The Unabomber Manifesto

Post Reply New Topic

This can not be directly proven, though I don't see much evidence that it is true. How many aspies do you know who are doing what they want? Many I hear about aren't able to put their interests to work, and are instead forced to do low-paying jobs that they probably don't want other than for collecting paychecks. Of course, there may be those few exceptions, such as Bill Gates, if he is aspie, but for most, it's a pipe dream.

As far as having status ... I don't care about status. I don't believe status means anything. What truly matters to me is whether or not I can put my interests into a career. I don't care if I'm a manager or a lower-paid worker, so long as it is what I like to do. I believe a preference for status corrupts society. I also believe that managers are far more paid than they should be, because most of the people who do the real work are at the bottom. Managers just scrounge up pay that could better a lot of lives and make them happier and more content.

How many aspies rely on SSI, for example? You haven't seen anything yet. Just wait until Bush and his brethren destroy social security as we know it. Then see how the current system treats you. Because they want to send the elderly right into their graves as fast as they possibly can. Let alone the disabled, whom they may be too afraid to touch, because of an even bigger backlash. Let's just hope the public has brains.

- Ray M -

It may even be true that we are more dumber than our predecessors. Like, who could have constructed the Egypt pyramids? Surely not today's architects. The architects from yesteryear seemed much more superior, and they did not have the kinds of technologies they have today.

Systems were still in place. The people who built the pyramids knew that. They had to have innate knowledge of measurements and so forth. Today, most NTs couldn't even comprehend such knowledge.

It is possible that autistic conditions may be some form of primal way of thinking. I think Temple Grandin stated it may be similar to how an animal thinks, though I second guess that. I think maybe it's more of the way that our predecessors thought. Of course, I think that today's autistics and aspies are much more advanced than that, and are probably only advancing even more forward.

- Ray M-

That is such rubbish. The architectural achievements of today far, FAR surpass the pyramids. We could certainly build a pyramid twice as big as the biggest Egyptian pyramid, and do it in half the time. But no-one will because it would be pointless, and the egotistical, corrupt, and abusive pharaohs no longer exist. But we certainly are capable of doing it, if we were stupid and egotistical enough to do it. Instead, we have made far more practical and useful architectural achievements that far surpass the pyramids.

For example, the Great Pyramid of Giza is nearly 150 meters tall. Whereas the Taipei 101 building in Taiwan is more than 500 meters tall! That is more than 3 times the height of the tallest pyramid!

The Tatara Bridge in Japan has a total length of nearly 1500 meters -- 10 times the height of the tallest pyramid! Its longest span is nearly 900 meters. The steel towers are 220 meters high (taller than the Great Pyramid).

By modern standards, there is nothing impressive about the pyramids. If I had my way, I would actually have the pyramids torn down because they represent abuse of powers. Pharaohs abusing their power to manipulate thousands of people into building giant useless monuments to honor a single tyrant Pharaoh who thought he was practically a god.

And artistically, there is nothing particularly impressive about the pyramids. Just a plain basic pyramid shape. How boring. There are many superior examples of artistic architecture. People admire the pyramids for no good reason.

That is how most companies are already operating. So far you have not said anything different to the existing system. Companies already have voting procedures. Decision-making is already handled cooperatively in most companies.

If we continue this discussion, most likely we will discover that your proposed system is similar to the existing system, or else wildly impractical, or it has already been tried multiple times and failed. That is usually what happens in such discussions.

Another problem with people designing their own society systems is that they tend to think that their system will somehow be completely immune to corruption. It is never explained how their system is immune to corruption, it is just simply assumed that it is.

Not a lot of aspies are doing what they want compared to the NT population, however, I don't think that the aspies in the past were probably too happy to be serfs. I just tend to believe that the freedom and mobility that we have today allows for aspies to either do what they love or at the very least keep the thing that they love as a hobby. In the past knowledge was not free and it was unusable, how would an aspie in the past learn about the stars, he could stare at the sky all day long but that would teach him very little yet today he can buy a book, or look on the internet or go to the library to learn about the stars in the sky and get more to sate his fascination, heck, if he is really good at astronomy he could even get a doctorate and possibly teach in a university, he may have some set backs due to his social skills but that does not mean he could not do it. In the past people were simply born into low paying jobs while the rich and powerful taxed the crap out of them as they pleased and living well was living in some dirt hole and tending to crops. Freer information and a freer society benefits us along with everyone and although it may benefit us less it still provides benefit. The aspies of the past could probably not even read anything much less type it down on an internet forum for the judgement by their peers. Without modern society we would probably not have Vernon L Smith, Dan Akroyd(well, he is an iffy one because it is not known whether or not he was joking about being an aspie), Richard Borcherds, Temple Grandlin(well, I think at the very least she has high functioning autism), and many others..(yes, I know that some are less known than others but they are all people who probably would not have very much if this were a past society due to the lack of freedom)

Status is important in all societies and seeking status is a human driving force. If we eliminate that then we eliminate a lot of incentive to improve things, we might be intrinsically motivated to learn new things but is the average NT intrinsically motivated to spend his time doing necessary work? I tend to doubt it, because he is extrinsically motivated we must have an incentive to get him to want to do work, the incentive is therefore power and since power creates status status is a requirement of any society that desires to keep people above primitivism and have an advanced society. Managers are important, if they weren't then we would not have them, after all they absorb a lot of pay that could be taken by CEOs and stockholders and neither of those groups would want that to happen needlessly but we end up having them and many of them. This is because they organize labor, labor on its own is a dumb tool as it often lacks the ability to understand supply and demand and to find ways to supply demands, it does not know precisely what is required to get maximum product with minimum capital, it does not know the intricacies of effectively increasing efficiency and working with the materials that it has as efficiently as possible. Companies do not have infinite capital and that is why they have to manage this capital and its expenditures to make a company worth the capital invested and this requires managers all the way down.

Social security is dying and this trend has been occuring before Bush even came into power. Social Security only started as a way to pump money into the economy during the Great Depression and has only continued because politicians were afraid of taking these benefits away, old people vote more than most other groups(and also older people tend to vote republican which means that if he tried to kill off old people more quickly he would hurt his own party), and as such it has continued on and on and now faces a crisis today because no politician in the past bothered to fix it and because the number of old people is now increasing because boomers are now reaching retirement. Social security as it is is unsustainable without placing heavy burdens on income earners. Pretty much social security will have to be changed or removed, and considering the Republican ideal of small government Bush picked the latter. I am not sure the relationship between intelligence and liking social security though I mean, some people will look at social security as something unnecessary for them and a drain on their personal budgets while others will look at it as a way to get easy benefits, it depends on perspective really as some smart people might hate social security and some dumb people might like it and vice versa.

Here's one I have looked at quite often, Participatory Economics:

http://www.zmag.org/parecon/indexnew.htm

It's based on some of the cooperative principles I talked about above.

Most companies do not operate like I said. Most companies operate on a hierarchical basis, with owners at the top and the workers at the bottom. The middle managers exist in between the top and lower tiers. Hierarchies, in an economic sense, breed corruption. That's why they exist to begin with, so the people at the top can truly reap the benefits at the expense of everyone below them. In my view, owners of major corporations are thieves. What I was talking about, a cooperative model, disseminates ownership across the workforce. There are still overseers, yes ... but they are voted in by the overall workforce. Ownership is not set up according to a hierarchical model, but rather in more of a federation. If people don't like what an overseer, or manager does, then he won't last too long in that position. There is accountability. Accountability is thrust to the stockholders in most traditional corporations, and investors push companies to do hideous things to increase their own shares.

- Ray M -

Read the last paragraph of my previous message. You are doing what I JUST SAID: Assuming that your system is immune to corruption. And right after I said that people have a tendency to do this! I'm a frickin' psychic.

I said: "Another problem with people designing their own society systems is that they tend to think that their system will somehow be completely immune to corruption. It is never explained how their system is immune to corruption, it is just simply assumed that it is."

And in the very next message here you are complaining about corruption in hierarchies, while implying that your cooperative model somehow avoids the problem of corruption. Corruption can occur in either model, and probably just as easily. Corruption occurs more because of the people than because of the model.

Furthermore, even if you have the perfect model, it still does not work unless you have the right people. For example, you can try to make rats work within the perfect corporation model but it will not work because, well, rats have insufficient brainpower to run a corporation, regardless of how good your model is. Similarly, whether a model works (regardless of whether it is hierarchical or flat) depends more on WHO the people are than what the model is. In other words, a company with great people and a crap model will likely be more successful than a company with crap people and a great model.

If as*holes are working in your perfect model, it will not stop them from being as*holes -- as*holes are as*holes regardless of the model they are supposed to work within. This is why your proposed system is not immune to corruption.

For example, consider the case of autocracies. Is this a good or bad model? Neither. Whether it works well depends more on WHO the autocrat is than it being an autocratic model. The autocrat can be benevolent or malevolent, and in either case it is still autocracy, therefore the model does not determine whether the situation is good or bad.

Judgement Day for the Unabomber:

http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/judge/judge.html

obviously this example is flawed because rats are not people.


as*holes are a product of the world they live in.

It was metaphorical. To make it easier to understand, I will rewrite it to use people. The meaning is the same.

"Furthermore, even if you have the perfect model, it still does not work unless you have the right people. For example, you can try to make children work within the perfect corporation model but it will not work because, well, children have insufficient maturity to run a corporation, regardless of how good your model is."

Or if you do not like children, substitute with illiterate uneducated peasants. Or for a more realistic example, substitute with people who have no experience in running a corporation, or people who have had only a basic education, or people with little workplace experience. The model will not make such people successful. The point being that the particular people are more important than the model, and the perfect model does not just make everything right and correct peoples flaws all by itself.


Everyone is a product of the world/Earth. Are you implying that if the world was perfect, there would be no as*holes? That is a useless thing to say because the world is not perfect and it is highly unrealistic to think it can be made perfect. And even if you could somehow eliminate all as*holes from the world, there would still be plenty of people unsuitable for a particular job, and hence I return to what I said, choosing the right people is more important/effective than choosing the right model. A company with the perfect model can still be a disaster or be unethical if it has the wrong people.

People are the problem, not the model. Regardless of the model of a corporation, it becomes corrupt if it includes people that tend towards corruption.

This also applies to any one of dozens of political leaders of the 20th & 21st centuries. All of whom are quite prepared to bomb innocent people to achieve their political aims. And on a scale several orders of magnitude higher than the Unabomber.

Another problem with people designing their own ideal utopian society systems is that they tend to think that the people in the system will rigidly abide by the system. Whereas in reality there are always people who will break or bend the rules of the system because they are lazy, lax, greedy, selfish, malevolent, disagree with it, think it unfair, or other reasons.

there are quite a few. here is one example of an alternative theory:
http://www.mattox.com/genome/