What do you think?
Rate this book
The Unabomber Manifesto: Industrial Society & 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.
90 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Theodore J. Kaczynski
17 books624 followersTheodore John Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was an American mathematician and anarchist who moved to a remote cabin to live as a recluse, having concluded that industrial revolution is root cause of collapse of society.
Kaczynski was born and raised in Evergreen Park, Illinois. While growing up in Evergreen Park he was a child prodigy, excelling academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree. He subsequently earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25. He resigned two years later.
In 1971, he moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient.
He was a mathematics prodigy, but abandoned his academic career in 1969 to pursue a more primitive life. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski killed three people and injured 23 others in a nationwide mail bombing campaign against people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the environment. He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for a nature-centered form of anarchism.
Kaczynski was born and raised in Evergreen Park, Illinois. While growing up in Evergreen Park he was a child prodigy, excelling academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree. He subsequently earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25. He resigned two years later.
In 1971, he moved to a remote cabin without electricity or running water, in Lincoln, Montana, where he lived as a recluse while learning survival skills in an attempt to become self-sufficient.
He was a mathematics prodigy, but abandoned his academic career in 1969 to pursue a more primitive life. Between 1978 and 1995, Kaczynski killed three people and injured 23 others in a nationwide mail bombing campaign against people he believed to be advancing modern technology and the destruction of the environment. He authored Industrial Society and Its Future, a 35,000-word manifesto and social critique opposing industrialization, rejecting leftism, and advocating for a nature-centered form of anarchism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,479 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Want to read
September 3, 2008This will probably put me on an FBI watchlist.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
October 11, 2019
The single greatest self help book i’ve ever read
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.
October 7, 2021
Dangerously based
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.
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.
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.
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.
September 2, 2011
Essential reading for all who want to destroy civilization as we know it. He explains why!
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.
Read
April 3, 2021No voy a darle rating a este libro porque se siente raro ratear el manifesto de un asesino serial. Además no se como ratear algo que es solo opinion: ¿por como está escrito? ¿por cuanto estoy de acuerdo? ni idea.
Tengo muchisimas opiniones pero necesito dejarlas ser un rato hasta tenerlas más concretas.
Tengo muchisimas opiniones pero necesito dejarlas ser un rato hasta tenerlas más concretas.
July 6, 2022
Disclaimer to any friends, family, college admissions offices, future employers, and government officials: I do not, in any way support the actions taken by Theodore John Kaczynski, the Unabomber, Freedom Club (F.C.), or any other aliases. I do not support any of the actions he proposes in this article and merely believe that the ideas postulated are worthy of exploration and intellectual pondering.
I believe that everyone should read this book once. Because of the fact that every human, animal, plant, and organism is affected by the implications of industrial society, this essay can apply to everyone. There is no excuse not to as this book is publicly published, purposefully made accessible for free, and is also only 100 pages long. Because I believe this should be read firsthand by everyone, I will be brief.
This book was written almost 30 years ago, but could have been written yesterday. Every observation Kaczynski makes about the rise of technology and the effects that it has had on the freedom of humanity remains true if not more so and his analysis of human behavior is most accurate. His plan to implement a technological revolution, while extreme, is thought out and he draws many parallels to the successes and failures of other historical movements such as the French and Russian Revolutions. It took me 4 months to finish this book because of how thought provoking it was. Every paragraph was worthy of meditation and when, not if I reread this book, I intend to give each even more than I already have.
I believe that everyone should read this book once. Because of the fact that every human, animal, plant, and organism is affected by the implications of industrial society, this essay can apply to everyone. There is no excuse not to as this book is publicly published, purposefully made accessible for free, and is also only 100 pages long. Because I believe this should be read firsthand by everyone, I will be brief.
This book was written almost 30 years ago, but could have been written yesterday. Every observation Kaczynski makes about the rise of technology and the effects that it has had on the freedom of humanity remains true if not more so and his analysis of human behavior is most accurate. His plan to implement a technological revolution, while extreme, is thought out and he draws many parallels to the successes and failures of other historical movements such as the French and Russian Revolutions. It took me 4 months to finish this book because of how thought provoking it was. Every paragraph was worthy of meditation and when, not if I reread this book, I intend to give each even more than I already have.
April 1, 2013
While I personally disagree with a variety of statements and arguments made by Theodore, I admire his willpower and cold determination in regards to his beliefs.Theodore writes with great urgency, for the ideas and associated fears he bears are dire. Mr Kaczynski theorizes that technological growth will inevitably lead to the diminishing of the rights of the individual. While I do agree with this central idea, idea I disagree with his reaction. Where he sees that the only way to free ourselves is violent reaction to our societal system, I see a chance to manipulate technology with a newfound consciousness and focus on human freedoms. Regardless of my personal disagreements, I strongly encourage any all of humanity to read this eye opening manifesto, and examine a prime example of modern anarcho-primitivist theory.
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!
April 23, 2023
“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.”
Talk about an epic way to start a text. There is so much to this manifesto that it is hard to easily sum up. As a joke I let Chatgpt summarize the manifesto:
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have led to the degradation of the environment, the erosion of human freedom, and the collapse of traditional societies.
2. The rise of technology and the scientific method have contributed to the decline of human dignity, individuality, and creativity, and have resulted in a culture of conformity and passivity.
3. The institutions of modern society, including government, education, and the media, are complicit in perpetuating the system of control and domination that has led to the current state of affairs.
4. The only way to achieve true freedom and individual autonomy is through a radical transformation of society, which would involve a rejection of technology, mass society, and the values of modernity.
5. The Unabomber sees himself as a revolutionary who is waging a war against modern industrial society, using violent means to draw attention to his cause and to force people to confront the problems that he sees as inherent to the system.
Technology cannot be controlled as it is a self-sustaining system where big companies have an incentive to keep evolving the technology without really having any final goal in sight.
He also doesn't believe that we can stop this development through reform and believes that technology is far more important than ideology. Reform of the system is impossible because society is an organic whole and therefore one small change will have repercussions which cannot be forseen. Social changes mainly serve the people who initiated those changes and they will not become permanent unless they are part of some larger societal development (eg. the evolution of technology).
One of the most interesting aspects of this text is Kaczynskis views on human nature and what we humans need in order to live meaningful lives. We are driven by a will to power and achieve status. In order to do this we set up goals and try to achieve them. In more primitive societies it was possible to actually achieve some control over your own life but in the modern world we are dependent on machines. In the future the most important work will be done by thinking machines and therefore humans will become passive. We are learning how to be helpless which in turn causes depression and various other psychological problems. The system tries to cover these problems up by prescribing drugs so that people won't become too angry and rebel.
His characteristic of the leftist movement was quite on point. One would think that Kaczynski would join forces with them but he believes that leftists aren't really rebels. One of his theories is that modern man is oversocialized and that he therefore has completely internalised the morality of society. He therefore constantly feels ashamed when he tries to behave in a way which goes against societal norms. The leftist is someone who is so oversocialized that they are driven by an inferiority complex and therefore everything that can be seen as succesful has to be destroyed (like Western civilization). Because of this feeling of inferiority they can never be content as an individual and instead find strength in being part of a collective movement. It should be noted that Kazcynskis concedes that these are gross generalisations.
I found the manifesto funny at times as it is clear that it is written by an angry person but one with a lucid mind. Kaczynski places too much emphasis on a certain autonomy, one which I don't think is possible unless one lives alone. It can also be shown in the work of recent anthropology that primitive cultures also had different forms of hierarchies/political structures. Who would want to live in those societies? Although the determinism contained in the unabomber worldview is seductive, I believe that individuals actually can effect society's development (although the degree can be discussed).
I too wonder what will happen once AI starts to take over more and more jobs. What will people do? The only solace I can find is that consciousness is something different from intelligence and in the end it is our conscious experience which is what really matters. I believe that because of this there will always be a demand for humans to create meaningful work for each other. But who knows?
Talk about an epic way to start a text. There is so much to this manifesto that it is hard to easily sum up. As a joke I let Chatgpt summarize the manifesto:
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have led to the degradation of the environment, the erosion of human freedom, and the collapse of traditional societies.
2. The rise of technology and the scientific method have contributed to the decline of human dignity, individuality, and creativity, and have resulted in a culture of conformity and passivity.
3. The institutions of modern society, including government, education, and the media, are complicit in perpetuating the system of control and domination that has led to the current state of affairs.
4. The only way to achieve true freedom and individual autonomy is through a radical transformation of society, which would involve a rejection of technology, mass society, and the values of modernity.
5. The Unabomber sees himself as a revolutionary who is waging a war against modern industrial society, using violent means to draw attention to his cause and to force people to confront the problems that he sees as inherent to the system.
Technology cannot be controlled as it is a self-sustaining system where big companies have an incentive to keep evolving the technology without really having any final goal in sight.
He also doesn't believe that we can stop this development through reform and believes that technology is far more important than ideology. Reform of the system is impossible because society is an organic whole and therefore one small change will have repercussions which cannot be forseen. Social changes mainly serve the people who initiated those changes and they will not become permanent unless they are part of some larger societal development (eg. the evolution of technology).
One of the most interesting aspects of this text is Kaczynskis views on human nature and what we humans need in order to live meaningful lives. We are driven by a will to power and achieve status. In order to do this we set up goals and try to achieve them. In more primitive societies it was possible to actually achieve some control over your own life but in the modern world we are dependent on machines. In the future the most important work will be done by thinking machines and therefore humans will become passive. We are learning how to be helpless which in turn causes depression and various other psychological problems. The system tries to cover these problems up by prescribing drugs so that people won't become too angry and rebel.
His characteristic of the leftist movement was quite on point. One would think that Kaczynski would join forces with them but he believes that leftists aren't really rebels. One of his theories is that modern man is oversocialized and that he therefore has completely internalised the morality of society. He therefore constantly feels ashamed when he tries to behave in a way which goes against societal norms. The leftist is someone who is so oversocialized that they are driven by an inferiority complex and therefore everything that can be seen as succesful has to be destroyed (like Western civilization). Because of this feeling of inferiority they can never be content as an individual and instead find strength in being part of a collective movement. It should be noted that Kazcynskis concedes that these are gross generalisations.
I found the manifesto funny at times as it is clear that it is written by an angry person but one with a lucid mind. Kaczynski places too much emphasis on a certain autonomy, one which I don't think is possible unless one lives alone. It can also be shown in the work of recent anthropology that primitive cultures also had different forms of hierarchies/political structures. Who would want to live in those societies? Although the determinism contained in the unabomber worldview is seductive, I believe that individuals actually can effect society's development (although the degree can be discussed).
I too wonder what will happen once AI starts to take over more and more jobs. What will people do? The only solace I can find is that consciousness is something different from intelligence and in the end it is our conscious experience which is what really matters. I believe that because of this there will always be a demand for humans to create meaningful work for each other. But who knows?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,479 reviews