Industrial Society And Its Future By Theodore J Kaczynski
So no matter how well meaning they are, or how worthy their goals, leftists must ultimately rely on and support technological society. There’s no guarantee that if we keep the industrial society, billions die to climate change. Technology gave us the power to shape the climate and it can give us the power to shape the climate beneficially. If we pull the technological society up by its roots and return to the pre-industrial society, billions die from starvation, disease, and natural disaster, as we are no longer able to move resources to help them. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries’ ONLY goal.
He wanted to live alone in peace in the wilderness. But human development in the area made that impossible after a while. He was against technology and believed that it was making society worse.
I don’t believe what he has to say is so revolutionary that I’m missing much by not reading it, and I agree with the sentiment that I’m respecting the Unabomber’s goals by reading it – so I just wont. Good ideas are a dime a dozen, the tricky part is execution. Fortunately, murder is usually an ineffective way to affect public policies.
And a stable society can’t condone lone-wolf assassination or mass killing of unrelated individuals, so it will always interpret the Unabomber’s strategy as antisocial and route around it. The reason Ted felt that “violent rebellion” was necessary is because these organizations can’t possibly stop the inevitable results of what technological society does. They’re only a stymie, a stopgap, not a long term solution.
It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions.
The Soviet empire lasted about as much time as the time between the writing of the manifesto and its implementation by the revolutionaries (possibly less, depending on how you define the USSR’s lifetime). If, 300 years from now, history remembers this era as a dark time of bad technology that humanity grew out of, the Unabomber gets remembered as this struggle’s John Brown, not this struggle’s Abraham Lincoln. Further, your statement implies an assumption which is not correct. The implication you’re making is that because things have so far remain unchanged, Kaczynski’s actions were therefore unjustified and/or his writings were not true. Just because an anti-tech revolutionary movement has not materialized and the industrial system is not under serious revolutionary threat does not invalidate the truth of Kaczynski’s ideas or the validity of Kaczynski’s actions. You would not be justified in implying this any more than you would be justified in claiming Galileo had no effect or was wrong because he was placed under house arrest and almost nobody believed him .