What do you think?
Rate this book
Industrial Society and Its Future
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
149 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
1723 people are currently reading
23905 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,986 reviews
Read
April 6, 2009I hope that the FBI knows that I was just curious.
July 28, 2009
I expected this book to be a paranoid rant by a mad dog, but was pleasantly surprised—it is straightforwardly written, under control except for an occasional brief outburst, and carefully (though in some cases wrongly) reasoned. By the end of the manifesto I was convinced that Kaczynski is a fanatic but not crazy (unless you consider all fanatics crazy—a diagnosis worth considering).
Ted K’s argument goes something like this:
*Man is dehumanized and disempowered by the complexity of civilization Though originally evolved to satisfy man’s needs, as it becomes larger and more complex “the system” subordinates man, makes him dependent, and effectively reduces him to a slave (he may be better off materially, but to gain these benefits he must serve the system, the artificial demands of which make him unhappy)
*Runaway technology drives the system—the system will not (and indeed, without a radical transformation cannot) stop it. While ostensibly satisfying human needs, technology actually ratchets up man’s dependence on an increasingly dehumanizing system
*Technology-corrupted to the core, the system cannot be reformed
*The only chance for real change is revolution—a complete overthrow of the system
*Revolution will be possible only when the system becomes vulnerable by collapsing into crisis
*When the system collapses into crisis (as it inevitably will), revolutionaries must be prepared to make their move—to do whatever it takes to create a back-to-Nature society of small, anti-technology communities in which man can re-empower himself through honest labor and simple, survival-oriented problem-solving.
This whole argument is based on a few simple psychological premises: that man can be truly happy only when he is empowered (i.e., dependent on his own labor and problem-solving ability rather than on the overlarge and depersonalizing “system”), and that this empowerment can take place only when life is lived on a small scale (small communities) and when every man, dancing with Nature, faces the challenges of daily life through his own down-to-earth labor and ingenuity. The material advantages currently spawned by the technology-driven system primarily feed not real needs or pleasures but rather artificial needs and pseudo-pleasures, shamelessly hawked by advertisers—false needs and spurious pleasures that become insatiable monsters serving not man but a system which to survive must at all costs keep expanding (“Keep the gullible consumers consuming—whether or not they need the goods and services.”).
Ted K’s arguments obviously owe a lot to the voluntary simplicity movement and its notions of “small is beautiful” and “limits-to-growth” and “save Mother Gaia.” These ideas have some merit. The observation about artificially-created “needs” and “pleasures” (that do not really satisfy—think of the Xmas feeding frenzy of middle-class kids) also has merit, as does the notion that too often man serves the system more than the system serves man (consider two-income families struggling to balance child-rearing, home maintenance, exercise, rest and recreation with the demands of high-stress, overtime-imposing professional or entrepreneurial jobs that are driven by the “system’s” needs to increase productivity and maximize short-term profits).
For the most part, Ted K’s assertions are well-reasoned, poorly substantiated (for which he apologises—there wasn’t much reference material near his cabin in the boondocks), and based on questionable assumptions. Why questionable?
*Happiness—K assumes that man can be truly happy only when directly satisfying his daily needs—hunting and fishing for food, defending himself, maintaining his shelter, etc.—in other words, living in a simple relationship with Nature. This may be true of some, but for others (the more sublimated, perhaps) it’s quite the opposite: they find happiness precisely in minimizing the daily maintenance functions in favor of more interesting activities such as reflecting, abstract problem-solving, creating art, playing sports, pulling off business deals—you name it. For them, to be bogged down exclusively in highly repetitive survival tasks would constitute a form of slavery.
*Utopia—the utopia K espouses—small communal groups, close to the land, with low technology—has already been tried; it’s called the Dark Ages. In such conditions the small group and the individual tend to be victimized not only by natural calamities (sweet Mother Nature!) as drought and disease, but also by human marauders—the most successful of which, ironically, usually employ the best technology (iron vs. brass knives and spears and shields, composite bow or longbow vs. standard shortbow, guns vs. bows-and-arrows, etc.). Historically, to defend themselves such small groups have tended to seek the protection of more powerful groups—which of course leads to precisely the kind of disempowerment bemoaned by Ted K.
*Revolution—like many would-be and real revolutionaries, Ted K. makes it clear that to save mankind he’s willing to sacrifice much of mankind (he admits that the transition from a complex, technology-based society to a simple one will be extremely traumatic)—the typical ends-justify-means thinking of the fanatic, amply and sickeningly demonstrated in the twentieth century by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao. In Ted K’s post-revolution “utopia” one can well imagine humorless Inquisitors ferreting out and happily roasting closet technologists.
*No Reform?—true, there’s no guarantee that the system will reform itself in time to save mankind from itself—but there’s also no guarantee that it won’t. And realistically, of course, it’s the only hope we have—it’s difficult to imagine any circumstance (short of thermonuclear war or biological holocaust, which are not impossible) that would cause mankind to abandon science and technology and retreat to the Dark Ages. Typically, crises spawn more rather than less technology as mankind applies brainpower and resources to problem-solving.
Don’t Ted K’s bombs-through-the-mail prove that he’s mad? Not necessarily. He considers himself a revolutionary who’s out to save mankind from itself. And he states that he mailed the bombs not so much to kill off evil technologists as to call attention to his all-important manifesto. Revolutionaries must be alerted and rallied so that when the crisis comes they will be ready to pounce. Without some dramatic action, says Ted K, the manifesto would never have come before the public—would have been lost in the daily media glut of “information.” So he self-advertised by bombing a few “bad” guys. And it worked, didn’t it? How else would he have induced The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish his tract? How else would he have induced me to write this review or you to read it?
I found The Unabomber Manifesto more interesting than I expected. It represents a sort of extremist, militant version of the voluntary simplicity movement, and also probably articulates the kind of thinking typical of some of the country’s militia groups. Interesting read..
Ted K’s argument goes something like this:
*Man is dehumanized and disempowered by the complexity of civilization Though originally evolved to satisfy man’s needs, as it becomes larger and more complex “the system” subordinates man, makes him dependent, and effectively reduces him to a slave (he may be better off materially, but to gain these benefits he must serve the system, the artificial demands of which make him unhappy)
*Runaway technology drives the system—the system will not (and indeed, without a radical transformation cannot) stop it. While ostensibly satisfying human needs, technology actually ratchets up man’s dependence on an increasingly dehumanizing system
*Technology-corrupted to the core, the system cannot be reformed
*The only chance for real change is revolution—a complete overthrow of the system
*Revolution will be possible only when the system becomes vulnerable by collapsing into crisis
*When the system collapses into crisis (as it inevitably will), revolutionaries must be prepared to make their move—to do whatever it takes to create a back-to-Nature society of small, anti-technology communities in which man can re-empower himself through honest labor and simple, survival-oriented problem-solving.
This whole argument is based on a few simple psychological premises: that man can be truly happy only when he is empowered (i.e., dependent on his own labor and problem-solving ability rather than on the overlarge and depersonalizing “system”), and that this empowerment can take place only when life is lived on a small scale (small communities) and when every man, dancing with Nature, faces the challenges of daily life through his own down-to-earth labor and ingenuity. The material advantages currently spawned by the technology-driven system primarily feed not real needs or pleasures but rather artificial needs and pseudo-pleasures, shamelessly hawked by advertisers—false needs and spurious pleasures that become insatiable monsters serving not man but a system which to survive must at all costs keep expanding (“Keep the gullible consumers consuming—whether or not they need the goods and services.”).
Ted K’s arguments obviously owe a lot to the voluntary simplicity movement and its notions of “small is beautiful” and “limits-to-growth” and “save Mother Gaia.” These ideas have some merit. The observation about artificially-created “needs” and “pleasures” (that do not really satisfy—think of the Xmas feeding frenzy of middle-class kids) also has merit, as does the notion that too often man serves the system more than the system serves man (consider two-income families struggling to balance child-rearing, home maintenance, exercise, rest and recreation with the demands of high-stress, overtime-imposing professional or entrepreneurial jobs that are driven by the “system’s” needs to increase productivity and maximize short-term profits).
For the most part, Ted K’s assertions are well-reasoned, poorly substantiated (for which he apologises—there wasn’t much reference material near his cabin in the boondocks), and based on questionable assumptions. Why questionable?
*Happiness—K assumes that man can be truly happy only when directly satisfying his daily needs—hunting and fishing for food, defending himself, maintaining his shelter, etc.—in other words, living in a simple relationship with Nature. This may be true of some, but for others (the more sublimated, perhaps) it’s quite the opposite: they find happiness precisely in minimizing the daily maintenance functions in favor of more interesting activities such as reflecting, abstract problem-solving, creating art, playing sports, pulling off business deals—you name it. For them, to be bogged down exclusively in highly repetitive survival tasks would constitute a form of slavery.
*Utopia—the utopia K espouses—small communal groups, close to the land, with low technology—has already been tried; it’s called the Dark Ages. In such conditions the small group and the individual tend to be victimized not only by natural calamities (sweet Mother Nature!) as drought and disease, but also by human marauders—the most successful of which, ironically, usually employ the best technology (iron vs. brass knives and spears and shields, composite bow or longbow vs. standard shortbow, guns vs. bows-and-arrows, etc.). Historically, to defend themselves such small groups have tended to seek the protection of more powerful groups—which of course leads to precisely the kind of disempowerment bemoaned by Ted K.
*Revolution—like many would-be and real revolutionaries, Ted K. makes it clear that to save mankind he’s willing to sacrifice much of mankind (he admits that the transition from a complex, technology-based society to a simple one will be extremely traumatic)—the typical ends-justify-means thinking of the fanatic, amply and sickeningly demonstrated in the twentieth century by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao. In Ted K’s post-revolution “utopia” one can well imagine humorless Inquisitors ferreting out and happily roasting closet technologists.
*No Reform?—true, there’s no guarantee that the system will reform itself in time to save mankind from itself—but there’s also no guarantee that it won’t. And realistically, of course, it’s the only hope we have—it’s difficult to imagine any circumstance (short of thermonuclear war or biological holocaust, which are not impossible) that would cause mankind to abandon science and technology and retreat to the Dark Ages. Typically, crises spawn more rather than less technology as mankind applies brainpower and resources to problem-solving.
Don’t Ted K’s bombs-through-the-mail prove that he’s mad? Not necessarily. He considers himself a revolutionary who’s out to save mankind from itself. And he states that he mailed the bombs not so much to kill off evil technologists as to call attention to his all-important manifesto. Revolutionaries must be alerted and rallied so that when the crisis comes they will be ready to pounce. Without some dramatic action, says Ted K, the manifesto would never have come before the public—would have been lost in the daily media glut of “information.” So he self-advertised by bombing a few “bad” guys. And it worked, didn’t it? How else would he have induced The New York Times and The Washington Post to publish his tract? How else would he have induced me to write this review or you to read it?
I found The Unabomber Manifesto more interesting than I expected. It represents a sort of extremist, militant version of the voluntary simplicity movement, and also probably articulates the kind of thinking typical of some of the country’s militia groups. Interesting read..
May 17, 2013
This book speaks the truth, unfortunately. Unfortunately it takes a maniac to explain the truth.
September 5, 2017
The right wing still spouts most of the anti-left rhetoric within this manifesto. I'd say half of the manifesto is an anti-leftist screed and the other is a call for a back-to-nature screed advocating the elimination of technology and the industrial age so we can retain our freedom for the sake of freedom itself.
The dribble against 'collectivist' anti-freedom loving leftist who are mostly feminist, 'gayist' (he seemed to not like gay rights), and political correctist was no deeper than what one could read on any of the alt-right blogs today. The leftist won't stop at just putting labels on cigarettes or eliminating spanking they want to take away all of our freedoms he will claim. (I really despised when a teacher would hit me when I was growing up. I, for one, am glad society no longer approves of hitting fellow human beings and by calling it spanking you don't lessen the fact that someone is being hit. Conservatives today long for the good old days when teachers and parents hit people, after all it "builds character" and it didn't do them any harm, and it made them the person they are today).
I hate what conservatives believe. The author's thought on one half of the manifesto meshed into modern conservative thought and had no more depth than what Donald Trump is capable of believing. The manifesto states colleges are a hot bed of collectivist politically correct thought and freedom is squashed by the leftist (he uses that word, or socialist, but not democrat or liberal). It's the typical kind of crap I read in the editorial section of the WSJ on a daily basis.
The other half of the manifesto is a screed against technology and a cry for freedom. Freedom is an ultimate good for him and technology stands in its way. He seemed to me to have a whole lot of over lap with the post "Being and Time" Heidegger on the evils of technology. The author really wants to have created a world like in the TV show I used to watch called "Revolution" where nanobots have destroyed all vestiges of modernity and he wants to do anything that is possible to put us back to his Rousseauian paradise.
One can tell from this document itself that the author is alienated. Also, I'm a mathematician, and it was obvious to me that the author of the manifesto would have been a mathematician (it's easy to say that in hindsight and I already knew that he was a mathematician), the way he described things and how he would include mathematics in his analysis was an obvious red flag.
I didn't actually read this document. I listened to it by putting it in to natural read app on my Iphone. I have no idea how any one but an anti-equality, anti-modernity, or a modern day conservative could get anything of value from this Brietbart news like screed against leftist and not even they could get past the complete destruction of technology and modernity for the hypothetical return of the ideal state envisioned by the author.
The dribble against 'collectivist' anti-freedom loving leftist who are mostly feminist, 'gayist' (he seemed to not like gay rights), and political correctist was no deeper than what one could read on any of the alt-right blogs today. The leftist won't stop at just putting labels on cigarettes or eliminating spanking they want to take away all of our freedoms he will claim. (I really despised when a teacher would hit me when I was growing up. I, for one, am glad society no longer approves of hitting fellow human beings and by calling it spanking you don't lessen the fact that someone is being hit. Conservatives today long for the good old days when teachers and parents hit people, after all it "builds character" and it didn't do them any harm, and it made them the person they are today).
I hate what conservatives believe. The author's thought on one half of the manifesto meshed into modern conservative thought and had no more depth than what Donald Trump is capable of believing. The manifesto states colleges are a hot bed of collectivist politically correct thought and freedom is squashed by the leftist (he uses that word, or socialist, but not democrat or liberal). It's the typical kind of crap I read in the editorial section of the WSJ on a daily basis.
The other half of the manifesto is a screed against technology and a cry for freedom. Freedom is an ultimate good for him and technology stands in its way. He seemed to me to have a whole lot of over lap with the post "Being and Time" Heidegger on the evils of technology. The author really wants to have created a world like in the TV show I used to watch called "Revolution" where nanobots have destroyed all vestiges of modernity and he wants to do anything that is possible to put us back to his Rousseauian paradise.
One can tell from this document itself that the author is alienated. Also, I'm a mathematician, and it was obvious to me that the author of the manifesto would have been a mathematician (it's easy to say that in hindsight and I already knew that he was a mathematician), the way he described things and how he would include mathematics in his analysis was an obvious red flag.
I didn't actually read this document. I listened to it by putting it in to natural read app on my Iphone. I have no idea how any one but an anti-equality, anti-modernity, or a modern day conservative could get anything of value from this Brietbart news like screed against leftist and not even they could get past the complete destruction of technology and modernity for the hypothetical return of the ideal state envisioned by the author.
November 25, 2019
Another gift someone got me, mostly to be funny, but I have this compulsive need to read any book I have so I just wanted to get it over with so I just did today. It wasn't bad per se and I was certainly amused reading it the whole time. The computer nerd comments were pretty hilarious not going to lie and his obsession with people being allowed to spank their kids was pretty strange. I don't think some of the problems he tried to identify were necessarily wrong but then he just took jumps into saying we needed to destroy technology because that was the root of the problem and it felt like he didn't justify it completely. It just felt like he ignored everyone else who ever wrote about the trade offs between society and the individual and also he just kind of pretended that Industrialization was just about technology and not also about capitalism but a lot of his critiques seemed similar to Marxist ones? But then he also ranted about leftists but it sounded like someone a leftist would actually identify as a liberal. Like maybe my own conception of political ideology isn't that great but I know plenty of leftist are more class oriented in their analysis than anything else and it seemed bizarre that he was concentrating on things like feminism and LGBTQ rights as leftist priorities. Not to say those things havent become integrated into leftist movements as far as I can tell but I do think class still plays a huge role and he never mentions class really. Anyway mostly just amused by reading it, it echos a lot of complaints about modernity that others have brought up but some how he thinks the solution is destruction of technology by any means necessary above anything else.
Want to read
September 3, 2008This will probably put me on an FBI watchlist.
August 22, 2013
Many reviews have already summarized Ted's main points so I won't repeat them here. Rather I would like to clarify assumptions made by both the author and the reviewers.
A large discrepancy comes from an apparent misunderstanding of what Ted considers "ideal living." Many assume he's suggesting reverting to a lifestyle similar to the Middle Ages. As reiterated in his 2010 novel Technological Slavery, this is not the case. The Middle Ages involved serfs laboring vigorously in agriculture to not only provide for themselves but for their lords. His "utopia" involves hunter-gathering; a general absence of agriculture altogether and certainly not feudalism. Hunter-gatherers dominated for most of human history and were slowly weeded out beginning several thousand years ago with organized society. Industrial Society and Its Future emphasizes how the industrial revolution rapidly accelerated this and the restrictions on everyday lives, which I cannot disagree with.
But Ted's greatest potential weakness lies in his assumptions. His belief in the power process where only tasks that involve autonomy in our own survival provide true fulfillment is the pillar for his whole argument. If it isn't universally (or nearly) true, then everything that follows is irrelevant. It certainly applied to him, but even his anthropological studies cannot confirm it applies to everyone. Personally I cannot deny that there is something wrong with the scenario of children sitting all day in a classroom for example.
The "Unabomber Manifesto" is very well-written. It's organized, not a narcissistic rant, and occasionally portrays an awareness of the author's own limitations of knowledge. And yet, Ted was certain enough about his beliefs to mail people bombs... Putting the author's history aside, it's a great philosophical piece.
A large discrepancy comes from an apparent misunderstanding of what Ted considers "ideal living." Many assume he's suggesting reverting to a lifestyle similar to the Middle Ages. As reiterated in his 2010 novel Technological Slavery, this is not the case. The Middle Ages involved serfs laboring vigorously in agriculture to not only provide for themselves but for their lords. His "utopia" involves hunter-gathering; a general absence of agriculture altogether and certainly not feudalism. Hunter-gatherers dominated for most of human history and were slowly weeded out beginning several thousand years ago with organized society. Industrial Society and Its Future emphasizes how the industrial revolution rapidly accelerated this and the restrictions on everyday lives, which I cannot disagree with.
But Ted's greatest potential weakness lies in his assumptions. His belief in the power process where only tasks that involve autonomy in our own survival provide true fulfillment is the pillar for his whole argument. If it isn't universally (or nearly) true, then everything that follows is irrelevant. It certainly applied to him, but even his anthropological studies cannot confirm it applies to everyone. Personally I cannot deny that there is something wrong with the scenario of children sitting all day in a classroom for example.
The "Unabomber Manifesto" is very well-written. It's organized, not a narcissistic rant, and occasionally portrays an awareness of the author's own limitations of knowledge. And yet, Ted was certain enough about his beliefs to mail people bombs... Putting the author's history aside, it's a great philosophical piece.
May 3, 2021
A profoundly disappointing read. I was expecting something incredibly thoughtful and intelligent about how environmental degradation is destroying the planet and the survival of the human species (something more and more relevant in the modern day of climate chaos), but instead got the idealistic thoughts of someone who has very clearly not thought through many of their ideas.
Kaczynski's argument hinges on the idea that industrialization has interrupted the "power process" by which individuals attain freedom and psychological wholeness. Rather than emphasizing how industry (and capitalism, which he rejects as a key component of industrialization) has completely ruined the planet, he emphasizes this psychological determinism that he later undermines by saying that even if industrialization didn't undermine the power process, he would still oppose it.
He goes on completely unrelated rants against leftists, sitting on his tree trunk arm chair and diagnosing them all with inferiority complexes (thank you for your profound insight, Unabomber man). He found this idea so compelling he started AND ended his manifesto with these rants against leftists that have proven to be nothing more than basic-ass conservative propaganda. The amount of times he scaremongers about completely unrelated nonsense like "leftists will BAN spanking your kids" or "political correctness" made me roll my fucking eyes. Plus he goes on to support eugenics, other fascist nonsense, and is incredibly dismissive of the fight against racism, homophobia, etc.
There are a few good insights made by Ted about modern industrial society, but it is marred by his completely incoherent analysis (i.e. he will say that the entire industrial system is interconnected, but then REFUSE to acknowledge that capitalism is therefore inherently tied to technology and that the revolution will be "apolitical") and completely irrelevant rants and ideas about other topics.
Kaczynski's argument hinges on the idea that industrialization has interrupted the "power process" by which individuals attain freedom and psychological wholeness. Rather than emphasizing how industry (and capitalism, which he rejects as a key component of industrialization) has completely ruined the planet, he emphasizes this psychological determinism that he later undermines by saying that even if industrialization didn't undermine the power process, he would still oppose it.
He goes on completely unrelated rants against leftists, sitting on his tree trunk arm chair and diagnosing them all with inferiority complexes (thank you for your profound insight, Unabomber man). He found this idea so compelling he started AND ended his manifesto with these rants against leftists that have proven to be nothing more than basic-ass conservative propaganda. The amount of times he scaremongers about completely unrelated nonsense like "leftists will BAN spanking your kids" or "political correctness" made me roll my fucking eyes. Plus he goes on to support eugenics, other fascist nonsense, and is incredibly dismissive of the fight against racism, homophobia, etc.
There are a few good insights made by Ted about modern industrial society, but it is marred by his completely incoherent analysis (i.e. he will say that the entire industrial system is interconnected, but then REFUSE to acknowledge that capitalism is therefore inherently tied to technology and that the revolution will be "apolitical") and completely irrelevant rants and ideas about other topics.
December 10, 2024
“‘Violence never solved anything’ is a statement uttered by cowards and predators”
— Luigi Mangione
— Luigi Mangione
April 17, 2025
Red Scare + STEM = Destructive, Individualistic Cynicism…
Preamble:
--I reluctantly read this given the renewed interest from the Luigi Mangione case…
--Ted Kaczynski (the “Unibomber”) is a logical product of “the system” which he derides:
i) Voices social concerns (social dislocation, alienation, environmental); readers are lured in, like Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos mentioning “chaos” 138 times and “suffer”/“suffering” 139 times…
ii) However, “the system” distracts Kaczynski from critical tools (which he simply dismisses as “leftism” and confuses with “liberal”; convenient move, shared by Peterson)…
iii) So, Kaczynski is left with tools of “the system”: violence, individualism, cynicism, playing out a stereotypical Hollywood action hero/anti-hero fantasy.
…His destructive actions were a gift for “the system”, granting it further social legitimacy and another distraction from censored alternatives. This symbiosis leaves him on the level of an agent provocateur, smearing direct action as terrorism to the delight of status quo “progress” cheerleaders like Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined). Kaczynski/Pinker, what a bipolar nightmare…
Lowlights:
1) “Power Process”:
--Kaczynski proposes a foundational human need (“power process”) featuring 4 elements:
i) Goal:
a) “real goals”: Kaczynski assumes “human nature” has evolved to find these fulfilling:
…Now, anyone can just make up thought-experiments, oblivious to their own biases (which, ironically, tend to be inherited from the status quo). This is why we have critical research methodologies, to challenge our biases, Nullius in verba (“on the word of no one”): I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That.
…Kaczynski’s solution (see later) is reviving the “local autonomy” and closeness with “Nature” of “primitive man”, yet he seems to skip over actual research on the topic (even dismissing the “political correctness” “hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists”). Cold War’s Red Scare broke many brains, like today’s COVID-19 social media. He seems to have missed the anthropological research since the 1960s on the leisure in “primitive society”: Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen. (Update: Kaczynski later responded to this research in prison: “The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism”, 2008)
…So, if “primitive man” actually had plenty of leisure time, how did they fill it with fulfilling “sex, love, status, revenge, etc.” while we become increasingly distracted? Once again, critical anthropology has fascinating analysis (the necessity of play, human economies, etc.):
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
-Debt: The First 5,000 Years
-The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
ii) Effort:
--Kaczynski claims that leftists try to guarantee social needs, leading to purposelessness/dependency. Once again, key dimensions are missing. “Primitive man” were not just endlessly toiling in “real goals”.
iii) Attainment of Goal:
--Kaczynski stresses the self-reliance of “primitive man” in accomplishing “real goals”, thus experiencing life in stages as goals get fulfilled.
iv) Autonomy:
--Now, Kaczynski does distinguish between 2 forms of technology:
a) small-scale: this is apparently fine as it’s compatible with local autonomy; examples include local craftsmen building a waterwheel/smith making steel via Roman metallurgy.
b) organizational-dependent: this is dependency on “the system”; we need to get rid of this with the collapse of industrial society. Kaczynski uses the example of Rome’s collapse ending their aqueducts/roads/urban sanitation, although his primary focus is on the Industrial Revolution. Modern examples include public utilities/computer networks/highways/mass communication media/healthcare system.
…Kaczynski mentions that modern freedoms perpetuate “the system” (ex. economic freedom perpetuates economic growth). I assume he dismisses the “positive freedoms” (freedom to) argument of leftist goals by claiming dependency on technology.
2) “Leftism”:
--In typical brain-broken, US Red Scare manner, the answers to Kaczynski’s social concerns are right in his face, he often starts to repeat leftist critiques, only to conclude with Red Scare status quo assumptions.
--Despite only mentioning “capitalism” once (to dismiss “catch-phrases of the left”!), Kaczynski also writes:
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
-The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement
-Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism
--Kaczynski frames (i) the “power process” (goal/effort/attainment/autonomy) going awry due to technology leading to (ii) the pathology of “leftism”:
i) “Feelings of inferiority”:
--Blames activists for manufacturing negative connotations (“political correctness” “hypersensitivity”). Apparently, activists are mostly privileged university professors/students. It’s always convenient to censor unwelcomed challenges by simply not looking. Kaczynski can dismiss anthropologists in academia while not even mentioning indigenous movements.
--As a mathematics professor (STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; note: I'm not being anti-science here, see comment #18 below), Kaczynski targets “leftism” in universities:
ii) “Oversocialization”:
--Excessively burdened by socialization’s contradictions, once again focusing on university intellectuals.
--Returning to anthropology, humans are humans. We have always struggled with individual liberties/autonomy, domination, etc. Indeed, egalitarianism (social equality) has been a social mechanism to protect individual liberties from despotic rule:
-Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior
-Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
…Thus, “leftism” (with its support for cooperation/egalitarianism: “What is Politics?”), has a long anthropological history, rather than some modern pathology arising from the Industrial Revolution. Of course, all of this is messy, but Kaczynski’s status quo assumptions are a further distraction.
…As for “technology” and the “Industrial Revolution”, Kaczynski’s thought-experiments on “power process” quickly evaporates once applied to real-world history:
…see comments below for rest of the review (3. “Revolution” and “Nature”)…
Preamble:
--I reluctantly read this given the renewed interest from the Luigi Mangione case…
--Ted Kaczynski (the “Unibomber”) is a logical product of “the system” which he derides:
i) Voices social concerns (social dislocation, alienation, environmental); readers are lured in, like Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos mentioning “chaos” 138 times and “suffer”/“suffering” 139 times…
ii) However, “the system” distracts Kaczynski from critical tools (which he simply dismisses as “leftism” and confuses with “liberal”; convenient move, shared by Peterson)…
iii) So, Kaczynski is left with tools of “the system”: violence, individualism, cynicism, playing out a stereotypical Hollywood action hero/anti-hero fantasy.
…His destructive actions were a gift for “the system”, granting it further social legitimacy and another distraction from censored alternatives. This symbiosis leaves him on the level of an agent provocateur, smearing direct action as terrorism to the delight of status quo “progress” cheerleaders like Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined). Kaczynski/Pinker, what a bipolar nightmare…
Lowlights:
1) “Power Process”:
--Kaczynski proposes a foundational human need (“power process”) featuring 4 elements:
i) Goal:
a) “real goals”: Kaczynski assumes “human nature” has evolved to find these fulfilling:
That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.b) “artificial goals”: as “real goals” (esp. physical necessities) become taken care of by technology, we need to increasingly occupy our time with “surrogate activities” which lack the sense of fulfilment.
…Now, anyone can just make up thought-experiments, oblivious to their own biases (which, ironically, tend to be inherited from the status quo). This is why we have critical research methodologies, to challenge our biases, Nullius in verba (“on the word of no one”): I Think You'll Find It's a Bit More Complicated Than That.
…Kaczynski’s solution (see later) is reviving the “local autonomy” and closeness with “Nature” of “primitive man”, yet he seems to skip over actual research on the topic (even dismissing the “political correctness” “hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists”). Cold War’s Red Scare broke many brains, like today’s COVID-19 social media. He seems to have missed the anthropological research since the 1960s on the leisure in “primitive society”: Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen. (Update: Kaczynski later responded to this research in prison: “The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism”, 2008)
…So, if “primitive man” actually had plenty of leisure time, how did they fill it with fulfilling “sex, love, status, revenge, etc.” while we become increasingly distracted? Once again, critical anthropology has fascinating analysis (the necessity of play, human economies, etc.):
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
-Debt: The First 5,000 Years
-The Globalization of Addiction: A Study in Poverty of the Spirit
ii) Effort:
--Kaczynski claims that leftists try to guarantee social needs, leading to purposelessness/dependency. Once again, key dimensions are missing. “Primitive man” were not just endlessly toiling in “real goals”.
iii) Attainment of Goal:
--Kaczynski stresses the self-reliance of “primitive man” in accomplishing “real goals”, thus experiencing life in stages as goals get fulfilled.
iv) Autonomy:
--Now, Kaczynski does distinguish between 2 forms of technology:
a) small-scale: this is apparently fine as it’s compatible with local autonomy; examples include local craftsmen building a waterwheel/smith making steel via Roman metallurgy.
b) organizational-dependent: this is dependency on “the system”; we need to get rid of this with the collapse of industrial society. Kaczynski uses the example of Rome’s collapse ending their aqueducts/roads/urban sanitation, although his primary focus is on the Industrial Revolution. Modern examples include public utilities/computer networks/highways/mass communication media/healthcare system.
…Kaczynski mentions that modern freedoms perpetuate “the system” (ex. economic freedom perpetuates economic growth). I assume he dismisses the “positive freedoms” (freedom to) argument of leftist goals by claiming dependency on technology.
2) “Leftism”:
--In typical brain-broken, US Red Scare manner, the answers to Kaczynski’s social concerns are right in his face, he often starts to repeat leftist critiques, only to conclude with Red Scare status quo assumptions.
--Despite only mentioning “capitalism” once (to dismiss “catch-phrases of the left”!), Kaczynski also writes:
Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.…What Kaczynski actually means by “leftism” seems to be (pro-capitalist) liberals (who are the ones actually in power, where the US government serves capitalism by protecting capitalist property rights/markets) rather than anti-capitalist leftists. Thus, he omits goals within leftism of local autonomy via economic democracy/workers’ self-directed enterprises/local public assemblies, etc.; perhaps this is just the “nonviolent anarchist movement” which is conveniently dismissed in a footnote.
-Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
-The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement
-Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism
--Kaczynski frames (i) the “power process” (goal/effort/attainment/autonomy) going awry due to technology leading to (ii) the pathology of “leftism”:
i) “Feelings of inferiority”:
--Blames activists for manufacturing negative connotations (“political correctness” “hypersensitivity”). Apparently, activists are mostly privileged university professors/students. It’s always convenient to censor unwelcomed challenges by simply not looking. Kaczynski can dismiss anthropologists in academia while not even mentioning indigenous movements.
--As a mathematics professor (STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; note: I'm not being anti-science here, see comment #18 below), Kaczynski targets “leftism” in universities:
Notice that university intellectuals [Note: “Not necessarily including specialists in engineering "hard" sciences”] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.--The main threat of leftism is collectivist power (endless, totalitarian drive of surrogate activities), which is supposedly incompatible with individualism/local autonomy (Kaczynski also rejects “nonviolent anarchist movement”, I assume because they are ineffective).
The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. […]…Oh no, the warning on the cigarettes packaging is so triggering. But under Kaczynski’s non-arrogant, non-dogmatic world, cigarette mass manufacturing would be impossible, so I guess that’s a win for freedom?
It's not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol then junk food, etc.
ii) “Oversocialization”:
--Excessively burdened by socialization’s contradictions, once again focusing on university intellectuals.
--Returning to anthropology, humans are humans. We have always struggled with individual liberties/autonomy, domination, etc. Indeed, egalitarianism (social equality) has been a social mechanism to protect individual liberties from despotic rule:
-Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior
-Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
…Thus, “leftism” (with its support for cooperation/egalitarianism: “What is Politics?”), has a long anthropological history, rather than some modern pathology arising from the Industrial Revolution. Of course, all of this is messy, but Kaczynski’s status quo assumptions are a further distraction.
…As for “technology” and the “Industrial Revolution”, Kaczynski’s thought-experiments on “power process” quickly evaporates once applied to real-world history:
In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.…It turns out leftist historical materialism provides a wealth of analysis on the actual drivers:
James Watt’s steam engine and the many other inventions that have followed became integral to market societies [in particular, capitalism’s peculiar markets of land/labour/money, with their “fictitious commodities” of nature/humans/purchasing power] only because of the profit motive and the competition between profit-seeking entrepreneurs that market societies beget. Suppose for a moment that Watt had lived in ancient Egypt under the pharaohs and had invented his steam engine then. What would have become of it? Imagine that Watt secured an audience with the pharaoh to demonstrate his invention. The most he could have expected was that the ruler of Egypt would have been impressed and placed one or more of his engines in his palace, demonstrating to visitors and underlings how ingenious his empire was. In the absence of entrepreneurs competing for profits, and given the hundreds of thousands of slaves the pharaoh had at his beck and call, Watt’s engine would never have been used to power farms or workshops, let alone factories. [Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails]
…see comments below for rest of the review (3. “Revolution” and “Nature”)…
January 3, 2014
The "Final Note" on paragraph 231 is very important for this reading, and I suggest that it be the prologue, not epilogue. Readers should start there, then goto paragraph one if they feel it is worth their time. Here's a quote that summarizes that paragraph well:
It's refreshing to hear an author point out the flaws in their argument; still this excuse just addresses these flaws, it does not reconcile them. Throughout the reading Kaczynski would make some very astute observations and point out problems with our current system, then follow up with a conclusion that seems to come from no where, or a solution that is easily countered with critical thinking.
My rating of this prose is not based off whether I agree with Kaczynki's ideology or not, it's based off his argument. He makes a weak argument in this essay and completely takes all credibility away from it in his last paragraph. That said, he makes some great observations and his model for man's "power" is very interesting. Still, this essay isn't worth killing anybody over.
"Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false".
It's refreshing to hear an author point out the flaws in their argument; still this excuse just addresses these flaws, it does not reconcile them. Throughout the reading Kaczynski would make some very astute observations and point out problems with our current system, then follow up with a conclusion that seems to come from no where, or a solution that is easily countered with critical thinking.
My rating of this prose is not based off whether I agree with Kaczynki's ideology or not, it's based off his argument. He makes a weak argument in this essay and completely takes all credibility away from it in his last paragraph. That said, he makes some great observations and his model for man's "power" is very interesting. Still, this essay isn't worth killing anybody over.
May 4, 2020
I have officially been Tedpilled! It’s a Damn pity Ted didn’t put his brain to better use and get his info out there in a more productive manner. He has a lot to say about the left and technology that rings true, very true.
October 11, 2019
The single greatest self help book i’ve ever read
October 7, 2021
Dangerously based
January 27, 2022
Although Ted did not have access to the most extensive academic resources, one can substantiate his ~150 page logical proof with much evidence. Take “the power process”, the lack of which leads our society into more and more woe, which is then not manifested due to drugs (“mental health”), genetic modifications, etc. The “power process” is the exact same phenomenon that positive psychologists have been pointing to for decades as the key to psychological stability and health: one must have a feeling of control over one’s environment. See Martin Seligman’s books or any other positive psych survey. Great book; do not judge the book by the person: a mistake many leftists make when looking back into history. Take a Platonic view of the Ideas of Mr. Unabomber and contemplate their truth; do not repeat his actions and get a lack of resources (in jail) which then squash your intellectual endeavors (like Mr. Unabomber).
February 12, 2008
Quite possibly the best piece of literature ever written. By my boyfriend. Teddy. Contains a chapter titled: Why Revolution is Easier Than Reform. Indeed.
March 3, 2012
I was assigned a case study on Ted Kaczynski for my final paper in my abnormal psych class so I figured his manifesto would be a pretty good place to start. The entire time I was reading it I kept waiting for the sh*t to hit the fan and get totally crazy, but it never did. For the most part I was really in to this and found myself genuinely interested in a number of the ideas that he brought about. The bits on then power process/surrogate goals and activities were pretty interesting, as were the parts about putting an emphasis on the system, instead of individuals, and the various issues that arise/how they're dealt with.
Overall, this was a really worthwhile read. It's super short and it gives a more comprehensive understanding about where the guy was coming from.
Overall, this was a really worthwhile read. It's super short and it gives a more comprehensive understanding about where the guy was coming from.
May 12, 2020
هذا بيان ضدّ المجتمع الصناعي والتكنولوجي. كتبه كازينسكي بروفيسور الرياضيات الأصغر سنًا في الجامعة، خرّيج جامعتي هارفارد وميتشغان .
لم يكتب كازينسكي بيانه بحكم مكانته الأكاديمية، ولم يوقعه باسمه المعروف.
فقد ترك الجامعة والتدريس، بل وترك العيش في المدينة ومخالطة الناس، وانعزل في غابة وحيدًا لمدة تقارب العشرين عامًا. وحيدًا بلا رفيق ولا عائلة، بلا كهرباء ولا ماء. اختار تلك العزلة ليكون أقرب للحياة الطبيعية البدائية، بعيدًا عن سلطة التكنولوجيا، تطبيقًا لأفكاره عن خطورة التكنولوجيا على إرادة الإنسان وحريته. لكنه مضى في سبيل أفكاره إلى الدعوة إليها، فاختار أن يرسل قنابل يصنعها بنفسه إلى مؤسسات وجامعات ومطارات أميركية! وقتل بتلك القنابل عددًا وجرح آخرين. حدث ذلك على مدار 20 عامًا دون أن يستطيعوا الوصول إليه، أو تكهّن شخصيته.
انتهت القصة في1996 بعرضه نشر هذا البيان في الصحافة الأميركية في مقابل وقف الهجمات. ومن خلال دراسة خطابه استطاعوا الوصول إليه بطرقٍ غير مباشرة. وهو ما يزال في السجن إلى يومنا هذا.
لا يمكنني أبدًا الاقتناع بسلامة كازينسكي النفسية، وإن كان بيانه ينمّ عن عقلٍ ناقد وبصير. غير أنّه ليس مجنونًا كما أرادوا الادعاء بذلك. أدرك بعقلٍ ناقدٍ بصير ما تحمله التكنولوجيا من مخاطر تقود الأنظمة وتهدّد حرية البشر، وتقتحم حياتهم، وترهق أنفسهم.
أدرك كازينسكي الانترنت، لكنه لم يدرك ثورة المعلومات وتغول العولمة. ولو أدركهما لتعززت نظرته، وزادت ريبته ونقمته.
بيانه هذا طويل، كتبه على شكل نقاط. عرض فيه للمشكلة ومظاهرها، ومخاطرها المستقبلية، وعبّر عن يأسه وسخريته من أي عملية إصلاح. وأكد أن الثورة بمفهومها الشامل هي الحلّ، مما انزلق به إلى العنف بسهولة.
أرى في كازينسكي شخصًا شديد الحساسية اتجاه الحرية بمفهومها المطلق. وأرى أن انتباهه وإدراكه لخطورة التكنولوجيا المنظمة (أي التي ترعاها مؤسسات)، وتهديدها لحرية الإنسان تحذيرًا في محلّه، ولم يكن وحده صاحب هذا الرأي والتخوّف.
لكنّ مشكلة "كازينسكي" والتي يكشف عنها الكتاب(البيان) تكمن في ثلاث نقاط:
-تطرّفه في حساسيته ومعاداته.
-إهماله للشقّ الإنساني الذي لا يتوافق مع الصورة الفاضلة التي أراد التسويق لها.
-إهماله لحركة التاريخ الطبيعية، والتي تسير باتجاه لا ترجع عنه. وإن حاول الالتفاف على هذه النقطة.
ولو قدّر للإنسان أن يبدأ من جديد لعاد لما تركه. تلك فطرته وطبيعته. وتلك طبيعة الأشياء (التكنولوجيا وغيرها).
كما أنّ البيان كان يحمل أفكاراً لا يمكن وصفها إلا بالتناقض إذا ما أردتَ توسيع دائرتها أوفكّرت في شكل تطبيقها.
إنه بيانُ "مضطرب"-على الرغم من تسلسل أفكاره وهيكلية طرحه-قادته فكرته البسيطة الواضحة إلى تنظير طويل في بيان مطوّل. و قادته رغبته في الحرية إلى اختيار العزلة المطلقة ثمّ سلب حياة أناس وأمنهم! (وقد يكون رأيي هذا هو أحد أشكال سيطرة المجتمع الصناعي التكنولوجي عليّ شخصيًا )
ملاحظة: هناك مسلسل من 4 حلقات يروي قصته. شاهدته قبل قراءة الكتاب. وقد عرفت عنهما معًا من إحدى حلقات برنامج (ظل كتاب) على اليوتيوب.
لم يكتب كازينسكي بيانه بحكم مكانته الأكاديمية، ولم يوقعه باسمه المعروف.
فقد ترك الجامعة والتدريس، بل وترك العيش في المدينة ومخالطة الناس، وانعزل في غابة وحيدًا لمدة تقارب العشرين عامًا. وحيدًا بلا رفيق ولا عائلة، بلا كهرباء ولا ماء. اختار تلك العزلة ليكون أقرب للحياة الطبيعية البدائية، بعيدًا عن سلطة التكنولوجيا، تطبيقًا لأفكاره عن خطورة التكنولوجيا على إرادة الإنسان وحريته. لكنه مضى في سبيل أفكاره إلى الدعوة إليها، فاختار أن يرسل قنابل يصنعها بنفسه إلى مؤسسات وجامعات ومطارات أميركية! وقتل بتلك القنابل عددًا وجرح آخرين. حدث ذلك على مدار 20 عامًا دون أن يستطيعوا الوصول إليه، أو تكهّن شخصيته.
انتهت القصة في1996 بعرضه نشر هذا البيان في الصحافة الأميركية في مقابل وقف الهجمات. ومن خلال دراسة خطابه استطاعوا الوصول إليه بطرقٍ غير مباشرة. وهو ما يزال في السجن إلى يومنا هذا.
لا يمكنني أبدًا الاقتناع بسلامة كازينسكي النفسية، وإن كان بيانه ينمّ عن عقلٍ ناقد وبصير. غير أنّه ليس مجنونًا كما أرادوا الادعاء بذلك. أدرك بعقلٍ ناقدٍ بصير ما تحمله التكنولوجيا من مخاطر تقود الأنظمة وتهدّد حرية البشر، وتقتحم حياتهم، وترهق أنفسهم.
أدرك كازينسكي الانترنت، لكنه لم يدرك ثورة المعلومات وتغول العولمة. ولو أدركهما لتعززت نظرته، وزادت ريبته ونقمته.
بيانه هذا طويل، كتبه على شكل نقاط. عرض فيه للمشكلة ومظاهرها، ومخاطرها المستقبلية، وعبّر عن يأسه وسخريته من أي عملية إصلاح. وأكد أن الثورة بمفهومها الشامل هي الحلّ، مما انزلق به إلى العنف بسهولة.
أرى في كازينسكي شخصًا شديد الحساسية اتجاه الحرية بمفهومها المطلق. وأرى أن انتباهه وإدراكه لخطورة التكنولوجيا المنظمة (أي التي ترعاها مؤسسات)، وتهديدها لحرية الإنسان تحذيرًا في محلّه، ولم يكن وحده صاحب هذا الرأي والتخوّف.
لكنّ مشكلة "كازينسكي" والتي يكشف عنها الكتاب(البيان) تكمن في ثلاث نقاط:
-تطرّفه في حساسيته ومعاداته.
-إهماله للشقّ الإنساني الذي لا يتوافق مع الصورة الفاضلة التي أراد التسويق لها.
-إهماله لحركة التاريخ الطبيعية، والتي تسير باتجاه لا ترجع عنه. وإن حاول الالتفاف على هذه النقطة.
ولو قدّر للإنسان أن يبدأ من جديد لعاد لما تركه. تلك فطرته وطبيعته. وتلك طبيعة الأشياء (التكنولوجيا وغيرها).
كما أنّ البيان كان يحمل أفكاراً لا يمكن وصفها إلا بالتناقض إذا ما أردتَ توسيع دائرتها أوفكّرت في شكل تطبيقها.
إنه بيانُ "مضطرب"-على الرغم من تسلسل أفكاره وهيكلية طرحه-قادته فكرته البسيطة الواضحة إلى تنظير طويل في بيان مطوّل. و قادته رغبته في الحرية إلى اختيار العزلة المطلقة ثمّ سلب حياة أناس وأمنهم! (وقد يكون رأيي هذا هو أحد أشكال سيطرة المجتمع الصناعي التكنولوجي عليّ شخصيًا )
ملاحظة: هناك مسلسل من 4 حلقات يروي قصته. شاهدته قبل قراءة الكتاب. وقد عرفت عنهما معًا من إحدى حلقات برنامج (ظل كتاب) على اليوتيوب.
August 19, 2012
Just skimmed through the Unabomber Manifesto. Rather amusing, actually. Same problem as Rousseau, but rather than attempting to fix society, he opts to burn it all to the ground and go back to Nature.
Not all that dissimilar from the Occupy people, really.
I do have to give him small props for having an argument at all. Society creates people with too much time, which leads to psychological complexes and unhappiness. He (rightly) rejects the social engineer's claim that they can "fix" society. What Kaczynski doesn't seem to get is that a great majority of people enjoy this life; they have every opportunity to return to Nature by moving to some God awful backwater but they choose not to. Kaczynski fears Popper's Open Society.
His analysis of leftist psychology is a textbook example of psychological projection.
Not all that dissimilar from the Occupy people, really.
I do have to give him small props for having an argument at all. Society creates people with too much time, which leads to psychological complexes and unhappiness. He (rightly) rejects the social engineer's claim that they can "fix" society. What Kaczynski doesn't seem to get is that a great majority of people enjoy this life; they have every opportunity to return to Nature by moving to some God awful backwater but they choose not to. Kaczynski fears Popper's Open Society.
His analysis of leftist psychology is a textbook example of psychological projection.
October 29, 2017
It would be unfair and naive to review the Industrial Society and Its Future without also at least mentioning the author.
Ted K. is an American Mathematician, and was while in academia, a genius in his field. However, he became disillusioned with society and instead sought to seek a life living one on one with nature. He lived this way for several years - watching society encroach his small sanctuary. Eventually he realized that his life in the wild was unsustainable - society was expanding too quickly and would destroy it. This is when he began his bombing campaign.
If the story ended here, Ted K would not have been remembered, and would only made the long list of Eco-Terrorists. But it didn't. Ted K wrote his solution for what he saw as the driving factor behind societies constant expansion and destruction. Industrial Society and Its Future.
Ted K killed 3 people and injured dozens other in an (effective) effort to get his manifesto published. This is an important distinction. He didn't kill people and later justify it with manifesto. He wrote a manifesto, and used the publicity of killings to get it published. The killings were secondary to his objectives, and had a better, nonviolent method of mass publication existed at the time, Ted K would have likely opted to use it instead.
Most people label Ted K a crazy killer. I view him a politician. Politicians influence public opinion about public policy. His killings appall me, but are not a valid reason in themselves to ignore his political theories.
Onto the review!
Industrial Society and Its Future is an extremely thought provoking essay. It establishes the following:
-Man's lack of empowerment is a result of society's ease of fulfilling the basics of life and automation overall.
-Without achievable goals that make man feel fulfilled and satisfied (content) with life, Man will seek secondary goals (Social success, extreme wealth, entertainment). These goals do not offer the same level of empowerment for most people and are a weak substitute.
-Man's lack of empowerment is the reason for most of America's (and these days, the entire world's), depression, apathy, and mid-life crisis's.
-Industrial Society and Technology is only making man's lack of empowerment worse, through more and more automation.
-Reforming Society is a fruitless effort, reform can never change the long term course of society and will eventually be forgotten.
-Only Revolutions (Revolution of Ideas, not necessarily violent, but violence is not precluded) is the only true means of altering the course of society.
-Without a revolution that drastically alters our course, society will end up in 1 of 3 possible outcomes:
1.) A massive, heavily populated world where the super-elite control the masses through media and technology and the majority life peaceful, but indolent lives. Most people do not have a job and everything they need is provided from the state. This is his best-case scenario.
2.) A massive, heavily populated world where cybernetic and generic modifications to humans is commonplace, and even necessary to get ahead in the increasing fast-pace society. Eventually, we will alter our generic and physical makeup so much that we are no longer even really human. This is his middle-of-the-road scenario.
3.) A nearly empty or dead world, where the tiny elite (less than 10000) live in luxury, where automated machines manage and make a wealthy lifestyle possible with a tiny laborforce. The majority of the population, being redundant, was exterminated. This is his worst case scenario.
-None of the 3 outcomes are not ideal, even outcome #1 is more a dystopia than a utopia.
-Eventually, the system will grow weak from crisis('s). At such a time, enlightened individuals should use the opportunity to overthrow the system and replace it one where man lives in small communities, much like the early middle ages.
Whew! That was a lot. But it's important to understand his core arguments.
The key point I disagree with is Ted K's conclusion. Life with small communities in nature is not the solution. Such a society would eventually relearn technology and eventually become a modern society all over again, repeating the very crimes Ted K perports to stop from happening. In fact, Ted K's solution isn't a solution at all - it's a reform. A reform that will ultimately fail, as all artificial man made barriers do.
Ted K. is an American Mathematician, and was while in academia, a genius in his field. However, he became disillusioned with society and instead sought to seek a life living one on one with nature. He lived this way for several years - watching society encroach his small sanctuary. Eventually he realized that his life in the wild was unsustainable - society was expanding too quickly and would destroy it. This is when he began his bombing campaign.
If the story ended here, Ted K would not have been remembered, and would only made the long list of Eco-Terrorists. But it didn't. Ted K wrote his solution for what he saw as the driving factor behind societies constant expansion and destruction. Industrial Society and Its Future.
Ted K killed 3 people and injured dozens other in an (effective) effort to get his manifesto published. This is an important distinction. He didn't kill people and later justify it with manifesto. He wrote a manifesto, and used the publicity of killings to get it published. The killings were secondary to his objectives, and had a better, nonviolent method of mass publication existed at the time, Ted K would have likely opted to use it instead.
Most people label Ted K a crazy killer. I view him a politician. Politicians influence public opinion about public policy. His killings appall me, but are not a valid reason in themselves to ignore his political theories.
Onto the review!
Industrial Society and Its Future is an extremely thought provoking essay. It establishes the following:
-Man's lack of empowerment is a result of society's ease of fulfilling the basics of life and automation overall.
-Without achievable goals that make man feel fulfilled and satisfied (content) with life, Man will seek secondary goals (Social success, extreme wealth, entertainment). These goals do not offer the same level of empowerment for most people and are a weak substitute.
-Man's lack of empowerment is the reason for most of America's (and these days, the entire world's), depression, apathy, and mid-life crisis's.
-Industrial Society and Technology is only making man's lack of empowerment worse, through more and more automation.
-Reforming Society is a fruitless effort, reform can never change the long term course of society and will eventually be forgotten.
-Only Revolutions (Revolution of Ideas, not necessarily violent, but violence is not precluded) is the only true means of altering the course of society.
-Without a revolution that drastically alters our course, society will end up in 1 of 3 possible outcomes:
1.) A massive, heavily populated world where the super-elite control the masses through media and technology and the majority life peaceful, but indolent lives. Most people do not have a job and everything they need is provided from the state. This is his best-case scenario.
2.) A massive, heavily populated world where cybernetic and generic modifications to humans is commonplace, and even necessary to get ahead in the increasing fast-pace society. Eventually, we will alter our generic and physical makeup so much that we are no longer even really human. This is his middle-of-the-road scenario.
3.) A nearly empty or dead world, where the tiny elite (less than 10000) live in luxury, where automated machines manage and make a wealthy lifestyle possible with a tiny laborforce. The majority of the population, being redundant, was exterminated. This is his worst case scenario.
-None of the 3 outcomes are not ideal, even outcome #1 is more a dystopia than a utopia.
-Eventually, the system will grow weak from crisis('s). At such a time, enlightened individuals should use the opportunity to overthrow the system and replace it one where man lives in small communities, much like the early middle ages.
Whew! That was a lot. But it's important to understand his core arguments.
The key point I disagree with is Ted K's conclusion. Life with small communities in nature is not the solution. Such a society would eventually relearn technology and eventually become a modern society all over again, repeating the very crimes Ted K perports to stop from happening. In fact, Ted K's solution isn't a solution at all - it's a reform. A reform that will ultimately fail, as all artificial man made barriers do.
February 6, 2017
what impressed me is how he covered every problem of modern society, from the over sensitive leftists, to how the system silently enforces rules over individuals. he met me at the point where we both think there is no way to peacefully reform or 'fix' the system.
while it's interesting to read through this whole manifesto, it seems to have many weak points where he over simplified the problems and the reasons. it's more of that way toward the end.
i wanted to write a long review citing many of my thoughts and arguments, but then i found myself lazy and only wanted to suggest you to go watch Fight Club. and also, read about the author on Wikipedia, please.
while it's interesting to read through this whole manifesto, it seems to have many weak points where he over simplified the problems and the reasons. it's more of that way toward the end.
i wanted to write a long review citing many of my thoughts and arguments, but then i found myself lazy and only wanted to suggest you to go watch Fight Club. and also, read about the author on Wikipedia, please.
May 13, 2021
this style of anarcho-primitivism strikes me as consistent with griffin's descriptions in modernism and fascism, or, at the least, irredeemably and pathologically rightwing. If anyone thinks that this text can be associated with the leftwing, the mccarthyist language that periodically interrupts the bluster about decay and tradition and whatnot should dispel it.
May 16, 2008
neo-Luddite... That sums it up.
June 1, 2008
Yea so the guy went a bit to far, the ideas he presented in this work (the full version, unlike the ones published in the newpapers), show a man of compassion(?) fed up with the direction he believed the world was heading and wishing to make things better. It has been said the extreme makes an impression, and while I do believe what he did was wrong, I can not question the idea's for which he did them.
June 6, 2020
stop ranting about leftism which you can't even define and tell me HOW to do the revolution, not enough application here Ted!
June 13, 2023
Unambiguously deep observations.
The author is not just the crazy terrorist killer most people think he is. Even though it's true he committed terroristic acts, he is more than that. He is an intellectual, an important one - thats my opinion after reading this book.
Few points.
Talks about the power process. Don't know if he knew about evo psych (the field was just consolidating back then). Huge part of the social problems, suffering, psychological/mental, when not genetic, can be traced to environmental factors of today, totally different from those that shaped and in which the human species lived for the majority of its history. Evo psych use the "mismatch" when talking about mental modules that seem to behave erratically in a modern, "non natural", environment.
Pg 89. Talking again about "leftists": "...when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today... leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away everyone else’s academic freedom....
The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control." - He sort of predicted how social media would fall into the hands of leftists. See Twitter, Fb etc censorship of views opposed to some of the core dogmas of the progressive Cathedral.
Overall, when reading this book, you have a feeling that the book was written 1 day ago.
This and How Dawkins Got Pwned (read recently) both impressed me a lot and are making me reconsider a few things.
I shared quotations/highlights during the reading.
The author is not just the crazy terrorist killer most people think he is. Even though it's true he committed terroristic acts, he is more than that. He is an intellectual, an important one - thats my opinion after reading this book.
Few points.
Talks about the power process. Don't know if he knew about evo psych (the field was just consolidating back then). Huge part of the social problems, suffering, psychological/mental, when not genetic, can be traced to environmental factors of today, totally different from those that shaped and in which the human species lived for the majority of its history. Evo psych use the "mismatch" when talking about mental modules that seem to behave erratically in a modern, "non natural", environment.
Pg 89. Talking again about "leftists": "...when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today... leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away everyone else’s academic freedom....
The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control." - He sort of predicted how social media would fall into the hands of leftists. See Twitter, Fb etc censorship of views opposed to some of the core dogmas of the progressive Cathedral.
Overall, when reading this book, you have a feeling that the book was written 1 day ago.
This and How Dawkins Got Pwned (read recently) both impressed me a lot and are making me reconsider a few things.
I shared quotations/highlights during the reading.
December 10, 2024
Liked: Acknowledges we have serious environmental problems that the system can't deal with as it is. Our growing lack of autonomy in the modern world. The stuff about the tension between technology and freedom, but only up to a point. He hates those Sylvan Learning Centres, the corporate tutoring franchise in the states. Also it's funny that he uses the first person plural pronoun to throw the cops off his scent.
Disliked: anarcho-primitivism in general. Critique of leftism as a pathology. The power process stuff. That his own brother ratted him out to the FBI. The decades-long bombing campaign that preceded the publication of this manifesto, killing two and injuring twenty-three.
Disliked: anarcho-primitivism in general. Critique of leftism as a pathology. The power process stuff. That his own brother ratted him out to the FBI. The decades-long bombing campaign that preceded the publication of this manifesto, killing two and injuring twenty-three.
September 2, 2011
Essential reading for all who want to destroy civilization as we know it. He explains why!
Read
December 11, 2024I read this because Luigi Mangione did
March 25, 2021
I know Kaczynski thought it was a necessity, but he should've talked about leftists after having talked about technology and its harmful outcomes. And maybe, he shouldn't have used the word "leftist", but rather "progressive" or "over-socialized". Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by how logical and well argued this was. Anarco-primitivism now seems like a sensible ideology and not an insane hermit's illusion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,986 reviews