before the concept existed. There's nothing insightful in there at all.

[tmarsden]

Completely agree, his ideas could stand on their own there was no need to push them with violence.

[Aurornis]

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

I think this level of hyperbole only feels correct when you've been trapped in the kinds of companies where everyone is at least ten steps removed from the customer. When you're sitting through meetings and pushing around abstract "work" to achieve artificial goals all day, it can seem like modern work is all made up and arbitrary.

But step outside one of these absurd corporate jobs and you'll see plenty of people doing "real" work, and doing a lot of it. It's eye opening to go from a corporate behemoth to a small company where what you do actually matters to customers. Once you see the effect your work has on something up close, it makes a lot more sense.

Every time I read an HN comment where someone is romanticizing Ted Kaczynski's writings, it feels like they're coming from a place of being just a bit too chronically online and a bit too disconnected from how the real world works outside of the internet and corporate life.

[denkmoon]

You can understand why though. Those of us in corporate land swim in an all consuming miasma of unreality. Nothing matters. Logic is irrelevant. Absurdity is the norm. Of course it skews your perspective. Yet another ill corporatism inflicts on us.

[brazzy]

> I would say 99.999% of all modern work is "surrogate activity" (an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward.)

That's one of the most absurd hyperboles (or the most detached-from-realiy statements) I have ever seen. That would mean only one out of 100,000 people is doing "real" work. Or if you spread it evenly, less than one third of a second per working day.

[tmarsden]

You're probably right, it was a made up number to make a point. The point being that if you are not growing your own food (or hunting it) you're probably engaged in "surrogate activity" for a living and not directly satisfying your physical needs. Would you say more than 1/100,000 people in today's world grow and or hunt for their food daily?

[jononor]

1 in 100k is a stretch. But 1 in 10 maybe? Physically we need water, food, shelter and medical care. Around 10% of US workforce is in agriculture, but a decent chunk of that is probably for providing non-essentials foodstuffs. So maybe only 10% work on actually providing all the essentials for human life.

[jayd16]

What about attracting a mate and social status. Those are fairly ancient goals that are relevant in the modern world. How does that impact the conjecture that we're wired for survival only?

[tmarsden]

Attracting a mate and reproduction easily falls under "satisfying your physical needs" and I would argue is a deeply wired survival instinct.

In his words "the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex."

[randomdata]

> I think this is particularly acute for those in software development because it is so abstract and disconnected from the physical world.

Or is it what the "legendary" comment in the original link calls attention to: That the pay is good? As a result, you technically only need to spend a minutes per day, if that, working on software. Everything else is fluff. This seems to match what Kaczynski is talking about.

Take a job developing software that just barely covers the cost of your survival needs and I expect there is no chance you will feel empty about it.

[wslh]

Beyond the Unabomber it is good to trace much earlier of him such as Kafka, Marx's theory of Alienation, Chaplin, etc.