May I further suggest a distinction between his predictions about technology from his conclusion that bombings and maimings were the way to spread his message?
You may, but that fact that your first association when mentioning the Una
bomber are the bombings and not his criticism of technological society is why the headline was written as it was. It's purpose was to grab attention. Kind of like writing a headline "
Study proves Hitler was right all along" when it was about Hitler's vegetarianism and not wars of aggression and genocide.
The article quickly goes to say they weren't saying that he was right to hurt people.
But by that time you already started reading the piece. So, headline mission accomplished.
And, really, does the release of a new piece of technology prove the Unibomber was right? I mean, this COULD be a flop. Maybe there's a problem with the chip and it'll fail in the market, or it won't prove to be worth the price.
The argument was not so much about the model, but the technology it brings. When ABS was first introduced, it was only available on the first gen Mercedes S-class. Now, they are standard even on cheap cars. If the innovations iPhone X brings are worthwhile, they will trickle down to mainstream models However, none of the things mentioned in the article are unique to X. Wireless charging has been around for years. Facial recognition too, but current systems are not that reliable. Thus, if X's facial recognition works well, it could be something.
Also, it's Unabomber.
What would prove the Unibomber correct in his predictions would be a report on how people were more stressed by the loss of wifi than by the damage inflicted by Harvey or Irma.
When they lost power due to Irma, I helped my dad set up the generator and run cables (he doesn't have central hookup). One of the first things I did was connect the router to see if the Internet was still on. It was, for a while.
I mean, we're dependent on technology, sure. But Kazynski isn't prove right unless that's actually shown to be a problem.
There is one point he makes about technology becoming no longer optional. One possible/probable future example would be self-driving cars. What happens when they cover 99% of the market? Will human drivers be outlawed or will insurance companies just make it impossible to afford? Or maybe roads will become too much for human drivers if traffic becomes too reliant on car-to-road and car-to-car communication.
But in general, I think the author is making too much of it. With smart phones, you have a choice to turn it off of put it on silent. With cars, they do not necessarily lead to having to use them always. Sure, US suburbia and exurbia is set up that way, but in Germany they love cars too, and still they have dense walkable and bikable towns and cities and solid public transit. And in the US there is a shift toward more dense urban development without cars getting villified. So a lot has to do how technological development is incorporated into larger society.
And that argument by Harari that the neolithic revoltion was a mistake reminds me of HHGTTG.
Douglas Adams said:
Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
Hunter-gatherers spent their time in stimulating and varied ways? What can they do other than fuck and fight? Stimulating, sure, but varied? And nothing beats dying at 20 because you ct yourself while out hunting and got an infection.
