Comment by petsfed
3 years ago
In the context of "having a harvard degree implies a certain amount of skill and capability of to improve the world", I think its fair to honestly look at who he's being held up to in comparison. There a lot people in the world who, if you asked them who was the most dangerous person to graduate from Harvard, they'd pick George W. Bush over some guy who killed 3 and injured not quite 2 dozen.
Getting into or graduating from Harvard as an undergrad doesn't mean much. Granted, Kaczynski didn't buy his way in, but the comment as written doesn't differentiate between some rich kid buying their way in and some genius earning their way in.
I am not defending Bush (a Yale grad, but that's beside the point) and the like. Unabomber was a psychopath who purposefully murdered people.
"he did less damage" - "then a lobbyist or McKinsey" is a wild statement. He was a purposeful murderer. Trying to lump McKinsey consultants and politicians (horrible people, most of them, I am sure) with a serial killer is normalizing murder. Murder is a line that, I imagine, is drawn in concrete for any person who expects to be welcome in the modern society.
I will take my chances in being the subject to damage done by any randomly picked lobbyist vs Unabomber. Won't you?
What is going on with HN if this is the kind of discourse that's getting upvoted and approved.
George H.W. Bush went to Yale. His son, George W. Bush went to Harvard.
I'm not trying to excuse, or minimize, Kaczynski's crimes. I am asking you to understand that in the case of revolutionaries and political leaders, the difference between heroes and terrorists is ultimately decided by the people of the future. It is very easy to see serial killers and bomb makers as individually evil, because its a very personal sort of violence, and the motivations are expressed and enacted on a very personal level.
But how do you deal with more indirect motivations and indirect violence? Was Churchill's inaction during the Bengal famine murder? What about all the collateral damage during Bush's tenure with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Barack Obama a murderer for ordering the death of Anwar Al-Awlaki? Or was it the drone operator who followed the order?
This is to say nothing of the original comment, that Kaczynski did less damage than the average Harvard grad (depicted as someone in finances. The extent to which working in finances causes damage and death is, I think, a lot less direct than even the damage done by a head of state enacting national policy).
I don't think Kaczynski did the right thing, or that his underlying motivations were even coherent, let alone morally correct. Do not misunderstand me. But if we're stack-ranking history's greatest monsters (and Harvard graduates), actual effectiveness counts at least as much as intent.
> George H.W. Bush went to Yale. His son, George W. Bush went to Harvard.
A factual correction: George W. Bush was both an undergradate at Yale (Class of 1968) and got his MBA at Harvard (HBS Class of 1975)
Which is worse for the world: an lone sociopath who does a short spree of destructive acts, or a ruling class of organized psychopaths with all the levers of power with the ability to use the national security state to kill anything that gets in their way?
I think half a million dead Iraqis would say the latter.
After seeing you label Unabomber a “sociopath” and corrupt politicians “psychopaths”, I believe an informed discussion is not to be expected.
Best of luck.
1 reply →
The introduction of the SAT kept Jeb from going there.