What do you think?
Rate this book
Technological Slavery: Enhanced Edition
Logical, lucid, and direct, Technological Slavery radically reinvigorates and reforms the intellectual foundations of an age-old and resurgent world-view: "Progress" is a myth. Wild nature and humanity are fundamentally incompatible with technological growth. In Technological Slavery, Kaczynski argues that: (i) the unfolding human and environmental crises are the direct, inevitable result of technology itself; (ii) many of the stresses endured in contemporary life are not normal to the human condition, but unique to technological conditions; (iii) wilderness and human life close to nature are realistic and supreme ideals; and, (iv) a revolution to eliminate modern technology and attain these ideals is necessary and far more achievable than would first appear. Drawing on a broad range of disciplines, Kaczynski weaves together a set of visionary social theories to form a revolutionary perspective on the dynamics of history and the evolution of societies. The result is a comprehensive challenge to the fundamental values and assumptions of the modern technology-driven world, pinning the cause of the rapidly unfolding catastrophe on technology itself, while offering a realistic hope for ultimate recovery. Note: Theodore John Kaczynski does not receive any remuneration for this book.
355 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
269 people are currently reading
9812 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 153 reviews
December 2, 2019
wtf i hate modernity now
July 25, 2012
if he hadn't've killed folks--he'd be a hero.
so i DO NOT CONDONE killing.
but his ideas are more than valid.
ok?
so i DO NOT CONDONE killing.
but his ideas are more than valid.
ok?
March 15, 2017
A lot of chaff in this book, but Kaczynski makes many powerful, convincing points. The man is no idiot. He went to Harvard at 16 and wrote a respected Ph.D. thesis in mathematics. Many of the darkest points in his Manifesto have been echoed by well-grounded, intelligent people like Bill Joy.
TK is often regarded as a crazy luddite who snapped and started killing people. But another side shines through in this book. From a young age, TK had an intense desire to escape from civilization and live free, like a primitive man. He's quite well-read on eskimos, pygmies, bushmen and other peoples who lived free in the wild. As a young man, he devoted himself to learning edible plants, hunting skills and other survival techniques, and for a couple of decades he lived a rudimentary, primitive existence (albeit supplemented with a few store-bought staples). I was fascinated and emotionally moved by his descriptions of the mental tranquility he found in his daily routine, eking out a hand-to-mouth existence off the land.
He speaks in poetic, almost religious tones about the untouched spaces of Montana he spent time in during the 1970s. But civilization just kept encroaching: more people, more houses, more development. One year he returned to his favorite pristine plateau. He was sickened by the sound of chainsaws, and, pressing on, was shocked to find the plateau ravaged by a network of sturdy roads. Traveling back to his cabin, he was sick with grief and rage. He writes:
TK's overarching point is frightening, but hard to deny: technology is in the driver's seat, and people and their political institutions have no understanding or control over our destination.
From the intro (by D. Skrbina), summarizing TK's point of view:
"Technologically-induced stress is bad now and will get much worse, leading to a condition where humans will be completely manipulated and molded to serve the needs of the system. Such a state of affairs is undignified, abhorrent, disastrous for nature, and profoundly dehumanizing."
From TK's Manifesto: "The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity."
"In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system."
It's a powerful point that deserves greater attention.
TK is often regarded as a crazy luddite who snapped and started killing people. But another side shines through in this book. From a young age, TK had an intense desire to escape from civilization and live free, like a primitive man. He's quite well-read on eskimos, pygmies, bushmen and other peoples who lived free in the wild. As a young man, he devoted himself to learning edible plants, hunting skills and other survival techniques, and for a couple of decades he lived a rudimentary, primitive existence (albeit supplemented with a few store-bought staples). I was fascinated and emotionally moved by his descriptions of the mental tranquility he found in his daily routine, eking out a hand-to-mouth existence off the land.
He speaks in poetic, almost religious tones about the untouched spaces of Montana he spent time in during the 1970s. But civilization just kept encroaching: more people, more houses, more development. One year he returned to his favorite pristine plateau. He was sickened by the sound of chainsaws, and, pressing on, was shocked to find the plateau ravaged by a network of sturdy roads. Traveling back to his cabin, he was sick with grief and rage. He writes:
"My route took me past a beautiful spot, a favorite place of mine where there was a spring of pure water that could safely be drunk without boiling. I stopped and said a kind of prayer to the spirit of the spring. It was a prayer in which I swore I would take revenge for what was being done to the forest."Tears welled up in my eyes reading that. I'll let you decide who is really crazy: TK or industrial society.
TK's overarching point is frightening, but hard to deny: technology is in the driver's seat, and people and their political institutions have no understanding or control over our destination.
From the intro (by D. Skrbina), summarizing TK's point of view:
"Technologically-induced stress is bad now and will get much worse, leading to a condition where humans will be completely manipulated and molded to serve the needs of the system. Such a state of affairs is undignified, abhorrent, disastrous for nature, and profoundly dehumanizing."
From TK's Manifesto: "The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity."
"In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system."
It's a powerful point that deserves greater attention.
October 8, 2022
It's difficult to imagine a person reading this book attentively and not having their outlook on life fundamentally changed. The ideas on psychology and technology expounded upon in this book are fantastic and explain a lot.
An absolute must read I think for literally everyone. Even if you don't agree that industrial society needs to be destroyed it is a fantastic book to wrestle with.
P.S: I have absolutely zero interest or support for his 'extra-curricular' activities, and they have no bearing on the quality of the work. If you're reading this because you think it'll be 'cool to see inside the mind of a terrorist' or something like this you will be disappointed. The book is well written, ordered, intelligent and not at all some incomprehensible and entertaining screed of a lunatic.
An absolute must read I think for literally everyone. Even if you don't agree that industrial society needs to be destroyed it is a fantastic book to wrestle with.
P.S: I have absolutely zero interest or support for his 'extra-curricular' activities, and they have no bearing on the quality of the work. If you're reading this because you think it'll be 'cool to see inside the mind of a terrorist' or something like this you will be disappointed. The book is well written, ordered, intelligent and not at all some incomprehensible and entertaining screed of a lunatic.
December 11, 2019
Ted clearly lays out why any future involving technology is a bleak one. He explains the need for a real revolutionary movement and who should comprimise this movement. I really respect his ability to set aside all other political motivations and purely focus on the issue of technology.
June 3, 2017
Kaczynski is quite a character. His writings are determined and poignant, and albeit his points are valid and clear, I did not manage to fully convert into his thinking. However, his critique on technological society is much needed, and a bit of exaggeration can be necessary to get the point across to the reader. Most interesting part for me was to realize that while our approach to the topic differs a bit, our thinking is eerily similar. The book has a bit too much repetition, but such is often the case when it comes to third-party collections of texts. Recommended.
July 29, 2021
The omitted part of Hit Where it Hurts:
“Some examples of vital organs of the system are:
A. The electric-power industry. The system is utterly dependent on its electric-power grid.
B. The communications industry. Without rapid communications, as by telephone, radio, television, e-mail, and so forth, the system could not survive.
C. The computer industry. We all know that without computers the system would promptly collapse.
D. The propaganda industry. The propaganda industry includes the entertainment industry, the educational system, journalism, advertising, public relations, and much of politics and of the mental-health industry. The system can't function unless people are sufficiently docile and conforming and have the attitudes that the system needs them to have. It is the function of the propaganda industry to teach people that kind of thought and behavior.
E. The biotechnology industry. The system is not yet (as far as I know) physically dependent on advanced biotechnology. Nevertheless, the system cannot afford to give way on the biotechnology issue, which is a critically important issue for the system, as I will argue in a moment.
Again: When you attack these vital organs of the system, it is essential not to attack them in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack the electric-power industry on the basis that it pollutes the environment, the system can defuse protest by developing cleaner methods of generating electricity. If worse came to worse, the system could even switch entirely to wind and solar power. This might do a great deal to reduce environmental damage, but it would not put an end to the techno-industrial system. Nor would it represent a defeat for the system's fundamental values. To accomplish anything against the system you have to attack all electric-power generation as a matter of principle, on the ground that dependence on electricity makes people dependent on the system. This is a ground incompatible with the system's values.
7. Biotechnology May Be The Best Target For Political Attack.
Probably the most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry. Though revolutions are generally carried out by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least acquiescence from the general population. To get that kind of support or acquiescence is one of the goals of political action. If you concentrated your political attack on, for example, the electric-power industry, it would be extremely difficult to get any support outside of a radical minority, because most people resist change to their way of living, especially any change that inconveniences them. For this reason, few would be willing to give up electricity.
But people do not yet feel themselves dependent on advanced biotechnology as they do on electricity. Eliminating biotechnology will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of biotechnology will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging biotechnology, radicals should be able to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change.
And biotechnology is an issue on which the system cannot afford to lose. It is an issue on which the system will have to fight to the finish, which is exactly what we need. But - to repeat once more - it is essential to attack biotechnology not in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack biotechnology, primarily on the basis that it may damage the environment, or that genetically-modified foods may be harmful to health, then the system can and will cushion your attack by giving ground or compromising - for instance, by introducing increased supervision of genetic research and more rigorous testing and regulation of genetically-modified crops. People's anxiety will then subside and protest with wither.
8. All Biotechnology Must Be Attacked As A Matter Of Principle.
So, instead of protesting one or another negative consequence of biotechnology, you have to attack all modern biotechnology on principle, on grounds such as (a) that it is an insult to all living things; (b) that it puts too much power in the hands of the system; (c) that it will radically transform fundamental human values that have existed for thousands of years; and similar grounds that are inconsistent with the values of the system.
In response to this kind of attack the system will have to stand and fight. It cannot afford to cushion your attack by backing off to any great extent, because biotechnology is too central to the whole enterprise of technological progress, and because in backing off the system would not be making only a tactical retreat, but would be taking a major strategic defeat to its code of values. Those values would be undermined and the door would be opened to further political attacks that would hack away at the foundations of the system.
Now it's true that the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to ban cloning of human beings, and at least some congressmen even gave the right kinds of reasons for doing so. The reasons I read about were framed in religious terms, but whatever you may think of the religious terms involved, these reasons were not technologically acceptable reasons. And that is what counts.
Thus, the congressmen's vote on human cloning was a genuine defeat for the system. But it was only a very, very small defeat, because of the narrow scope of the ban - only one tiny part of biotechnology was affected - and because for the near future cloning of human beings would be of little practical use to the system anyway. But the House of Representatives' action does suggest that this may be a point at which the system is vulnerable, and that a broader attack on all of biotechnology might inflict severe damage on the system and its values.
9. Radicals Are Not Yet Attacking Biotech Effectively.
Some radicals do attack the biotechnology, whether politically or physically, but as far as I know they explain their opposition to biotech in terms of the system's own values. That is, their main complaints are the risks of environmental damage and of harm to health.
And they are not hitting the biotech industry where it hurts. To use an analogy of physical combat once again, suppose you had to defend yourself against a giant octopus. You would not be able to fight back effectively by hacking at the tips of its tentacles. You have to strike at its head. From what I've read of their activities, radicals who work against biotechnology still do no more than hack at the tips of the octopus's tentacles. They try to persuade ordinary farmers, individually, to refrain from planting genetically-engineered seed. But there are many thousands of farms in America, so that persuading farmers individually is an extremely inefficient way to combat genetic engineering. It would be much more effective to persuade research scientists engaged in biotechnological work, or executives of companies like Monsanto, to leave the biotech industry. Good research scientists are people who have special talents and extensive training, so they are difficult to replace. The same is true of top corporate executives. Persuading just a few of these people to get out of biotech would do more damage to the biotechnology industry than persuading a thousand farmers not to plant genetically-engineered seed.
10. Hit Where It Hurts.
It is open to argument whether I am right in thinking that biotechnology is the best issue on which to attack the system politically. But it is beyond argument that radicals today are wasting much of their energy on issues that have little or no relevance to the survival of the technological system. And even when they do address the right issues, radicals do not hit where it hurts. So instead of trotting off to the next world trade summit to have temper tantrums over globalization, radicals ought to put in some time thinking how to hit the system where it really hurts. By legal means, of course.”
(Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article.)
Correspond with Ted Kaczynski:
Ted Kaczynski #04475-046, US Pen-Admin Max Facility, P.O. Box 8500, Florence, CO 81226.
“Some examples of vital organs of the system are:
A. The electric-power industry. The system is utterly dependent on its electric-power grid.
B. The communications industry. Without rapid communications, as by telephone, radio, television, e-mail, and so forth, the system could not survive.
C. The computer industry. We all know that without computers the system would promptly collapse.
D. The propaganda industry. The propaganda industry includes the entertainment industry, the educational system, journalism, advertising, public relations, and much of politics and of the mental-health industry. The system can't function unless people are sufficiently docile and conforming and have the attitudes that the system needs them to have. It is the function of the propaganda industry to teach people that kind of thought and behavior.
E. The biotechnology industry. The system is not yet (as far as I know) physically dependent on advanced biotechnology. Nevertheless, the system cannot afford to give way on the biotechnology issue, which is a critically important issue for the system, as I will argue in a moment.
Again: When you attack these vital organs of the system, it is essential not to attack them in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack the electric-power industry on the basis that it pollutes the environment, the system can defuse protest by developing cleaner methods of generating electricity. If worse came to worse, the system could even switch entirely to wind and solar power. This might do a great deal to reduce environmental damage, but it would not put an end to the techno-industrial system. Nor would it represent a defeat for the system's fundamental values. To accomplish anything against the system you have to attack all electric-power generation as a matter of principle, on the ground that dependence on electricity makes people dependent on the system. This is a ground incompatible with the system's values.
7. Biotechnology May Be The Best Target For Political Attack.
Probably the most promising target for political attack is the biotechnology industry. Though revolutions are generally carried out by minorities, it is very useful to have some degree of support, sympathy, or at least acquiescence from the general population. To get that kind of support or acquiescence is one of the goals of political action. If you concentrated your political attack on, for example, the electric-power industry, it would be extremely difficult to get any support outside of a radical minority, because most people resist change to their way of living, especially any change that inconveniences them. For this reason, few would be willing to give up electricity.
But people do not yet feel themselves dependent on advanced biotechnology as they do on electricity. Eliminating biotechnology will not radically change their lives. On the contrary, it would be possible to show people that the continued development of biotechnology will transform their way of life and wipe out age-old human values. Thus, in challenging biotechnology, radicals should be able to mobilize in their own favor the natural human resistance to change.
And biotechnology is an issue on which the system cannot afford to lose. It is an issue on which the system will have to fight to the finish, which is exactly what we need. But - to repeat once more - it is essential to attack biotechnology not in terms of the system's own values but in terms of values inconsistent with those of the system. For example, if you attack biotechnology, primarily on the basis that it may damage the environment, or that genetically-modified foods may be harmful to health, then the system can and will cushion your attack by giving ground or compromising - for instance, by introducing increased supervision of genetic research and more rigorous testing and regulation of genetically-modified crops. People's anxiety will then subside and protest with wither.
8. All Biotechnology Must Be Attacked As A Matter Of Principle.
So, instead of protesting one or another negative consequence of biotechnology, you have to attack all modern biotechnology on principle, on grounds such as (a) that it is an insult to all living things; (b) that it puts too much power in the hands of the system; (c) that it will radically transform fundamental human values that have existed for thousands of years; and similar grounds that are inconsistent with the values of the system.
In response to this kind of attack the system will have to stand and fight. It cannot afford to cushion your attack by backing off to any great extent, because biotechnology is too central to the whole enterprise of technological progress, and because in backing off the system would not be making only a tactical retreat, but would be taking a major strategic defeat to its code of values. Those values would be undermined and the door would be opened to further political attacks that would hack away at the foundations of the system.
Now it's true that the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to ban cloning of human beings, and at least some congressmen even gave the right kinds of reasons for doing so. The reasons I read about were framed in religious terms, but whatever you may think of the religious terms involved, these reasons were not technologically acceptable reasons. And that is what counts.
Thus, the congressmen's vote on human cloning was a genuine defeat for the system. But it was only a very, very small defeat, because of the narrow scope of the ban - only one tiny part of biotechnology was affected - and because for the near future cloning of human beings would be of little practical use to the system anyway. But the House of Representatives' action does suggest that this may be a point at which the system is vulnerable, and that a broader attack on all of biotechnology might inflict severe damage on the system and its values.
9. Radicals Are Not Yet Attacking Biotech Effectively.
Some radicals do attack the biotechnology, whether politically or physically, but as far as I know they explain their opposition to biotech in terms of the system's own values. That is, their main complaints are the risks of environmental damage and of harm to health.
And they are not hitting the biotech industry where it hurts. To use an analogy of physical combat once again, suppose you had to defend yourself against a giant octopus. You would not be able to fight back effectively by hacking at the tips of its tentacles. You have to strike at its head. From what I've read of their activities, radicals who work against biotechnology still do no more than hack at the tips of the octopus's tentacles. They try to persuade ordinary farmers, individually, to refrain from planting genetically-engineered seed. But there are many thousands of farms in America, so that persuading farmers individually is an extremely inefficient way to combat genetic engineering. It would be much more effective to persuade research scientists engaged in biotechnological work, or executives of companies like Monsanto, to leave the biotech industry. Good research scientists are people who have special talents and extensive training, so they are difficult to replace. The same is true of top corporate executives. Persuading just a few of these people to get out of biotech would do more damage to the biotechnology industry than persuading a thousand farmers not to plant genetically-engineered seed.
10. Hit Where It Hurts.
It is open to argument whether I am right in thinking that biotechnology is the best issue on which to attack the system politically. But it is beyond argument that radicals today are wasting much of their energy on issues that have little or no relevance to the survival of the technological system. And even when they do address the right issues, radicals do not hit where it hurts. So instead of trotting off to the next world trade summit to have temper tantrums over globalization, radicals ought to put in some time thinking how to hit the system where it really hurts. By legal means, of course.”
(Theodore Kaczynski retains copyright to this article.)
Correspond with Ted Kaczynski:
Ted Kaczynski #04475-046, US Pen-Admin Max Facility, P.O. Box 8500, Florence, CO 81226.
February 8, 2020
Probably the best of the 3 published books out there by Kaczynski; not only does this contain ISAIF, but it also contains an insightful assortment of letters Kaczynski wrote between about 2000 and 2006 to various professors, scientists, and aspiring anti-tech revolutionaries along with various appendices written mostly post-2010. In these letters he responds to various objections to many of the arguments laid forth in ISAIF in (I would assert) a compelling manner.
I would highly recommend buying from this publisher. I bought a copy, but it got lost (or maybe stolen) after it was marked as delivered. I called up the publisher and he was kind enough to send me another copy for free. It is now for sale on Amazon, but I could recommend buying the work here (https://fitchmadison.com) because they probably get more money that way.
I would highly recommend buying from this publisher. I bought a copy, but it got lost (or maybe stolen) after it was marked as delivered. I called up the publisher and he was kind enough to send me another copy for free. It is now for sale on Amazon, but I could recommend buying the work here (https://fitchmadison.com) because they probably get more money that way.
September 12, 2018
The subtitle explains what this book is: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a "The Unabomber". For people who live under rocks, the Unabomber was an ex-mathematics lecturer who retreated from civilisation and later sent a lot of bombs via the US mail, killing and injuring people. He evaded the FBI for 18 years and got turned in by his brother shortly after getting the Washington Post to publish his manifesto -- which makes up the core of this collection.
During his trial, Kaczynski's lawyers (against his wishes) tried to plead insanity. Kaczynski fought this portrayal to the utmost -- trying to dismiss his lawyers, and finally taking a plea bargain rather than allow it -- but unfortunately the public seem to have agreed with this view, and he's often portrayed as crazy. Reading his writing, it's hard to agree with this portrayal, he's highly coherent and occasionally insightful, and his depiction of modern technologically-enhanced life as deeply harmful is easy to sympathise with. It seems far more likely that popular attention can only conceive of people who kill for a cause as mentally disturbed, a dangerous falsehood. As Gary Greenberg, a psychologist in communication with Kaczynski wrote:
Of course, stating that the man was not mad does not mean that I agree with him, nor does finding him insightful on some points mean I'm convinced by them all. Logical and orderly though most of his argumentation looks, there are leaps of faith needed: for example, to accept his suggestion that abandoning technology now will be a lesser disaster than what comes -- as he himself says, it is easier to predict that a plan for the future won't come to pass than predict one that will. Similarly, a gaping logical flaw in the plan to revert to a pre-technological age is that we were once there and are no longer -- even if technology can be shed from humanity, it will just grow again, and with no means of informing the people of the future of the perils, it is sheer faith to imagine they too would cast it off, so why attempt to delay rather than finding a way to bring the system into line with the goals he outlines?
The various essays and letters attached alongside the central manifesto paint the picture of a committed and abrasive revolutionary attempting to prevent his message from being diluted. His rebuttal of the anarcho-primitivists (a group most inclined to support him) is particularly amusing (I mean not that it is wrong, and it's admirable that he holds accuracy over favourable reception, but you do wonder if he's capable of retaining any friends). Several times it seems he has been asked similar questions on some issues, some even seeming to be answered in his manifesto. A jarring piece of censorship is evident in the collection regarding his essay Hit Where it Hurts, wherein he describes (with humorous appellations of 'through legal means' to get it past his prison guards) suitable targets for enemies of technological progress to strike -- thankfully a full copy is available online.
An interesting collection with some valid and insightful points, Technological Slavery deserves examination mostly for the central manifesto, but the additional documents do add extra perspective.
During his trial, Kaczynski's lawyers (against his wishes) tried to plead insanity. Kaczynski fought this portrayal to the utmost -- trying to dismiss his lawyers, and finally taking a plea bargain rather than allow it -- but unfortunately the public seem to have agreed with this view, and he's often portrayed as crazy. Reading his writing, it's hard to agree with this portrayal, he's highly coherent and occasionally insightful, and his depiction of modern technologically-enhanced life as deeply harmful is easy to sympathise with. It seems far more likely that popular attention can only conceive of people who kill for a cause as mentally disturbed, a dangerous falsehood. As Gary Greenberg, a psychologist in communication with Kaczynski wrote:
A society unaccustomed to understanding individuals' behaviour as anything other than the result of the psychological states -- their childhood traumas and neurochemical imbalances, say -- cannot account for the political dimensions of everyday life. It cannot, for instance, raise the question of exactly what is wrong with what Kaczynski did. We perhaps could stand to be reminded of the public agreements that stipulate why we aren't supposed to kill, no matter the cause, and then perhaps we could decide what other people and practices are falling short of the standard he violated. But the Unabomber case can't force this much-needed conversation if Kaczynski is merely a madman. Then it's enough to know that he is not one of us. But he is.
Of course, stating that the man was not mad does not mean that I agree with him, nor does finding him insightful on some points mean I'm convinced by them all. Logical and orderly though most of his argumentation looks, there are leaps of faith needed: for example, to accept his suggestion that abandoning technology now will be a lesser disaster than what comes -- as he himself says, it is easier to predict that a plan for the future won't come to pass than predict one that will. Similarly, a gaping logical flaw in the plan to revert to a pre-technological age is that we were once there and are no longer -- even if technology can be shed from humanity, it will just grow again, and with no means of informing the people of the future of the perils, it is sheer faith to imagine they too would cast it off, so why attempt to delay rather than finding a way to bring the system into line with the goals he outlines?
The various essays and letters attached alongside the central manifesto paint the picture of a committed and abrasive revolutionary attempting to prevent his message from being diluted. His rebuttal of the anarcho-primitivists (a group most inclined to support him) is particularly amusing (I mean not that it is wrong, and it's admirable that he holds accuracy over favourable reception, but you do wonder if he's capable of retaining any friends). Several times it seems he has been asked similar questions on some issues, some even seeming to be answered in his manifesto. A jarring piece of censorship is evident in the collection regarding his essay Hit Where it Hurts, wherein he describes (with humorous appellations of 'through legal means' to get it past his prison guards) suitable targets for enemies of technological progress to strike -- thankfully a full copy is available online.
An interesting collection with some valid and insightful points, Technological Slavery deserves examination mostly for the central manifesto, but the additional documents do add extra perspective.
May 22, 2023
I have mixed feelings about Dr. Kaczynski, who is very often misunderstood and maligned. I agreed with Ted about basically everything when first reading 'Industrial Society And It's Future' over a decade ago and again, a second time, in this collection of his writing, mostly done while incarcerated. He was quite prescient in regards to technology and its effects on everyone, individually and collectively, along with being quite accurate in his critique of leftism/leftists. His descriptions of the "power process" and "oversocialization" (two key psychological concepts contained within the pages of ISAIF) are excellent as well.
However, I fault him for being duped by the Synagogue of Satan (and their gentile collaborators) on a few important current and historical topics, including but not limited to the hoax of man-made climate change and the so-called Jewish Holocaust. This incorrect perspective on peripheral topics is evident in several sections of his correspondence with people (approximately two thirds of the contents of 'Technological Slavery'). EDIT: I forgot to mention his negative view of religion in those letters to individuals outside prison. This too was something that was irksome to me.
I still highly recommend (five stars then and now) the infamous ISAIF (with his updated footnotes) and also 'The System's Neatest Trick', one of the post-manifesto essays included in this book, but the whole thing is nevertheless worth reading, despite my spergy criticism.
SECOND EDIT: I raised this rating from 3 stars to 4 because it seemed excessive to deduct two stars for what amounted to nitpicking some content in the letters, especially considering how highly I rate ISAIF, TSNT, and a large portion of the material in those letters. To be honest, one of the main reasons behind my original decision to dock two stars was to try to balance the numerous 4 and 5 star ratings which I gave books over the past year or two, and that's not the approach I want to take with these reviews.
However, I fault him for being duped by the Synagogue of Satan (and their gentile collaborators) on a few important current and historical topics, including but not limited to the hoax of man-made climate change and the so-called Jewish Holocaust. This incorrect perspective on peripheral topics is evident in several sections of his correspondence with people (approximately two thirds of the contents of 'Technological Slavery'). EDIT: I forgot to mention his negative view of religion in those letters to individuals outside prison. This too was something that was irksome to me.
I still highly recommend (five stars then and now) the infamous ISAIF (with his updated footnotes) and also 'The System's Neatest Trick', one of the post-manifesto essays included in this book, but the whole thing is nevertheless worth reading, despite my spergy criticism.
SECOND EDIT: I raised this rating from 3 stars to 4 because it seemed excessive to deduct two stars for what amounted to nitpicking some content in the letters, especially considering how highly I rate ISAIF, TSNT, and a large portion of the material in those letters. To be honest, one of the main reasons behind my original decision to dock two stars was to try to balance the numerous 4 and 5 star ratings which I gave books over the past year or two, and that's not the approach I want to take with these reviews.
November 12, 2018
"What is significant is that when you live in the woods, rather than just visiting them, the beauty becomes part of your life rather than something you just look at from the outside... In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility." (p. 405-406)
So reads Ted Kaczynski, "madman." I'll start with the usual necessary caveats that of course I don't condone his acts of violence, but Kaczynski is not insane. This book shows a careful, considered mind. Like a lot of other people throughout history, he simply deemed it worth some acts of violence to accomplish a larger purpose.
Kaczynski has a lot to offer here. His idea of the "power principle" is brilliant, that we are allotted power in society in a million areas that don't matter at all, but are completely disempowered by large systems when it comes to the areas of life that really matter: our food, health, loved one's safety, autonomy, government, etc. We are endlessly distracted by "surrogate activities" that hide the essential degradations of "industrial society" from us.
He shows remarkable psychological and social insight in critiquing "leftists," by which I think he largely means liberals. Most liberal "rebellion" actually just strengthens the system, since it enacts beliefs the system already supports. Activists do often join movements for psychological reasons, and identity politics can be a distraction from primary matters. He offers a trenchant critique of anarcho-primitivists by saying that not only do they refuse to attack the oppressive system, but they also idealize hunter-gatherer cultures of the past, when in reality these cultures were not always egalitarian, environmentally-friendly, etc. The one virtue they did have was a greater space for genuine freedom and autonomy within them.
Whether in his major essay, "Industrial Society and Its Future," or his essays and letters found in this book, Kaczynski is sometimes funny, sometimes offensive, but very often insightful and trenchant in his analysis and critique. Ironically, if he hadn't mailed bombs to people, we would probably take his philosophy a lot more seriously, though we may have never heard of it, which, of course, was exactly the point.
So reads Ted Kaczynski, "madman." I'll start with the usual necessary caveats that of course I don't condone his acts of violence, but Kaczynski is not insane. This book shows a careful, considered mind. Like a lot of other people throughout history, he simply deemed it worth some acts of violence to accomplish a larger purpose.
Kaczynski has a lot to offer here. His idea of the "power principle" is brilliant, that we are allotted power in society in a million areas that don't matter at all, but are completely disempowered by large systems when it comes to the areas of life that really matter: our food, health, loved one's safety, autonomy, government, etc. We are endlessly distracted by "surrogate activities" that hide the essential degradations of "industrial society" from us.
He shows remarkable psychological and social insight in critiquing "leftists," by which I think he largely means liberals. Most liberal "rebellion" actually just strengthens the system, since it enacts beliefs the system already supports. Activists do often join movements for psychological reasons, and identity politics can be a distraction from primary matters. He offers a trenchant critique of anarcho-primitivists by saying that not only do they refuse to attack the oppressive system, but they also idealize hunter-gatherer cultures of the past, when in reality these cultures were not always egalitarian, environmentally-friendly, etc. The one virtue they did have was a greater space for genuine freedom and autonomy within them.
Whether in his major essay, "Industrial Society and Its Future," or his essays and letters found in this book, Kaczynski is sometimes funny, sometimes offensive, but very often insightful and trenchant in his analysis and critique. Ironically, if he hadn't mailed bombs to people, we would probably take his philosophy a lot more seriously, though we may have never heard of it, which, of course, was exactly the point.
January 4, 2014
It was liberating and intelectually stimulating to read. Apart from the content of the book and well grounded and balanced arguments, I like the literary style of the author. I think Ted Kaczynski formulates his thoughts succinctly, yet is able to present the essence of an issue avoiding pseudo-scientific terms at the same time. What is more, the book may be a starting point for further research and furher thoughts on the issues presented as many arguments were left open to debate.
* I found this brilliant description somewhere "Sociopath? Absolutely! Prophetic genius? The First Amendment ensures that every reader gets to decide."
* I found this brilliant description somewhere "Sociopath? Absolutely! Prophetic genius? The First Amendment ensures that every reader gets to decide."
January 30, 2021
This is the manifesto of Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, an American domestic terrorist. He killed 3 people and injured 23 in a bombing campaign in order to draw attention to this manifesto of anti-technology. He was arrested in 1996 and has 8 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
I'm already very interested in views about technology, which made me interested in the book. And I was particularly curious about Kaczynski's work because I've always had an odd fascination with people who are extremely smart and yet do extreme insane things for the sake of their beliefs. Of course, just because they are smart or they do extreme things does not mean their views are correct, but if there is anyone who would have a messianic role that would free us from a delusion it would most certainly come in this type of person.
Imagine that you are in a dystopian society, which no one recognizes as dystopian, creates immense suffering and threatens mankind. It's not hard to imagine the lengths one could go to in those situations. So I feel a kind of compulsion towards such people because while you can easily argue that they are just crazy if it so happens that society is crazy instead and them the sane ones, you would be ignoring the most important truth possible simply because it's against the status quo. The fact that I've seen several people consider the work of high-quality and not just mindless reactionary ramblings propelled me further to read it.
The main work from Kaczynski is "Industrial Society and Its Future", which was the original manifesto he wanted to get publicity for. The edition I have read is an expanded one, which includes extra letters, notes and appendices which clarify or expand his work. Its consider unfinished because he's constantly under the threat of his communication being cut out from the outside world, in which case the material would have never been published. I enjoyed the extra material and has interesting additions and clarifications, but for most people, I don't think it's worth it. The original text of Industrial Society and Its Future has his key ideas and it's quite short, I think most people ought to read as it requires little time investment.
Reading the main text was honestly scary. Because he was considered such a revolutionary, I expected his views to be crazy, but most of its ideas that not only I agree with, but in fact that I've written about a couple of years ago. I write in a quasi-depersonalized manner in which I try to express an idea and doesn't necessarily reflect my true beliefs, but nevertheless, I do hold a similar anti-technological sentiment, but I've always considered that those beliefs that likely a slightly delirious part of my personality. But seeing them confirmed in such explicit light almost freaked me out.
His main thesis is that technology is inherently harmful to mankind, particularly the technology after the industrial revolution. This is quite a hard thing to explain and appreciate in our technology-obsessed society, but it is a reasonable position if analyzed carefully. What made me shift towards a somewhat anti-technological stance, and in my opinion Kaczynski's strongest point, was my realization that while technology is antithetical the core of humanity, but its progression is incremental. What makes this truly frightening is when you realize that technology cannot be stopped. Not only because if it's a slow progression that doesn't offer any meaningful point to stop that won't eventually be overcome, but also because technology comes with so many benefits, particularly regarding comfort and economic prosperity.
In fact, a lot of technological advances, and the most problematic ones, can be advanced by claiming that they help mankind, and in a way that's definitely true. The best case being genetic engineering, which is mentioned often and well-argued. Not only is technology beneficial, but one can even argue that not using it or not developing it further is immoral as it has the ability to decrease suffering. The most horrifying cognizance is that this makes technological progression inevitable, and then one can easily see Kaczynski's perspective and despair. And the more technological our society becomes, the harder it is to reverse it. His drastic actions were in part due to his belief that we are in a narrow period where reversing society is still possible, but that will soon no longer be the case and it will hit a point of no return.
The way technology develops and the consequences of it are not the easiest to explain, and thus I won't cover it in detail here. Kaczynski does a fantastic job of presenting the case, so if you're interested, simply read his short manifesto "Industrial Society and Its Future", no further reading or letters required. But if you decide to read this, I highly recommend reading the novel "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster beforehand. It deals with the same theme but in a literary form which is incredibly well done and it is a good non-political introduction to breaking the pro-technological view that we culturally inherent. If you think Kaczynski is just batshit insane, I would consider Forster's reading mandatory in order to fully understand Kaczynski's worldview. Both texts would add up to around 200 pages.
The ideas in the book aren't exactly original, and several philosophers have expressed similar views and concerns, however, what makes this text so valuable is that it's presented in an incredibly easy to digest format. There is no heavy philosophical jargon, and despite the work being uncompleted, it is surprisingly well organized and coherent. Therefore I believe it's the single best resource with an anti-technological stance available.
I was pleasantly surprised by how academic and well thought out the text was. He is not only smart but incredibly knowledgable, and his views are anything but random. They are rooted in a deep knowledge of history, psychology and anthropology and sociology. This does not mean he can't be wrong nor that his interpretations are automatically correct, but is a work that can easily be considered a solid academic work if it wasn't for his actions and radical political views. I was particularly impressed by his study of the history of previous revolutions (such as the Bolsheviks) in order to shed light on what type of action would be productive or not.
Despite my complements of the work, I don't agree with everything, far from it. First of all, I don't like the political tone of the book. He heavily criticizes the left, particularly in its modern social justice forms. While I understand the criticism and partially agree with some of his analysis, nevertheless as the whole I think it's not completely fair. It is oversimplistic, and it is heavily distorted to fit his anti-technology ideology. Despite this, I do think some of his claims about the "left psychology" are valid, even though exaggerated. Some of the best points have been well articulated by Thomas Sowell.
If you consider yourself on the left, you will most definitely not enjoy this part, and I don't blame you. But this anti-left sentiment does not invalidate his anti-technological stance, and try to be open-minded and truly see where is coming from. While it is natural to cringe at some claims, don't be tempted to dismiss everything outright just because it critiques your political group.
I think this is one of the major flaws of his work, which alienates a lot of people from the political left. This is even more problematic because the left could be a great alley in this endeavour, especially with environmental concerns, which are one of the key themes problems for Kaczynski. He does give his reasoning for being so anti-left, in remarkable detail, but I don't quite buy it and I think is mistaken of how he views the topic.
This political approach also has the consequence of attracting the type of people that are anti-left, and thus his ideas and movements start to get infiltrated by the far right. While in my opinion Kaczynski himself is not far-right, a lot of his anti-left views can easily be wrongly misunderstood as if is against social justice in general, and this is definitely an element which will be inevitably exploited. This can even be seen in his letters, in which sometimes he seems to correct a far-right political analysis from his correspondent and try to return the problem to technology.
There were other areas that I disagreed with. I think that his view of surrogate activities (artificial activities beyond physical satisfaction) is misguided, and he greatly misrepresents how human beings pursue meaningful activities and how that relates to survival instincts and a life well-lived. In feels in some sense that he is taking his personality traits as a prescriptive philosophical position. However, I find his argument of the system artificially forcing people into STEM fields exclusively due to technological and economic concerns very compelling and something that rarely gets attention.
His erroneous view of human activities relates to how he views the identity and existential crisis of modernity. He seems to reject existentialism completely and it seems to imply that the desire to create meaning is completely awry, a misunderstanding of how human beings exist in the world. While I think his views have support from the lifestyles of more traditional societies, I think that's caused by their particular culture which does not have the same existential problems that we have due to a completely altered worldview. However, does this not necessarily mean the traditional worldview is correct, and that the natural state of humanity which does not seek to find meaning beyond a traditional life focused on survival and leisure is the right one.
This is related to his neglect of meaning in his philosophy. His worldview seems to have little concern for matters of spirituality and self-transcendence. The little role this has is taken within his anti-technological ideology. Any spiritual is to simply be found in a pre-technological state, and that's all that there is to it. I find this incredibly naive, and it is in large part causes his oversimplification of the existential crisis of the modern man. He is absolutely correct of the existential threat from modern society and technology, but reducing everything to it is very reductionist.
I also disagree with his revolutionary position. He thinks that mankind needs to reject post-industrial society, and he advocates for a revolutionary group to literally destroy society as we currently know it. I certainly don't agree with the bombings, but I wouldn't even agree that we should reject technology completely. For one, I'm not sure if the net benefit is worth it. While Kaczynski has great care in order not to fall into the noble savage myth and he addressed this at length, nevertheless I think a lot of drawbacks are very significant. He fully acknowledges the consequences but thinks they are worth it nevertheless. I understand the position, but I think it's wrong. Even more so because we wouldn't go back to a nomadic lifestyle. He admits that agriculture would eventually develop, and even concludes that medieval serfdom would likely emerge again. In fact, I'm not even sure if modern society wouldn't simply develop again with time. While he does offer good arguments against it, I wasn't completely convinced. And the fact that he doesn't view serfdom as a big deal when comparing to the societal conditions that are given with a technological state only further convinces me that his analysis of the net benefit from renouncing modern society is crooked.
Furthermore, regardless of the net benefit of reverting society to a pre-technological state, I certainly don't think such a revolution is possible. While he gives a good analysis of why he thinks it can be done, and I was deeply impressed by how well thought out his plan is, I still think it would be impossible in our current globalized society. Nevertheless, I was amazed by his explanation of how our technological society could be disrupted. It really gave me the sense that it is not as stable as we think, and the interconnectedness of technology (relying on other technologies, which rely on other technologies) does make it relatively easy for large scale destabilization, to a degree which I never dreamed of. But I still think that won't be enough, and such disruptions will always be fixed. For it to work it would have to be a massive global coordinated effort, which will never happen. And to reiterate, this is assuming that I would support the revolution, which I do not.
I honestly didn't expect the work to be so thought-provoking, and the amount of sheer insight that is presented is very under-rated. I think it just didn't gain more popularity due to its political anti-left stance as I mentioned. I disagree with a lot of points, but his fundamental analysis of the consequences of our technological society is not just good, but in my opinion, completely spot on. I understand that many won't think so, and I wouldn't either a few years ago, but as I got older and learned more, I truly think his analysis is correct.
A lot of it applies to our current situation, but if you truly take seriously future developments as Kaczynski describes, particularly in genetic engineering and surveillance, it makes his case really strong. And it's close to impossible to deny the dystopia that will bring. What makes the work so grim for me is that I think his views are correct but his solution incorrect. And while I don't agree with his solution, but I can't really give an alternative either. It seems that I have no choice to succumb to the system, to the machine. It truly makes me wonder if he isn't correct after all, and my disagreement comes from a subconscious cowardliness of engaging in a revolution (ignoring the deontological problems that bring), in addition to the fear of losing modern comforts, even if they truly aren't worth the existential cost we pay for them. It's a remarkable work, and if you're interested in the topic of technology this is an absolute must-read it.
As mentioned, I think reading "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster beforehand is recommended, and try to keep an open mind while reading Kaczynski's work. Don't reject it outright because you disagree with some political points, fully embrace his worldview and then analyze it in its own right. While this review is long, it didn't scratch the surface of what he covers and a lot of the evidence and arguments presented. While I think he is wrong in many ways, he is definitely not mad, and if anything saner than the common person by a manyfold. His supposed diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder" by a psychiatrist during the trial if anything strengthens his position.
I'm already very interested in views about technology, which made me interested in the book. And I was particularly curious about Kaczynski's work because I've always had an odd fascination with people who are extremely smart and yet do extreme insane things for the sake of their beliefs. Of course, just because they are smart or they do extreme things does not mean their views are correct, but if there is anyone who would have a messianic role that would free us from a delusion it would most certainly come in this type of person.
Imagine that you are in a dystopian society, which no one recognizes as dystopian, creates immense suffering and threatens mankind. It's not hard to imagine the lengths one could go to in those situations. So I feel a kind of compulsion towards such people because while you can easily argue that they are just crazy if it so happens that society is crazy instead and them the sane ones, you would be ignoring the most important truth possible simply because it's against the status quo. The fact that I've seen several people consider the work of high-quality and not just mindless reactionary ramblings propelled me further to read it.
The main work from Kaczynski is "Industrial Society and Its Future", which was the original manifesto he wanted to get publicity for. The edition I have read is an expanded one, which includes extra letters, notes and appendices which clarify or expand his work. Its consider unfinished because he's constantly under the threat of his communication being cut out from the outside world, in which case the material would have never been published. I enjoyed the extra material and has interesting additions and clarifications, but for most people, I don't think it's worth it. The original text of Industrial Society and Its Future has his key ideas and it's quite short, I think most people ought to read as it requires little time investment.
Reading the main text was honestly scary. Because he was considered such a revolutionary, I expected his views to be crazy, but most of its ideas that not only I agree with, but in fact that I've written about a couple of years ago. I write in a quasi-depersonalized manner in which I try to express an idea and doesn't necessarily reflect my true beliefs, but nevertheless, I do hold a similar anti-technological sentiment, but I've always considered that those beliefs that likely a slightly delirious part of my personality. But seeing them confirmed in such explicit light almost freaked me out.
His main thesis is that technology is inherently harmful to mankind, particularly the technology after the industrial revolution. This is quite a hard thing to explain and appreciate in our technology-obsessed society, but it is a reasonable position if analyzed carefully. What made me shift towards a somewhat anti-technological stance, and in my opinion Kaczynski's strongest point, was my realization that while technology is antithetical the core of humanity, but its progression is incremental. What makes this truly frightening is when you realize that technology cannot be stopped. Not only because if it's a slow progression that doesn't offer any meaningful point to stop that won't eventually be overcome, but also because technology comes with so many benefits, particularly regarding comfort and economic prosperity.
In fact, a lot of technological advances, and the most problematic ones, can be advanced by claiming that they help mankind, and in a way that's definitely true. The best case being genetic engineering, which is mentioned often and well-argued. Not only is technology beneficial, but one can even argue that not using it or not developing it further is immoral as it has the ability to decrease suffering. The most horrifying cognizance is that this makes technological progression inevitable, and then one can easily see Kaczynski's perspective and despair. And the more technological our society becomes, the harder it is to reverse it. His drastic actions were in part due to his belief that we are in a narrow period where reversing society is still possible, but that will soon no longer be the case and it will hit a point of no return.
The way technology develops and the consequences of it are not the easiest to explain, and thus I won't cover it in detail here. Kaczynski does a fantastic job of presenting the case, so if you're interested, simply read his short manifesto "Industrial Society and Its Future", no further reading or letters required. But if you decide to read this, I highly recommend reading the novel "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster beforehand. It deals with the same theme but in a literary form which is incredibly well done and it is a good non-political introduction to breaking the pro-technological view that we culturally inherent. If you think Kaczynski is just batshit insane, I would consider Forster's reading mandatory in order to fully understand Kaczynski's worldview. Both texts would add up to around 200 pages.
The ideas in the book aren't exactly original, and several philosophers have expressed similar views and concerns, however, what makes this text so valuable is that it's presented in an incredibly easy to digest format. There is no heavy philosophical jargon, and despite the work being uncompleted, it is surprisingly well organized and coherent. Therefore I believe it's the single best resource with an anti-technological stance available.
I was pleasantly surprised by how academic and well thought out the text was. He is not only smart but incredibly knowledgable, and his views are anything but random. They are rooted in a deep knowledge of history, psychology and anthropology and sociology. This does not mean he can't be wrong nor that his interpretations are automatically correct, but is a work that can easily be considered a solid academic work if it wasn't for his actions and radical political views. I was particularly impressed by his study of the history of previous revolutions (such as the Bolsheviks) in order to shed light on what type of action would be productive or not.
Despite my complements of the work, I don't agree with everything, far from it. First of all, I don't like the political tone of the book. He heavily criticizes the left, particularly in its modern social justice forms. While I understand the criticism and partially agree with some of his analysis, nevertheless as the whole I think it's not completely fair. It is oversimplistic, and it is heavily distorted to fit his anti-technology ideology. Despite this, I do think some of his claims about the "left psychology" are valid, even though exaggerated. Some of the best points have been well articulated by Thomas Sowell.
If you consider yourself on the left, you will most definitely not enjoy this part, and I don't blame you. But this anti-left sentiment does not invalidate his anti-technological stance, and try to be open-minded and truly see where is coming from. While it is natural to cringe at some claims, don't be tempted to dismiss everything outright just because it critiques your political group.
I think this is one of the major flaws of his work, which alienates a lot of people from the political left. This is even more problematic because the left could be a great alley in this endeavour, especially with environmental concerns, which are one of the key themes problems for Kaczynski. He does give his reasoning for being so anti-left, in remarkable detail, but I don't quite buy it and I think is mistaken of how he views the topic.
This political approach also has the consequence of attracting the type of people that are anti-left, and thus his ideas and movements start to get infiltrated by the far right. While in my opinion Kaczynski himself is not far-right, a lot of his anti-left views can easily be wrongly misunderstood as if is against social justice in general, and this is definitely an element which will be inevitably exploited. This can even be seen in his letters, in which sometimes he seems to correct a far-right political analysis from his correspondent and try to return the problem to technology.
There were other areas that I disagreed with. I think that his view of surrogate activities (artificial activities beyond physical satisfaction) is misguided, and he greatly misrepresents how human beings pursue meaningful activities and how that relates to survival instincts and a life well-lived. In feels in some sense that he is taking his personality traits as a prescriptive philosophical position. However, I find his argument of the system artificially forcing people into STEM fields exclusively due to technological and economic concerns very compelling and something that rarely gets attention.
His erroneous view of human activities relates to how he views the identity and existential crisis of modernity. He seems to reject existentialism completely and it seems to imply that the desire to create meaning is completely awry, a misunderstanding of how human beings exist in the world. While I think his views have support from the lifestyles of more traditional societies, I think that's caused by their particular culture which does not have the same existential problems that we have due to a completely altered worldview. However, does this not necessarily mean the traditional worldview is correct, and that the natural state of humanity which does not seek to find meaning beyond a traditional life focused on survival and leisure is the right one.
This is related to his neglect of meaning in his philosophy. His worldview seems to have little concern for matters of spirituality and self-transcendence. The little role this has is taken within his anti-technological ideology. Any spiritual is to simply be found in a pre-technological state, and that's all that there is to it. I find this incredibly naive, and it is in large part causes his oversimplification of the existential crisis of the modern man. He is absolutely correct of the existential threat from modern society and technology, but reducing everything to it is very reductionist.
I also disagree with his revolutionary position. He thinks that mankind needs to reject post-industrial society, and he advocates for a revolutionary group to literally destroy society as we currently know it. I certainly don't agree with the bombings, but I wouldn't even agree that we should reject technology completely. For one, I'm not sure if the net benefit is worth it. While Kaczynski has great care in order not to fall into the noble savage myth and he addressed this at length, nevertheless I think a lot of drawbacks are very significant. He fully acknowledges the consequences but thinks they are worth it nevertheless. I understand the position, but I think it's wrong. Even more so because we wouldn't go back to a nomadic lifestyle. He admits that agriculture would eventually develop, and even concludes that medieval serfdom would likely emerge again. In fact, I'm not even sure if modern society wouldn't simply develop again with time. While he does offer good arguments against it, I wasn't completely convinced. And the fact that he doesn't view serfdom as a big deal when comparing to the societal conditions that are given with a technological state only further convinces me that his analysis of the net benefit from renouncing modern society is crooked.
Furthermore, regardless of the net benefit of reverting society to a pre-technological state, I certainly don't think such a revolution is possible. While he gives a good analysis of why he thinks it can be done, and I was deeply impressed by how well thought out his plan is, I still think it would be impossible in our current globalized society. Nevertheless, I was amazed by his explanation of how our technological society could be disrupted. It really gave me the sense that it is not as stable as we think, and the interconnectedness of technology (relying on other technologies, which rely on other technologies) does make it relatively easy for large scale destabilization, to a degree which I never dreamed of. But I still think that won't be enough, and such disruptions will always be fixed. For it to work it would have to be a massive global coordinated effort, which will never happen. And to reiterate, this is assuming that I would support the revolution, which I do not.
I honestly didn't expect the work to be so thought-provoking, and the amount of sheer insight that is presented is very under-rated. I think it just didn't gain more popularity due to its political anti-left stance as I mentioned. I disagree with a lot of points, but his fundamental analysis of the consequences of our technological society is not just good, but in my opinion, completely spot on. I understand that many won't think so, and I wouldn't either a few years ago, but as I got older and learned more, I truly think his analysis is correct.
A lot of it applies to our current situation, but if you truly take seriously future developments as Kaczynski describes, particularly in genetic engineering and surveillance, it makes his case really strong. And it's close to impossible to deny the dystopia that will bring. What makes the work so grim for me is that I think his views are correct but his solution incorrect. And while I don't agree with his solution, but I can't really give an alternative either. It seems that I have no choice to succumb to the system, to the machine. It truly makes me wonder if he isn't correct after all, and my disagreement comes from a subconscious cowardliness of engaging in a revolution (ignoring the deontological problems that bring), in addition to the fear of losing modern comforts, even if they truly aren't worth the existential cost we pay for them. It's a remarkable work, and if you're interested in the topic of technology this is an absolute must-read it.
As mentioned, I think reading "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster beforehand is recommended, and try to keep an open mind while reading Kaczynski's work. Don't reject it outright because you disagree with some political points, fully embrace his worldview and then analyze it in its own right. While this review is long, it didn't scratch the surface of what he covers and a lot of the evidence and arguments presented. While I think he is wrong in many ways, he is definitely not mad, and if anything saner than the common person by a manyfold. His supposed diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder" by a psychiatrist during the trial if anything strengthens his position.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 23, 2019
Quotes
It is important, too, to realize that deadly violence among primitives is not even remotely comparable to modern warfare. When primitives fight, two little bands of men shoot arrows or swing war-clubs at one another because they want to fight; or because they are defending themselves, their families, or their territory. In the modern world soldiers fight because they are forced to do so, or, at best, because they have been brainwashed into believing in some kook ideology such as that of Nazism,socialism, or what American politicians choose to call “freedom.” In any case the modern soldier is merely a pawn, a dupe who dies not for his family or his tribe but for the politicians who exploit him. If he’s unlucky, maybe he does not die but comes home horribly crippled in a way that would never result from an arrow- or a spear-wound. Meanwhile, thousands of non-combatants are killed or mutilated. The environment is ravaged, not only in the war zone, but also back home, due to the accelerated consumption of natural resources needed to feed the war machine. In comparison, the violence of primitive man is relatively innocuous.
Instead of using their technological means of production to provide themselves with free time in which to undertake intellectual and artistic work, people today devote themselves to the struggle for status, prestige, and power, and to the accumulation of material goods that serve only as toys. The kind of art and literature in which the average modern American immerses himself is the kind provided by television, movies, and popular novels and magazines; and it is not exactly what the 18th-century optimists had in mind. In effect, American popular culture has been reduced to mere hedonism, and hedonism of a particularly contemptible kind. “Serious” art does exist, but it tends to neurosis, pessimism, and defeatism.
As was to be expected, hedonism has not brought happiness. The spiritual emptiness of the culture of hedonism has left many people deeply dissatisfied. Depression, nervous tension, and anxiety disorders are widespread, 3 and for that reason many Americans resort to drugs (legal or illegal) to alleviate these symptoms, or to modify their mental state in some other way. Other indications of American social sickness are, for example, child abuse and the frequent inability to sleep or to eat normally. And, even among those Americans who seem to have adapted best to modern life, a cynical attitude toward the institutions of their own society is prevalent.
This chronic dissatisfaction and the sickly psychological condition of modern man are not normal and inevitable parts of human existence. We need not idealize the life of primitive peoples or conceal facts that are unpleasant from a modern point of view, such as the high rate of infant mortality or, in some cultures, a violent and warlike spirit. There is nevertheless reason to believe that primitive man was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is and suffered much less from psychological problems than modern man does. For example, among hunting-andgathering cultures, before they were disrupted by the intrusion of industrial society, child abuse was almost nonexistent.4 And there is evidence that in most of these cultures there was very little anxiety or nervous tension.
As far as I know, almost the only thinking people who remain enthusiastic about technology are those who stand to profit from it in some way, such as scientists, engineers, corporate executives and military men. A much larger number of people are cynical about modern society and have lost faith in its institutions. They no longer respect a political system in which the most despicable candidates can be successfully sold to the public through sophisticated propaganda techniques. They are contemptuous of an electronic entertainment industry that feeds us garbage. They know that schoolchildren are being drugged (with Ritalin, etc.) to keep them docile in the classroom, they know that species are becoming extinct at an abnormal rate, that environmental catastrophe is a very real possibility, and that technology is driving us all into the unknown at reckless speed, with consequences that may be utterly disastrous. But, because they have no hope that the technological juggernaut can be stopped, they have grown apathetic. They simply accept technological progress and its consequences as unavoidable evils, and they try not to think about the future.
It is important, too, to realize that deadly violence among primitives is not even remotely comparable to modern warfare. When primitives fight, two little bands of men shoot arrows or swing war-clubs at one another because they want to fight; or because they are defending themselves, their families, or their territory. In the modern world soldiers fight because they are forced to do so, or, at best, because they have been brainwashed into believing in some kook ideology such as that of Nazism,socialism, or what American politicians choose to call “freedom.” In any case the modern soldier is merely a pawn, a dupe who dies not for his family or his tribe but for the politicians who exploit him. If he’s unlucky, maybe he does not die but comes home horribly crippled in a way that would never result from an arrow- or a spear-wound. Meanwhile, thousands of non-combatants are killed or mutilated. The environment is ravaged, not only in the war zone, but also back home, due to the accelerated consumption of natural resources needed to feed the war machine. In comparison, the violence of primitive man is relatively innocuous.
Instead of using their technological means of production to provide themselves with free time in which to undertake intellectual and artistic work, people today devote themselves to the struggle for status, prestige, and power, and to the accumulation of material goods that serve only as toys. The kind of art and literature in which the average modern American immerses himself is the kind provided by television, movies, and popular novels and magazines; and it is not exactly what the 18th-century optimists had in mind. In effect, American popular culture has been reduced to mere hedonism, and hedonism of a particularly contemptible kind. “Serious” art does exist, but it tends to neurosis, pessimism, and defeatism.
As was to be expected, hedonism has not brought happiness. The spiritual emptiness of the culture of hedonism has left many people deeply dissatisfied. Depression, nervous tension, and anxiety disorders are widespread, 3 and for that reason many Americans resort to drugs (legal or illegal) to alleviate these symptoms, or to modify their mental state in some other way. Other indications of American social sickness are, for example, child abuse and the frequent inability to sleep or to eat normally. And, even among those Americans who seem to have adapted best to modern life, a cynical attitude toward the institutions of their own society is prevalent.
This chronic dissatisfaction and the sickly psychological condition of modern man are not normal and inevitable parts of human existence. We need not idealize the life of primitive peoples or conceal facts that are unpleasant from a modern point of view, such as the high rate of infant mortality or, in some cultures, a violent and warlike spirit. There is nevertheless reason to believe that primitive man was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is and suffered much less from psychological problems than modern man does. For example, among hunting-andgathering cultures, before they were disrupted by the intrusion of industrial society, child abuse was almost nonexistent.4 And there is evidence that in most of these cultures there was very little anxiety or nervous tension.
As far as I know, almost the only thinking people who remain enthusiastic about technology are those who stand to profit from it in some way, such as scientists, engineers, corporate executives and military men. A much larger number of people are cynical about modern society and have lost faith in its institutions. They no longer respect a political system in which the most despicable candidates can be successfully sold to the public through sophisticated propaganda techniques. They are contemptuous of an electronic entertainment industry that feeds us garbage. They know that schoolchildren are being drugged (with Ritalin, etc.) to keep them docile in the classroom, they know that species are becoming extinct at an abnormal rate, that environmental catastrophe is a very real possibility, and that technology is driving us all into the unknown at reckless speed, with consequences that may be utterly disastrous. But, because they have no hope that the technological juggernaut can be stopped, they have grown apathetic. They simply accept technological progress and its consequences as unavoidable evils, and they try not to think about the future.
March 4, 2021
5 stars not because it’s perfect or anything near that — there’s some whack stuff that I disagree with for sure — but for the supreme importance of the overall anti-technoindustrial ideas presented here. Can’t remember the last time I read a book that made me question my assumptions and the nature of our civilization so profoundly (maybe 1984 when I was 16 lol). I want to recommend this to everyone!!
October 4, 2018
Lucid arguements. However, in accordance to his view, such developments are outside the control of any individual and alas his revolutionary movement seems a pipe dream. Focus only what is in your immediate sphere of influence.
October 4, 2016
the most important book i have ever read. it will change your life.
February 20, 2018
Top book
Must read for everyone who would like to care about their future and that of our planet and its species
Must read for everyone who would like to care about their future and that of our planet and its species
August 27, 2020
great
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 11, 2019
4/5
but -1 for the murder
but -1 for the murder
April 8, 2021
Some material is unneeded. However, Ted’s essay on his life in the wilderness is fantastic. Please check it out.
Want to read
December 11, 2024با دستگیری قاتل رییس بیمه های بهداشتی در نیویورک بنابراخباررسمی مشخص شد که او تحصیلکرده علوم کامپیوتر و ظاهرا" زندگی عادی و نرمالی داشته و سه صفحه درباره انگیزه اش نوشته دارد . طبق آن تفسیر او تحت تاثیر تئودور جان کازینسکی بوده ودرگودریدز تفسیرجامعی درباب نظرات او نوشته است . شرج جال کازینسکی ازموارد عجیب روزگارونوابغی با سرنوشت عجیب تراست . کازینسکی اولین موردازاین شخصیتهای باهوش و عجیب نیست . بابی فیشرقهرمان شطرنج دنیا و دیگرانی که غالبا" تحصیلکرده علوم محض بودند. زندگی اینها همیشه برای من جالب بوده و قضاوت درباره آنها ازمیان فراوانی روایتهای حاکم شاید دشوارباشد .
May 24, 2020
I will restrict myself to commenting only on the main manifesto - other parts of the book are interesting, but they only provide a background to what takes place in the main part of the book. I read this book for a second time because I wanted to revisit Kaczynski's theory.
Kaczynski was able to put together a coherent body of arguments that has its main strength in its intelligibility and goals: destroy the techno-industrialist system before it destroys everything alive on this planet.
We can see how his dated theory makes sense more and more- climate crisis, pollution, extinction of species, now called the sixth extinction, insane economy focusing on growth (even in the New Green Deal proposed both by Democratic candidates in US and EU).
Now what I consider crazy - people thank technology for saving their lives. The same technology that oftentimes released toxins into environment, produced fast and dangerous cars, and made their lives dependent on external devices that took away their sense of reality.
The main problem that I can see is the concept of revolution - nothing is happening on this front and as we can see, there is ever more fake news, conspiracies, and other forms of possible ways how to fight a honest insurgency. Even mildly radical ecological organizations are being blamed for many ills of our society by "protecting the frogs instead of people". In the wake of this, we cannot really expect any kind of small scale revolutionary movement to succeed in the First world countries.
So the main question for the disenfranchised minority of people who tend to think in Kaczynskis' terms is: what shall we do?
Kaczynski was able to put together a coherent body of arguments that has its main strength in its intelligibility and goals: destroy the techno-industrialist system before it destroys everything alive on this planet.
We can see how his dated theory makes sense more and more- climate crisis, pollution, extinction of species, now called the sixth extinction, insane economy focusing on growth (even in the New Green Deal proposed both by Democratic candidates in US and EU).
Now what I consider crazy - people thank technology for saving their lives. The same technology that oftentimes released toxins into environment, produced fast and dangerous cars, and made their lives dependent on external devices that took away their sense of reality.
The main problem that I can see is the concept of revolution - nothing is happening on this front and as we can see, there is ever more fake news, conspiracies, and other forms of possible ways how to fight a honest insurgency. Even mildly radical ecological organizations are being blamed for many ills of our society by "protecting the frogs instead of people". In the wake of this, we cannot really expect any kind of small scale revolutionary movement to succeed in the First world countries.
So the main question for the disenfranchised minority of people who tend to think in Kaczynskis' terms is: what shall we do?
April 10, 2018
It's incredibly sad that this mans mind was directed towards violence. His ideas and the manner in which he expressed them here are valid, important, and terrifyingly on point.
A good review of this book in no way condones or excuses the actions of the man, and he receives no profit from this publication.
A good review of this book in no way condones or excuses the actions of the man, and he receives no profit from this publication.
May 17, 2015
A must read.
January 20, 2019
Wonderful book unfortunately undermined by his horribly evil actions. How I wish he had just spread his important message peacefully!
February 11, 2019
Very interesting philosophy. I don't think I'm even smart enough to understand it all.
May 9, 2020
Further writings from Kaczynski along the same lines as the manifesto but expanding certain ideas and with additional topics such as primitivism and his theory of history.
August 7, 2020
I do NOT agree with what Kaczynski did, but the book is very interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 153 reviews