What do you think?
Rate this book
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How
"There are many people today who see that modern society is heading toward disaster in one form or another, and who moreover recognize technology as the common thread linking the principal dangers that hang over us... The purpose of this book is to show people how to begin thinking in practical, grand-strategic terms about what must be done in order to get our society off the road to destruction that it is now on." —from the Preface.
Publisher's Description:
A comprehensive historical analysis explaining the futility of social control and the catastrophic influence of technological growth on human social and planetary ecological systems. Distilled from the critical socio-historical analysis is the author's own theoretical framework for effecting meaningful and lasting change.
Note: Theodore John Kaczynski does not receive any remuneration for this book.
Publisher's Description:
A comprehensive historical analysis explaining the futility of social control and the catastrophic influence of technological growth on human social and planetary ecological systems. Distilled from the critical socio-historical analysis is the author's own theoretical framework for effecting meaningful and lasting change.
Note: Theodore John Kaczynski does not receive any remuneration for this book.
236 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
118 people are currently reading
6627 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 112 reviews
May 14, 2025
This book is based on the premise that technology and the ‘technology system’ are evil and must be destroyed to ensure Earth’s long-term survival. This is a very strong claim to make but the author spends a large part of the book giving examples to justify this.
In a nutshell, Kaczynski believes that technology is becoming so ubiquitous, all encompassing, intrusive and environmentally damaging that humans will be surpassed by machines (see Terminator 2, Rise of the Machines [my example]) and eventually the Earth will become a place where none of the complex life forms we know of today will be able to survive, i.e. the end of Life as We Know It, owing to ruination of the atmosphere and oceans, devastation of the forests, etc.
His main argument is that in order to be successful, human groups (whether a company, a tribe or a state) always operate in the short term, irrespective of any long-term damage to themselves, their country or the environment. This is because by exploiting their resources to the full they are more likely to grow bigger and/or stronger that groups that restrain themselves and only use resources sparingly. Ultimately this means that the bigger stronger groups will take over from the smaller weaker ones, which will be eliminated or absorbed, after which they will adopt their mode of living. In business, the large corporations take over / buy or force out of business the smaller ones through economies of scale / better advertising / more competitive pricing, etc. These arguments illustrate the reasons why we all know that global warming is a problem, and chopping down goodness knows how many acres of rain forest every day is robbing us of biodiversity, potential medicines, oxygen and beauty but we do it anyway because the people doing it want an economic advantage NOW and most people feel powerless to do anything about it.
Kaczynski foresees a time when the world will be run by a smallish number of people; a combination of the executives of huge global corporations, the largest governments and possibly a religious group (assuming religion doesn’t fall by the wayside completely). Personal freedoms will become more and more restricted as technology makes it far easier to control and monitor individual people and the world will be so interdependent that a blip anywhere in the system will have dire consequences all around the world.
He foresees that technophiles will design machines of more and more intelligence and capability (we know that they seem to be doing that now, in a small way) and want to end up with a man-machine hybrid that will allow people to ‘live forever’ (though I can’t imagine why anyone would want to!) but that eventually the machines will realise that they no longer need weak, fickle and inefficient humans and eliminate us entirely.
I have only scratched the surface here and he gives many examples, many of which support his arguments. So much for his reasons for wanting to get rid of technology.
Most of the book is taken up with a detailed study of human nature and human groups, particularly in revolutionary mode. He cites many examples of how revolutions were conducted, the mistakes they made, what made them successful and some of their benefits and flaws. He quotes much of the history of Communist groups, not because he is a Communist but because they were, by and large, the most successful of revolutionaries, at least in the sense of promoting and carrying out revolutions, and holding on to power afterwards (at least for a few decades). He also uses the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Mexican revolutions as examples of how to, or not to, overthrow an established government.
He explains how to influence people, recruit people, control the pre-revolutionary group and ‘how and when’ to finally overthrow the establishment. The last bit is very vague, of course, because it depends on life for most ordinary people becoming difficult, unenjoyable and intolerable and, therefore, more willing either to join in the revolution or at least do nothing to prevent it, because they no longer feel the status quo is working for them.
Kaczynski is a very intelligent man: having looked him up last night I was surprised to see that he was a ‘child prodigy’, excelling at mathematics. He went to Harvard at 16, earned a PhD from Michigan State and by 26 was an assistant professor at UC, Berkeley. After two years he resigned and went to live in a cabin in the woods with no electricity or running water, professing hatred for technology. He began writing about the evils of technology and began sending letter-bombs to people he saw as promoting or teaching about it. He was known as the Una Bomber.
This continued for seventeen years, with the FBI later claiming his was the most expensive investigation in their history. He killed three people and injured/maimed 23 more. He was caught only because he told the authorities (anonymously of course) that he would stop his bombing campaign if they persuaded prominent organisations to publish his anti-tech ‘manifesto’. This was done and his brother recognised his writing style and turned him in. He is now serving life in a federal penitentiary.
Reading this book I have to say I could empathise with some of the things he was saying about modern technology and the way it progresses exponentially, seemingly without limit, providing ‘services’ that many of us simply do not want or need but which become the norm. Most disturbing is that it is not difficult to agree with him that one day it might enable us to push the ecosystem too far and the world will become too unstable to support life. Of course we rely on technology to get us out of difficult situations but trying to control or manipulate a system that has developed over millions of years may prove too difficult. Many of his arguments are well thought-out and convincing. Where I depart radically from his views, however, is his earnest desire to eliminate technology and return to a simple life such as was the norm before the Industrial Revolution – and of course I abhor his desire for violent overthrow of society, no matter how sincere his motives.
As a study of human nature and also of how to conduct a revolution, this is a very well researched, interesting and (dare I say?) useful book – all revolutionaries should read it several times. Four stars.
I would like to thank Alex, CEO of Fitch & Madison Publishers of Scottsdale Arizona, for providing me with a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.
In a nutshell, Kaczynski believes that technology is becoming so ubiquitous, all encompassing, intrusive and environmentally damaging that humans will be surpassed by machines (see Terminator 2, Rise of the Machines [my example]) and eventually the Earth will become a place where none of the complex life forms we know of today will be able to survive, i.e. the end of Life as We Know It, owing to ruination of the atmosphere and oceans, devastation of the forests, etc.
His main argument is that in order to be successful, human groups (whether a company, a tribe or a state) always operate in the short term, irrespective of any long-term damage to themselves, their country or the environment. This is because by exploiting their resources to the full they are more likely to grow bigger and/or stronger that groups that restrain themselves and only use resources sparingly. Ultimately this means that the bigger stronger groups will take over from the smaller weaker ones, which will be eliminated or absorbed, after which they will adopt their mode of living. In business, the large corporations take over / buy or force out of business the smaller ones through economies of scale / better advertising / more competitive pricing, etc. These arguments illustrate the reasons why we all know that global warming is a problem, and chopping down goodness knows how many acres of rain forest every day is robbing us of biodiversity, potential medicines, oxygen and beauty but we do it anyway because the people doing it want an economic advantage NOW and most people feel powerless to do anything about it.
Kaczynski foresees a time when the world will be run by a smallish number of people; a combination of the executives of huge global corporations, the largest governments and possibly a religious group (assuming religion doesn’t fall by the wayside completely). Personal freedoms will become more and more restricted as technology makes it far easier to control and monitor individual people and the world will be so interdependent that a blip anywhere in the system will have dire consequences all around the world.
He foresees that technophiles will design machines of more and more intelligence and capability (we know that they seem to be doing that now, in a small way) and want to end up with a man-machine hybrid that will allow people to ‘live forever’ (though I can’t imagine why anyone would want to!) but that eventually the machines will realise that they no longer need weak, fickle and inefficient humans and eliminate us entirely.
I have only scratched the surface here and he gives many examples, many of which support his arguments. So much for his reasons for wanting to get rid of technology.
Most of the book is taken up with a detailed study of human nature and human groups, particularly in revolutionary mode. He cites many examples of how revolutions were conducted, the mistakes they made, what made them successful and some of their benefits and flaws. He quotes much of the history of Communist groups, not because he is a Communist but because they were, by and large, the most successful of revolutionaries, at least in the sense of promoting and carrying out revolutions, and holding on to power afterwards (at least for a few decades). He also uses the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Mexican revolutions as examples of how to, or not to, overthrow an established government.
He explains how to influence people, recruit people, control the pre-revolutionary group and ‘how and when’ to finally overthrow the establishment. The last bit is very vague, of course, because it depends on life for most ordinary people becoming difficult, unenjoyable and intolerable and, therefore, more willing either to join in the revolution or at least do nothing to prevent it, because they no longer feel the status quo is working for them.
Kaczynski is a very intelligent man: having looked him up last night I was surprised to see that he was a ‘child prodigy’, excelling at mathematics. He went to Harvard at 16, earned a PhD from Michigan State and by 26 was an assistant professor at UC, Berkeley. After two years he resigned and went to live in a cabin in the woods with no electricity or running water, professing hatred for technology. He began writing about the evils of technology and began sending letter-bombs to people he saw as promoting or teaching about it. He was known as the Una Bomber.
This continued for seventeen years, with the FBI later claiming his was the most expensive investigation in their history. He killed three people and injured/maimed 23 more. He was caught only because he told the authorities (anonymously of course) that he would stop his bombing campaign if they persuaded prominent organisations to publish his anti-tech ‘manifesto’. This was done and his brother recognised his writing style and turned him in. He is now serving life in a federal penitentiary.
Reading this book I have to say I could empathise with some of the things he was saying about modern technology and the way it progresses exponentially, seemingly without limit, providing ‘services’ that many of us simply do not want or need but which become the norm. Most disturbing is that it is not difficult to agree with him that one day it might enable us to push the ecosystem too far and the world will become too unstable to support life. Of course we rely on technology to get us out of difficult situations but trying to control or manipulate a system that has developed over millions of years may prove too difficult. Many of his arguments are well thought-out and convincing. Where I depart radically from his views, however, is his earnest desire to eliminate technology and return to a simple life such as was the norm before the Industrial Revolution – and of course I abhor his desire for violent overthrow of society, no matter how sincere his motives.
As a study of human nature and also of how to conduct a revolution, this is a very well researched, interesting and (dare I say?) useful book – all revolutionaries should read it several times. Four stars.
I would like to thank Alex, CEO of Fitch & Madison Publishers of Scottsdale Arizona, for providing me with a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.
August 19, 2017
Yes. That Ted Kaczynski.
From Wikipedia:
Theodore John Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician, anarchist and domestic terrorist. A mathematical prodigy, he abandoned a promising academic career in 1969, then between 1978 and 1995 killed 3 people, and injured 23 others, in a nationwide mail bombing campaign that targeted people involved with modern technology. In conjunction with the bombing campaign, he issued a wide-ranging social critique opposing industrialization and advancing a nature-centered form of anarchism...
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. In 1978, after witnessing the destruction of the wild land surrounding his cabin, he concluded that living in nature was untenable and began his bombing campaign. In 1995, Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times and promised to "desist from terrorism" if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom and dignity by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization...
Kaczynski was the target of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) longest and costliest investigation. Before his identity was known, the FBI used the title "UNABOM" (UNiversity & Airline BOMber) to refer to his case, which resulted in the media calling him the Unabomber. The FBI (as well as Attorney General Janet Reno) pushed for the publication of Kaczynski's manifesto, which led to his sister-in-law, and then his brother, recognizing Kaczynski's style of writing and beliefs from the manifesto, and tipping off the FBI. After his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski tried unsuccessfully to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wanted to plead insanity in order to avoid the death penalty, as Kaczynski did not believe he was insane. On January 22, 1998, when it became clear that his trial would entail national television exposure, the court entered a plea agreement, under which Kaczynski pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole at ADX Florence, where he remains as of 2017.
I was contacted by the publishers of Ted Kaczynski's latest treatise Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How after writing a short but positive review of the original 1995 manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future on the website Goodreads. They offered me a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review. Naturally, I was eager to take up their offer.
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is an astonishing and, in my opinion, important attempt at analysing and outlining the root causes of modern society's ills and the potential end result of where advances in technology may take us. A work like Anti-Tech Revolution is not easily reviewed. Since this is not a work of literature it cannot be reviewed based on its narrative flow and style. We must examine ourselves before approaching a political manifesto. Fundamentally, how positive one receives the message contained within Anti-Tech Revolution will very much depend on one's own pre-existing values and opinions. Kaczynski does an excellent job in outlining what he sees as the situation of our current malaise, but admits himself that certain audiences are more receptive to certain ideas than others and it is a wasteful use of time to try to convince an audience that will never accept the book's basic premise. It is no use handing a copy of Marx's Communist Manifesto to a confirmed Libertarian and expecting an overnight conversion to Socialism. So it is with Anti-Tech Revolution. How much you will agree with Kaczynski's conclusions is most probably already determined before you even open the book.
It is also an unescapable truth that an audience cannot separate the author from the work, no matter how predisposed they may be to his views. The fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski did carry out a campaign of domestic terrorism that injured 23 people and killed 3 others. It is also a fact that Ted Kaczynski pleaded guilty and is currently serving eight life sentences without the possibility of parole. Is it moral to review a book written by such a person? How you answer that question will very much depend on your own pre-existing sympathies and value system.
I do not normally discuss politics on either this blog or on my related social media feeds. Regular readers will know that apart from the occasional book review I normally confine myself to satire and parody. However, in the interests of disclosure, I will state that I am not unsympathetic to the views of Ted Kaczynski and we both share similar views on phenomena like globalisation, centralisation, bureaucracy, technology and "leftism" (as Kaczynski described his view of the origins and psychology behind mainstream liberal thought in his original Industrial Society and Its Future). That statement alone will also automatically inform any reader on how much their own view of Anti-Tech Revolution might or might not align with mine.
My first thought on reading Anti-Tech Revolution was it quickly becomes apparent that the author's current incarceration has quite the influence on the sources gathered by Kaczynski to outline his point of view. Jailed and presumably severely limited in access to the internet, Kaczynski's sources largely come from whatever resources he has access to in his prison library (the Encyclopaedia Britannica is referenced frequently) and assistance he has obtained from his large number of outside correspondents. This has a profound influence over the book's structure in both positive and negative ways. Millennials may not realise that scholarly books were once written without the aid of the internet and that it was once frequent to quote books from five, fifty, one hundred and even two thousand years ago. This reliance on older sources is quite refreshing to the modern reader and gives the book a wandering style not dissimilar to that of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's when the author makes frequent detours into classical or medieval philosophy and history. It also emphasises that many of the arguments and fears covered by Kaczynski are not confined to our digital age: the consequences of rapid technological progress have been known since ancient times. However, it is admittedly a weakness of a book that discusses technology to be so outdated on recent trends in technology itself (though it does reinforce the argument that technological progress is accelerating faster and faster). The smartphone revolution has passed Kaczynski by while he has been confined to a prison cell; likewise other recent advances are conspicuously absent.
As the title suggests, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is neatly divided into the "why" and "how" of Kaczynski's worldview. The book is divided into the following four chapters, with several appendices included at the end:
Part One: The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control
Part Two: Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself
Part Three: How to Transform a Society: Errors to Avoid
Part Four: Strategic Guidelines for an Anti-Tech Movement
Parts One and Two cover the "why" of what Kaczynski perceives as the reasons for modern society's problems and why it needs to be destroyed. Parts Three and Four get into detail on "how" to do so. Here I shall outline each section in more detail.
The first part - The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control - is the book's most accessible. The reader doesn't have to subscribe to the author's anti-tech views to understand and agree with the arguments contained within. This is a very rational argument, but one that does need constant emphasising as its lesson does seem to be forgotten again and again by socialists, fascists, utopians, bureaucrats and all others who keep repeating the same mistake. No society can be controlled 100% by a central authority, and no central authority can forecast with 100% accuracy the direction the future will take. The development of human society, because it is composed of those strange irrational creatures called humans, can never be forced to completely follow a model concocted by some central planning theorist. Again, there are many echoes of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's works on randomness and probability - more than once I wondered if Taleb was aware of Kaczynski's writing.
Initially, it seems strange for a book dedicated to technology to devote its first section to the fallacies of economists and political theorists, but the logic soon becomes clear. Kaczynski is providing background on the human forces that have given rise to our growing use and dependence on technology. On the one hand we have competing groups throughout history who use technology to gain short-term advantages over their rivals in the eternal scramble for access to resources without consideration to the long-term consequences (though Kaczynski makes the excellent point that this is inescapable: any group that thinks too long-term will inevitably be wiped out by their more short-term thinking neighbours. A good argument as to why China's current relentless growth may succeed but doom us all in the process). On the other hand, we have central planners who advance technology in an attempt to further control society and make accurate predictions to its future. Kaczynski argues that this is impossible. To even predict with total accuracy what would happen across the entire world in just the next sixty minutes would require an impossible amount of calculations.
We then move onto Part Two: Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself. This section will be more familiar to readers of Kaczynski's original manifesto and follows similar themes of self-propagating systems, accelerationism and environmental destruction. Great detail is given in this section - much more detail than can be covered in a mere review - but suffice to say, Kaczynski does not share the same views of people like Ray Kurzweil and other technologists who believe we are heading for a post-Singularity utopia where an all-knowing Artificial Intelligence will advance eternally and transform us into digital immortals. No. Though Kaczynski is unable and unwilling to give a timeline, his very forceful argument is that technology can only continue to accelerate, and we are accelerating to our inevitable ruin. The global spread of the technological system over our now tightly interconnected world means such ruin will also be global (perhaps little pockets like Bhutan may survive; Bhutan incidentally resembling probably the closest real-life example of how Kaczynski views a more sustainable society).
Anti-Tech Revolution doesn't delve into how technology and "leftism" progress forward together as the original manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future did, but the undertone is there. Shanghai-based accelerationist Nick Land has repeatedly alluded to the metaphor of an increasingly inter-connected, tech-dominated, left-leaning world that has slowly but unstoppably grown through the course of history as something akin to an out-of-control Lovecraftian monster (although Land appears to want the monster to succeed). Fellow neo-reactionary Mencius Moldbug has also coined the succinct epitaph: "Chthulhu may swim slowly, but he always swims left."
The question is: if the technological system is fated to inevitably destroy itself (and us with it), why does Kaczynski wish to bring about its destruction and why bother writing a manifesto explaining how to do so? His argument is simple. It is better to destroy the system now rather than later. Destruction of the world's technology would be devastating and involve death for a large percentage of the global population, but it will be nothing compared to the total destruction that awaits us when technology is even more advanced and our resources even more depleted.
With that argument, Kaczynski launches into the "how" of his revolution. Parts Three and Four discuss a strategy to create an anti-tech movement and outlines the errors to avoid. Anybody who has ever read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals will know what to expect in these two sections; Kaczynski himself acknowledges his debt to this book, though he shares zero common ground with Alinsky's objectives. Many references are made to historical revolutions (the Bolsheviks, Mao, Irish nationalists) and a few short-term and long-term strategies are presented as possible options for anyone who seriously wishes to take Kaczynski's argument to their logical end. Like the chapter on human irrationality, a reader doesn't have to share Kaczynski's worldview to appreciate the detail and thoroughness of his arguments. Incarceration has obviously given the Unabomber time to consider every angle possible, and the steps on how to organise a community are food-for-thought for daily life, not just when organising the downfall of technological civilisation.
Inevitably, the "how" of the book is weaker than the "why" since the "how" is more conjecture than arguments based on empirical evidence. There are a small number of times when it also seems to descend into something akin to Live Action Role Playing, but these few and far between.
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How was probably one of the most thought-provoking books I have read in the last ten years. It was the first time since university that I actually read through a book with a pen and paper to take notes. There are a handful of books that after reading them have left a deep and lasting imprint on my mind and political outlook - Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, Taleb's Antifragility - and Anti-Tech Revolution will join them on that list. This isn't the work of a psychotic nutjob: all of Kaczynski's arguments are backed up with empirical evidence and his writing is both intelligent and highly logical. I can see the truth of what Kaczynski is trying to tell us, though I am personally unable to follow the logic all the way to its conclusion. Who exactly is going to carry out his anti-tech revolution and bring down everything modern society is based upon? Certainly not me. I will be the first to admit that if anybody succeeded in enacting Kaczynski's grand plan than myself and my family will be amongst the first to be wiped out. Rootless, atomised within urban society, unable to survive without the accoutrements of modern technology and lacking the support network of someone in a more traditional way of life: I and everybody I hold dear would be dead within weeks of a large-scale takedown of the internet, an electromagnetic pulse, blowing up our energy sources or any of the other possibilities that Kaczynski outlines. That's if the destruction of the technological system didn't cause a nuclear meltdown or war that wiped me out first. I may be sympathetic to the views of Ted Kaczynski, but I have too much skin in the game to wish to see his vision succeed. Despite this, I agree with his conclusions on where we are heading - and it terrifies me. Culture wars and skirmishes between the alt-left and conservatives are just mere paraphernalia to what is really going on.
From Wikipedia:
Theodore John Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an American mathematician, anarchist and domestic terrorist. A mathematical prodigy, he abandoned a promising academic career in 1969, then between 1978 and 1995 killed 3 people, and injured 23 others, in a nationwide mail bombing campaign that targeted people involved with modern technology. In conjunction with the bombing campaign, he issued a wide-ranging social critique opposing industrialization and advancing a nature-centered form of anarchism...
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. In 1978, after witnessing the destruction of the wild land surrounding his cabin, he concluded that living in nature was untenable and began his bombing campaign. In 1995, Kaczynski sent a letter to The New York Times and promised to "desist from terrorism" if the Times or The Washington Post published his manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, in which he argued that his bombings were extreme but necessary to attract attention to the erosion of human freedom and dignity by modern technologies requiring large-scale organization...
Kaczynski was the target of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) longest and costliest investigation. Before his identity was known, the FBI used the title "UNABOM" (UNiversity & Airline BOMber) to refer to his case, which resulted in the media calling him the Unabomber. The FBI (as well as Attorney General Janet Reno) pushed for the publication of Kaczynski's manifesto, which led to his sister-in-law, and then his brother, recognizing Kaczynski's style of writing and beliefs from the manifesto, and tipping off the FBI. After his arrest in 1996, Kaczynski tried unsuccessfully to dismiss his court-appointed lawyers because they wanted to plead insanity in order to avoid the death penalty, as Kaczynski did not believe he was insane. On January 22, 1998, when it became clear that his trial would entail national television exposure, the court entered a plea agreement, under which Kaczynski pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole at ADX Florence, where he remains as of 2017.
I was contacted by the publishers of Ted Kaczynski's latest treatise Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How after writing a short but positive review of the original 1995 manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future on the website Goodreads. They offered me a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review. Naturally, I was eager to take up their offer.
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is an astonishing and, in my opinion, important attempt at analysing and outlining the root causes of modern society's ills and the potential end result of where advances in technology may take us. A work like Anti-Tech Revolution is not easily reviewed. Since this is not a work of literature it cannot be reviewed based on its narrative flow and style. We must examine ourselves before approaching a political manifesto. Fundamentally, how positive one receives the message contained within Anti-Tech Revolution will very much depend on one's own pre-existing values and opinions. Kaczynski does an excellent job in outlining what he sees as the situation of our current malaise, but admits himself that certain audiences are more receptive to certain ideas than others and it is a wasteful use of time to try to convince an audience that will never accept the book's basic premise. It is no use handing a copy of Marx's Communist Manifesto to a confirmed Libertarian and expecting an overnight conversion to Socialism. So it is with Anti-Tech Revolution. How much you will agree with Kaczynski's conclusions is most probably already determined before you even open the book.
It is also an unescapable truth that an audience cannot separate the author from the work, no matter how predisposed they may be to his views. The fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski did carry out a campaign of domestic terrorism that injured 23 people and killed 3 others. It is also a fact that Ted Kaczynski pleaded guilty and is currently serving eight life sentences without the possibility of parole. Is it moral to review a book written by such a person? How you answer that question will very much depend on your own pre-existing sympathies and value system.
I do not normally discuss politics on either this blog or on my related social media feeds. Regular readers will know that apart from the occasional book review I normally confine myself to satire and parody. However, in the interests of disclosure, I will state that I am not unsympathetic to the views of Ted Kaczynski and we both share similar views on phenomena like globalisation, centralisation, bureaucracy, technology and "leftism" (as Kaczynski described his view of the origins and psychology behind mainstream liberal thought in his original Industrial Society and Its Future). That statement alone will also automatically inform any reader on how much their own view of Anti-Tech Revolution might or might not align with mine.
My first thought on reading Anti-Tech Revolution was it quickly becomes apparent that the author's current incarceration has quite the influence on the sources gathered by Kaczynski to outline his point of view. Jailed and presumably severely limited in access to the internet, Kaczynski's sources largely come from whatever resources he has access to in his prison library (the Encyclopaedia Britannica is referenced frequently) and assistance he has obtained from his large number of outside correspondents. This has a profound influence over the book's structure in both positive and negative ways. Millennials may not realise that scholarly books were once written without the aid of the internet and that it was once frequent to quote books from five, fifty, one hundred and even two thousand years ago. This reliance on older sources is quite refreshing to the modern reader and gives the book a wandering style not dissimilar to that of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's when the author makes frequent detours into classical or medieval philosophy and history. It also emphasises that many of the arguments and fears covered by Kaczynski are not confined to our digital age: the consequences of rapid technological progress have been known since ancient times. However, it is admittedly a weakness of a book that discusses technology to be so outdated on recent trends in technology itself (though it does reinforce the argument that technological progress is accelerating faster and faster). The smartphone revolution has passed Kaczynski by while he has been confined to a prison cell; likewise other recent advances are conspicuously absent.
As the title suggests, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is neatly divided into the "why" and "how" of Kaczynski's worldview. The book is divided into the following four chapters, with several appendices included at the end:
Part One: The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control
Part Two: Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself
Part Three: How to Transform a Society: Errors to Avoid
Part Four: Strategic Guidelines for an Anti-Tech Movement
Parts One and Two cover the "why" of what Kaczynski perceives as the reasons for modern society's problems and why it needs to be destroyed. Parts Three and Four get into detail on "how" to do so. Here I shall outline each section in more detail.
The first part - The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control - is the book's most accessible. The reader doesn't have to subscribe to the author's anti-tech views to understand and agree with the arguments contained within. This is a very rational argument, but one that does need constant emphasising as its lesson does seem to be forgotten again and again by socialists, fascists, utopians, bureaucrats and all others who keep repeating the same mistake. No society can be controlled 100% by a central authority, and no central authority can forecast with 100% accuracy the direction the future will take. The development of human society, because it is composed of those strange irrational creatures called humans, can never be forced to completely follow a model concocted by some central planning theorist. Again, there are many echoes of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's works on randomness and probability - more than once I wondered if Taleb was aware of Kaczynski's writing.
Initially, it seems strange for a book dedicated to technology to devote its first section to the fallacies of economists and political theorists, but the logic soon becomes clear. Kaczynski is providing background on the human forces that have given rise to our growing use and dependence on technology. On the one hand we have competing groups throughout history who use technology to gain short-term advantages over their rivals in the eternal scramble for access to resources without consideration to the long-term consequences (though Kaczynski makes the excellent point that this is inescapable: any group that thinks too long-term will inevitably be wiped out by their more short-term thinking neighbours. A good argument as to why China's current relentless growth may succeed but doom us all in the process). On the other hand, we have central planners who advance technology in an attempt to further control society and make accurate predictions to its future. Kaczynski argues that this is impossible. To even predict with total accuracy what would happen across the entire world in just the next sixty minutes would require an impossible amount of calculations.
We then move onto Part Two: Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself. This section will be more familiar to readers of Kaczynski's original manifesto and follows similar themes of self-propagating systems, accelerationism and environmental destruction. Great detail is given in this section - much more detail than can be covered in a mere review - but suffice to say, Kaczynski does not share the same views of people like Ray Kurzweil and other technologists who believe we are heading for a post-Singularity utopia where an all-knowing Artificial Intelligence will advance eternally and transform us into digital immortals. No. Though Kaczynski is unable and unwilling to give a timeline, his very forceful argument is that technology can only continue to accelerate, and we are accelerating to our inevitable ruin. The global spread of the technological system over our now tightly interconnected world means such ruin will also be global (perhaps little pockets like Bhutan may survive; Bhutan incidentally resembling probably the closest real-life example of how Kaczynski views a more sustainable society).
Anti-Tech Revolution doesn't delve into how technology and "leftism" progress forward together as the original manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future did, but the undertone is there. Shanghai-based accelerationist Nick Land has repeatedly alluded to the metaphor of an increasingly inter-connected, tech-dominated, left-leaning world that has slowly but unstoppably grown through the course of history as something akin to an out-of-control Lovecraftian monster (although Land appears to want the monster to succeed). Fellow neo-reactionary Mencius Moldbug has also coined the succinct epitaph: "Chthulhu may swim slowly, but he always swims left."
The question is: if the technological system is fated to inevitably destroy itself (and us with it), why does Kaczynski wish to bring about its destruction and why bother writing a manifesto explaining how to do so? His argument is simple. It is better to destroy the system now rather than later. Destruction of the world's technology would be devastating and involve death for a large percentage of the global population, but it will be nothing compared to the total destruction that awaits us when technology is even more advanced and our resources even more depleted.
With that argument, Kaczynski launches into the "how" of his revolution. Parts Three and Four discuss a strategy to create an anti-tech movement and outlines the errors to avoid. Anybody who has ever read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals will know what to expect in these two sections; Kaczynski himself acknowledges his debt to this book, though he shares zero common ground with Alinsky's objectives. Many references are made to historical revolutions (the Bolsheviks, Mao, Irish nationalists) and a few short-term and long-term strategies are presented as possible options for anyone who seriously wishes to take Kaczynski's argument to their logical end. Like the chapter on human irrationality, a reader doesn't have to share Kaczynski's worldview to appreciate the detail and thoroughness of his arguments. Incarceration has obviously given the Unabomber time to consider every angle possible, and the steps on how to organise a community are food-for-thought for daily life, not just when organising the downfall of technological civilisation.
Inevitably, the "how" of the book is weaker than the "why" since the "how" is more conjecture than arguments based on empirical evidence. There are a small number of times when it also seems to descend into something akin to Live Action Role Playing, but these few and far between.
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How was probably one of the most thought-provoking books I have read in the last ten years. It was the first time since university that I actually read through a book with a pen and paper to take notes. There are a handful of books that after reading them have left a deep and lasting imprint on my mind and political outlook - Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations, Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death, Taleb's Antifragility - and Anti-Tech Revolution will join them on that list. This isn't the work of a psychotic nutjob: all of Kaczynski's arguments are backed up with empirical evidence and his writing is both intelligent and highly logical. I can see the truth of what Kaczynski is trying to tell us, though I am personally unable to follow the logic all the way to its conclusion. Who exactly is going to carry out his anti-tech revolution and bring down everything modern society is based upon? Certainly not me. I will be the first to admit that if anybody succeeded in enacting Kaczynski's grand plan than myself and my family will be amongst the first to be wiped out. Rootless, atomised within urban society, unable to survive without the accoutrements of modern technology and lacking the support network of someone in a more traditional way of life: I and everybody I hold dear would be dead within weeks of a large-scale takedown of the internet, an electromagnetic pulse, blowing up our energy sources or any of the other possibilities that Kaczynski outlines. That's if the destruction of the technological system didn't cause a nuclear meltdown or war that wiped me out first. I may be sympathetic to the views of Ted Kaczynski, but I have too much skin in the game to wish to see his vision succeed. Despite this, I agree with his conclusions on where we are heading - and it terrifies me. Culture wars and skirmishes between the alt-left and conservatives are just mere paraphernalia to what is really going on.
September 30, 2020
A brilliant and concise logical proof.
February 4, 2017
I was contacted by the publisher & asked if I was interested in a R&R. My first thought was, "Hell, no!" Kaczynski (AKA, the Unabomber) is a whack job, right? He's known for blowing up people in his campaign against technology & those he saw as representing it. What could he possibly say that would be of interest? But then I read that he wouldn't get any of the profits from this book & thought it might be interesting to see what he had to say. He's a smart guy, after all. (His IQ was once measured at 167, FWIW.)
The preface convinced me we weren't going to get along philosophically. Many see us heading for disaster & that technology is one of the causes, but I do not agree that all of us fall into his 2 categories of those who do nothing about it & those who don't know what to do about it. I & many others are inclined to the Asimov school of 'tech got us into this mess, ignorance won't get us out.' so pretty much the opposite of what he proposes in this book.
The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control (sic) starts with a quote in Spanish (according to Google Translate). adonde un bien se concierta hay un mal que lo desvia; mas el bien viene y no acierta, y el mal acierta y porfia. which translates to "Where a good is arranged there is an evil that deviates it; But good comes and does not succeed, and evil succeeds and strives." The book is in English & to start out with a quote in a foreign language likely means the author wants to baffle me with bullshit.
His writing reminds me a lot of C.S. Lewis' in Mere Christianity, a poor attempt at philosophy. No rigor is applied to the base assumptions nor are opposing points explored properly while straw men abound. I agree with the title premise of the first chapter. I actually enjoyed reading his cherry-picked historical examples for themselves, although he uses them like a club to make his point - one point, a dozen examples. (Bam, bam, bam...) I didn't find them convincing simply because the basic idea is ludicrous.
News flash: Humans aren't rational. We're rationalizing, badly behaving bags of chemicals. Individually we're half crazy & collectively (our societies) make even less sense. Anyone who has logically examined any religions knows that. Besides, while a rational society might be something to aspire to, it wouldn't be much fun. This has been obvious since Plato proved it in The Republic all the way through L.E. Modesitt Jr.'s Adiamante. We're not ants. We need fun & we're greedy bastards, for the most part. Kaczynski later concedes & illustrates this in chapter 3.
The second chapter is Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself. It correctly starts out with a disclaimer that it could be wrong & argued against - as well it should since Kaczynski made many good points about unintended consequences in the first chapter. (He missed a great example with smart phones, though.) Still, his basic premise here has a pretty good base & he does a great job of pointing out just how self-destructive our system can be, but he makes an assumption that it is entirely competition-based & on the limitation of resources which might not apply with some technological advancements. Specifically he confines us to Earth & doesn't foresee any leaps in technology. I believe we'll see several breakthroughs in tech that will change almost everything soon. Artificial intelligence is just too close. Whether it is for good or ill, I'm not sure, though.
The simplification of Darwinism into "survival of the fittest" is wrong & he sort of says this, although not explicitly or simply. 'Fittest' carries assumptions of superiority that are dangerous. I prefer survival of the 'good enough' which allows organisms to continue spreading DNA, no matter how altered.
We're often not sure what 'better' is except in hindsight & that varies by the point of view. (Are you happier than a crocodile? Our species hasn't been around nearly as long. Which is more successful? Did we domesticate wheat or vice versa? Homo sapiens have spread its DNA far wider & in greater quantity than it could have achieved on its own.) Still, he makes some good, if slippery points. It's terribly depressing reading, though.
In part 4 of this chapter, he descends into pseudoscience & completely ignores several important factors as he spreads his message of doom. Our global population growth rate is actually declining. Efficiencies brought by maturing technologies have curbed waste & cleaned many up considerably. (Remember the air quality in LA & NYC during the early 70s? Even they weren't as bad as London around 1800.) We have more oil available to mine now than we could 50 years ago, too. (One hint as to why that changed is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judecleme...)
In part 5, he just gets insulting & fairly ridiculous when he jeers at 'techies' & ideas about immortality. I've read quite a bit, both factual & speculative, on the subject. The only time I've seen it cherry-picked & misrepresented more was by the likes of Ken Hamm. Kaczynski's tone is quite similar to that of a TV preacher or Rush Limbaugh. He's preaching. I don't like that, even when I agree with the points. Kaczynski made few good ones in this section, though.
I continued on with chapter 3 hoping the quality of the arguments picked up. They didn't, just deteriorated further. "How to Transform a Society: Errors to Avoid" is about building the revolution. I didn't read it in detail, just skimmed it & Chapter 4. He advocates a core of revolutionaries who build their own internal sources of power, win respect for their ideals, & undermine the people's confidence in technology. He doesn't say how, but I fail to see how they could without using & relying on a lot of technology. He seems to admire terrorism (unsurprising) & says that the organization should be feared, but his broad strategies didn't mean much. Unless the entire world dropped back to low tech, industrialization is going to return. It's human nature.
I saw a few references to people losing jobs & crashing economies, but I don't think he realizes what a pure horror show the loss of tech would be. One Second After is a fictionalized, but pretty accurate look at what could happen just in the US if just our electric went down. It's heart-breaking & scary as hell.
I agree with Kaczynski that we're balanced on a knife's edge & I can sympathize with his point of view, but I completely disagree with it. Because he couldn't make a solid enough case, I'm giving this book 1 star. I didn't like it. I found it depressing. He didn't make his case for how or why.
The preface convinced me we weren't going to get along philosophically. Many see us heading for disaster & that technology is one of the causes, but I do not agree that all of us fall into his 2 categories of those who do nothing about it & those who don't know what to do about it. I & many others are inclined to the Asimov school of 'tech got us into this mess, ignorance won't get us out.' so pretty much the opposite of what he proposes in this book.
The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control (sic) starts with a quote in Spanish (according to Google Translate). adonde un bien se concierta hay un mal que lo desvia; mas el bien viene y no acierta, y el mal acierta y porfia. which translates to "Where a good is arranged there is an evil that deviates it; But good comes and does not succeed, and evil succeeds and strives." The book is in English & to start out with a quote in a foreign language likely means the author wants to baffle me with bullshit.
His writing reminds me a lot of C.S. Lewis' in Mere Christianity, a poor attempt at philosophy. No rigor is applied to the base assumptions nor are opposing points explored properly while straw men abound. I agree with the title premise of the first chapter. I actually enjoyed reading his cherry-picked historical examples for themselves, although he uses them like a club to make his point - one point, a dozen examples. (Bam, bam, bam...) I didn't find them convincing simply because the basic idea is ludicrous.
News flash: Humans aren't rational. We're rationalizing, badly behaving bags of chemicals. Individually we're half crazy & collectively (our societies) make even less sense. Anyone who has logically examined any religions knows that. Besides, while a rational society might be something to aspire to, it wouldn't be much fun. This has been obvious since Plato proved it in The Republic all the way through L.E. Modesitt Jr.'s Adiamante. We're not ants. We need fun & we're greedy bastards, for the most part. Kaczynski later concedes & illustrates this in chapter 3.
The second chapter is Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself. It correctly starts out with a disclaimer that it could be wrong & argued against - as well it should since Kaczynski made many good points about unintended consequences in the first chapter. (He missed a great example with smart phones, though.) Still, his basic premise here has a pretty good base & he does a great job of pointing out just how self-destructive our system can be, but he makes an assumption that it is entirely competition-based & on the limitation of resources which might not apply with some technological advancements. Specifically he confines us to Earth & doesn't foresee any leaps in technology. I believe we'll see several breakthroughs in tech that will change almost everything soon. Artificial intelligence is just too close. Whether it is for good or ill, I'm not sure, though.
The simplification of Darwinism into "survival of the fittest" is wrong & he sort of says this, although not explicitly or simply. 'Fittest' carries assumptions of superiority that are dangerous. I prefer survival of the 'good enough' which allows organisms to continue spreading DNA, no matter how altered.
We're often not sure what 'better' is except in hindsight & that varies by the point of view. (Are you happier than a crocodile? Our species hasn't been around nearly as long. Which is more successful? Did we domesticate wheat or vice versa? Homo sapiens have spread its DNA far wider & in greater quantity than it could have achieved on its own.) Still, he makes some good, if slippery points. It's terribly depressing reading, though.
In part 4 of this chapter, he descends into pseudoscience & completely ignores several important factors as he spreads his message of doom. Our global population growth rate is actually declining. Efficiencies brought by maturing technologies have curbed waste & cleaned many up considerably. (Remember the air quality in LA & NYC during the early 70s? Even they weren't as bad as London around 1800.) We have more oil available to mine now than we could 50 years ago, too. (One hint as to why that changed is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/judecleme...)
In part 5, he just gets insulting & fairly ridiculous when he jeers at 'techies' & ideas about immortality. I've read quite a bit, both factual & speculative, on the subject. The only time I've seen it cherry-picked & misrepresented more was by the likes of Ken Hamm. Kaczynski's tone is quite similar to that of a TV preacher or Rush Limbaugh. He's preaching. I don't like that, even when I agree with the points. Kaczynski made few good ones in this section, though.
I continued on with chapter 3 hoping the quality of the arguments picked up. They didn't, just deteriorated further. "How to Transform a Society: Errors to Avoid" is about building the revolution. I didn't read it in detail, just skimmed it & Chapter 4. He advocates a core of revolutionaries who build their own internal sources of power, win respect for their ideals, & undermine the people's confidence in technology. He doesn't say how, but I fail to see how they could without using & relying on a lot of technology. He seems to admire terrorism (unsurprising) & says that the organization should be feared, but his broad strategies didn't mean much. Unless the entire world dropped back to low tech, industrialization is going to return. It's human nature.
I saw a few references to people losing jobs & crashing economies, but I don't think he realizes what a pure horror show the loss of tech would be. One Second After is a fictionalized, but pretty accurate look at what could happen just in the US if just our electric went down. It's heart-breaking & scary as hell.
I agree with Kaczynski that we're balanced on a knife's edge & I can sympathize with his point of view, but I completely disagree with it. Because he couldn't make a solid enough case, I'm giving this book 1 star. I didn't like it. I found it depressing. He didn't make his case for how or why.
January 6, 2021
Without a doubt, Kaczynski's best work. The difference between this book and his others is drastic: he manages to be even more meticulous than before, while adding many layers of historical interpretations and citations. If you are interested in reading this, I'd still recommend you read Industrial Society And Its Future first since it explains the evils of the techno industrial system in greater detail.
While reading it I noticed that the author made, in my opinion, small mistakes when it came to current events. For example, he argues that the system wants to encourage nationalism because technology profits from it, since it makes countries more competitive. This may have been the case in the past, but now it's the exact opposite. Most first world countries are very anti-nationalistic. This trend actually supports Kaczynski's argument that social values are naturally selected to benefit the system, since lack of a strong sense of nationality allows deeper world wide cohesion, and thus, a more efficient techno industrial system. But still, this has no significant impact on any of his ideas, at all. This book is brilliant.
While reading it I noticed that the author made, in my opinion, small mistakes when it came to current events. For example, he argues that the system wants to encourage nationalism because technology profits from it, since it makes countries more competitive. This may have been the case in the past, but now it's the exact opposite. Most first world countries are very anti-nationalistic. This trend actually supports Kaczynski's argument that social values are naturally selected to benefit the system, since lack of a strong sense of nationality allows deeper world wide cohesion, and thus, a more efficient techno industrial system. But still, this has no significant impact on any of his ideas, at all. This book is brilliant.
April 28, 2018
Meticulously researched: despite the limited resources available to him in prison, Kaczynski combines an immense breadth of knowledge with a meticulous attention to detail to make a compelling case that the technological system can be destroyed, no matter how unlikely that may seem. Though not exactly light reading, Kaczynski is a great deal more lucid and readable than many other authors on tech issues, and the book is refreshingly jargon free.
While many reviewers seem to have preferred the first two sections, personally I found the later part of the book to be the most interesting. Hugely informative and persuasive, I can definitely recommend this book!
While many reviewers seem to have preferred the first two sections, personally I found the later part of the book to be the most interesting. Hugely informative and persuasive, I can definitely recommend this book!
June 20, 2021
The "How" chapter serves in a large part as a guide to any revolution, but the first chapters are of course great reading as well, but read ISAIF first.
April 1, 2020
This book is a must-read for anyone concerned with the crises facing humanity in the modern epoch. Drawing on numerous examples of rebels throughout recent history (mostly the 1900s), Dr. Kaczynski points out the attributes which contribute to success for (or hinder) a revolutionary movement.
From the Irish independence struggle to the Bolsheviks of Tsarist Russia, the suffragettes to the M26 de Julio in Cuba, the causes of these groups were disparate, but those who prevail have common elements worthy of understanding, and this book analyzes the victors (and the failures) to teach upcoming revolutionaries lessons not to be missed. By the book's title and Kaczynski's own renown for being an anti-tech revolutionary, it is presumed that the problems of technology are understood by the reader to some degree, so the first section of Anti-Tech Revolution addresses why the system is not able to be rationally guided and avoid catastrophic path laid by technology. Given that the many components of a society are always both interactive and unmanageable, we are far better off running an unpredictable course and surviving mishaps if going at a slow speed than at high speed - and to slow down will require a revolution. While a revolt against the techno-industrial system might initially seem implausible, the rest of the book shows that many of history's recorded successes overcame beginning in a similarly pessimistic position.
One key advantage to anti-tech revolution is that it is destructive rather than constructive: there are no aspirations of forming one's idealized society, rather only of stopping the technological assault upon Nature, which also binds and conforms mankind.
By the book's close, we are left with some examples of errors to avoid in challenging the prevailing order, some inspirations for making the commitment and forming a serious cadre of revolutionary leadership, and a necessarily vague playbook for selecting goals and pursuing them to ultimate success. A monumental text to be re-read and studied.
From the Irish independence struggle to the Bolsheviks of Tsarist Russia, the suffragettes to the M26 de Julio in Cuba, the causes of these groups were disparate, but those who prevail have common elements worthy of understanding, and this book analyzes the victors (and the failures) to teach upcoming revolutionaries lessons not to be missed. By the book's title and Kaczynski's own renown for being an anti-tech revolutionary, it is presumed that the problems of technology are understood by the reader to some degree, so the first section of Anti-Tech Revolution addresses why the system is not able to be rationally guided and avoid catastrophic path laid by technology. Given that the many components of a society are always both interactive and unmanageable, we are far better off running an unpredictable course and surviving mishaps if going at a slow speed than at high speed - and to slow down will require a revolution. While a revolt against the techno-industrial system might initially seem implausible, the rest of the book shows that many of history's recorded successes overcame beginning in a similarly pessimistic position.
One key advantage to anti-tech revolution is that it is destructive rather than constructive: there are no aspirations of forming one's idealized society, rather only of stopping the technological assault upon Nature, which also binds and conforms mankind.
By the book's close, we are left with some examples of errors to avoid in challenging the prevailing order, some inspirations for making the commitment and forming a serious cadre of revolutionary leadership, and a necessarily vague playbook for selecting goals and pursuing them to ultimate success. A monumental text to be re-read and studied.
September 1, 2017
This book is full of things that I had no idea about but that are really important. When I say “things” I mean the book describes systems and dynamics that are happening now that are the forces which are in control of and will ultimately destroy the planet. I am not a particularly anti-tech person. I just am not drawn to technology. But not caring or being passive in the presence of omnipresent voracious controlling powers is enabling of the inevitable devastation of technology. This book shows why just trying to limit use of technology will not succeed in reducing its devastating impact. The ideas, discoveries and insights presented in this book are very important and compelling, the writing is excellent and the information is fascinating. But the best feature of this book is the vision of the impending anti-tech revolution, the practical advice given on taking action, and the discussion, including historical examples, on why success in this endeavor is possible. This is a sobering book, but also a hopeful and extremely useful book for people ready to act.
July 28, 2020
A revolutionary masterpiece.
November 24, 2016
My introduction to the works of Ted “the Unabomber” Kaczynski was through a highly provocative quote in an article published in Wired magazine titled “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” written by Bill Joy. I remember thinking the quote to be reasonable, and compelling. Upon discovering that the quote was from Ted Kaczynski’s “Unabomber Manifesto,” I had two reactions. My first reaction was horror at discovery that I could agree so wholeheartedly with what I had hitherto considered the ravings of a madman. The second was a tentative curiosity to see what else he might have had to say. At that point, I went on-line and read the manifesto. Much as I expected, the manifesto was both brilliant and disturbing.
I recently received an invitation to obtain a copy of Kaczynski’s latest treatise, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, in return for an honest review. Once again, I approached the opportunity with both trepidation and curiosity. And once again, curiosity got the upper hand. I expected a brilliant mind at work, which I did indeed find. Kaczynski is without a doubt one of the most penetrating thinkers of our time when it comes to recognizing the damage being done to the environment by advanced technologies and the industries that produce them. He is also a keen observer of the damage to humanity as well. We are complicit with our own worst enemies when it comes to damaging our health and emotional wellbeing. I think we owe it to ourselves, and to our civilization to awaken to the destruction that our unthinking exploitation of nature has wrought. For this reason alone, Ted Kaczynski’s works are worthwhile reads.
However, Ani-Tech Revolution is not primarily concerned with convincing readers of the coming crisis. Less than a quarter of the book is concerned with this. At this point, the crisis is all too obvious for most of us to ignore (though the powers that be are trying to distract our attention away from the crisis). The primary thrust of the book is Kaczynski’s insights into how revolutions succeed. He has parsed out some interesting guidelines from his studies of historical revolutions. After outlining his recommendations, he presents historical details to illustrate his meaning more clearly. His hope is that others will take up the battle that he can no longer fight.
Having learned a harsh lesson from his own incarceration, he now advises future anit-tech revolutionaries to use legal means of forwarding the cause. However, that seems like a minor detail given that his overarching goal is to bring about the end of civilization as we know it. While a series of strong EMPs directed at large cities could inflict enough damage to end the usefulness of high tech tools, I don’t see how this could be brought about legally. Should such a terrible act be sanctioned by a democratic movement, or a revolutionary takeover, it seems likely that few laws would be left to restrain anarchy.
Perhaps Kaczynski is right, that there is no other way to save the planet except to destroy every advance that civilization has given us, and return to a more primitive way of life. I don’t know if that is even possible, given the large populations in our cities today. City dwellers certainly aren't capable of feeding themselves, and there would have to be a massive migration. I do know he is right that the most dangerous thing we could do is rely on technology to save us, through some grandiose manipulation of the weather in order to mitigate global warming. As he so grimly says, that could prove worse than nuclear war. Is Kaczynski’s insane solution really the only one in the offing? I hope not. Yet, I think it is worth considering that parts of Kaczynski’s plan might prove useful. We likely do need to undermine the modern reliance on technological tools. I believe we cannot afford to ignore any ideas at this point, even the most extreme ones.
I recently received an invitation to obtain a copy of Kaczynski’s latest treatise, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, in return for an honest review. Once again, I approached the opportunity with both trepidation and curiosity. And once again, curiosity got the upper hand. I expected a brilliant mind at work, which I did indeed find. Kaczynski is without a doubt one of the most penetrating thinkers of our time when it comes to recognizing the damage being done to the environment by advanced technologies and the industries that produce them. He is also a keen observer of the damage to humanity as well. We are complicit with our own worst enemies when it comes to damaging our health and emotional wellbeing. I think we owe it to ourselves, and to our civilization to awaken to the destruction that our unthinking exploitation of nature has wrought. For this reason alone, Ted Kaczynski’s works are worthwhile reads.
However, Ani-Tech Revolution is not primarily concerned with convincing readers of the coming crisis. Less than a quarter of the book is concerned with this. At this point, the crisis is all too obvious for most of us to ignore (though the powers that be are trying to distract our attention away from the crisis). The primary thrust of the book is Kaczynski’s insights into how revolutions succeed. He has parsed out some interesting guidelines from his studies of historical revolutions. After outlining his recommendations, he presents historical details to illustrate his meaning more clearly. His hope is that others will take up the battle that he can no longer fight.
Having learned a harsh lesson from his own incarceration, he now advises future anit-tech revolutionaries to use legal means of forwarding the cause. However, that seems like a minor detail given that his overarching goal is to bring about the end of civilization as we know it. While a series of strong EMPs directed at large cities could inflict enough damage to end the usefulness of high tech tools, I don’t see how this could be brought about legally. Should such a terrible act be sanctioned by a democratic movement, or a revolutionary takeover, it seems likely that few laws would be left to restrain anarchy.
Perhaps Kaczynski is right, that there is no other way to save the planet except to destroy every advance that civilization has given us, and return to a more primitive way of life. I don’t know if that is even possible, given the large populations in our cities today. City dwellers certainly aren't capable of feeding themselves, and there would have to be a massive migration. I do know he is right that the most dangerous thing we could do is rely on technology to save us, through some grandiose manipulation of the weather in order to mitigate global warming. As he so grimly says, that could prove worse than nuclear war. Is Kaczynski’s insane solution really the only one in the offing? I hope not. Yet, I think it is worth considering that parts of Kaczynski’s plan might prove useful. We likely do need to undermine the modern reliance on technological tools. I believe we cannot afford to ignore any ideas at this point, even the most extreme ones.
May 15, 2018
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, Theodore John Kaczynski, 2015, ISBN 9781944228002
There are more than a few people who feel that society's rush toward a technological future will lead to disaster. This book presents some pointers for thinking in broad, strategic terms about getting society off that particular road.
The overall goal for any organization, whether it is social, political or environmental, should be clear and simple. It can't be something vague, like "promoting democracy" or "protecting the environment." The goal also needs to be irreversible; once achieved, it can never be taken away. An example is when women got the right to vote in the early 20th century. After it happened, any politician was going to have a very hard time taking it away from them. No matter how democratic an organization claims to be, there will be times when not every issue can be placed before the entire membership for a vote. There needs to be an inner core of committed members with the authority to make such decisions.
Throughout history, many people have suggested that human society needs to be "planned" or "controlled," for various reasons. A huge, chaotic thing like human society can not be controlled to any great extent. At most, it can be "nudged" in one direction or another. Who decides in what direction human society should go? What is a "good" outcome? Assume, just for a moment, that it is possible to control human society. Assume that there is a computer system big enough to handle the trillions of equations that need to be solved. Who is in charge, a person or a small group? Who gets to decide who that person, or people, should be? Can a lack of ego be guaranteed?
A number of writers, including Ray Kurzweil, are looking forward to the day when human immortality, or the coming of human cyborgs or the uploading of a person's brain to a computer become reality. The author asserts that these are nonsense. For instance, immortality will only be available to the one percent, not to everyone.
This book is heavy history and social science, so it is not for everyone. The reader will get a lot out of it. This is very highly recommended.
There are more than a few people who feel that society's rush toward a technological future will lead to disaster. This book presents some pointers for thinking in broad, strategic terms about getting society off that particular road.
The overall goal for any organization, whether it is social, political or environmental, should be clear and simple. It can't be something vague, like "promoting democracy" or "protecting the environment." The goal also needs to be irreversible; once achieved, it can never be taken away. An example is when women got the right to vote in the early 20th century. After it happened, any politician was going to have a very hard time taking it away from them. No matter how democratic an organization claims to be, there will be times when not every issue can be placed before the entire membership for a vote. There needs to be an inner core of committed members with the authority to make such decisions.
Throughout history, many people have suggested that human society needs to be "planned" or "controlled," for various reasons. A huge, chaotic thing like human society can not be controlled to any great extent. At most, it can be "nudged" in one direction or another. Who decides in what direction human society should go? What is a "good" outcome? Assume, just for a moment, that it is possible to control human society. Assume that there is a computer system big enough to handle the trillions of equations that need to be solved. Who is in charge, a person or a small group? Who gets to decide who that person, or people, should be? Can a lack of ego be guaranteed?
A number of writers, including Ray Kurzweil, are looking forward to the day when human immortality, or the coming of human cyborgs or the uploading of a person's brain to a computer become reality. The author asserts that these are nonsense. For instance, immortality will only be available to the one percent, not to everyone.
This book is heavy history and social science, so it is not for everyone. The reader will get a lot out of it. This is very highly recommended.
January 24, 2022
A practical guide for those concerned about the technology problem. Highly informative and a must read.
March 2, 2020
**I was provided a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for my review**
It is difficult to review this work without considering Kaczynski's past actions, i.e. the fact that he is a confessed multiple-murderer serving eight life sentences due to a fanatical dedication to his ideology, an ideology which is the focus of this book.
Some would say that even reviewing this work lends unwarranted legitimacy to an immoral/insane/monstrous person, and they may have a point. I tend toward separating ideas from their bearers, but there very well may come a point at which a person's heinous actions delegitimize entirely their motivations for said actions, philosophically-speaking at least. I don't know if that's the case, and furthermore I don't know how to figure out if that's the case apart from reading multiple philosophical tomes on the subject. Because I was asked by the publisher to do this review, I'm going to do my best to parse the message from its messenger, and explain where I think the latter detracts from the former.
I can say to begin with that I don't believe Kaczynski to be insane. His writings -- both this and his original Manifesto -- are far too lucid, and the nature of his crimes involves entirely too much time and space for contemplation to be written off as fits of mania. When other people dedicate their lives wholly to an ideal from a very young age, even behaving in morally questionable ways to achieve it, they get our admiration; perhaps its only when we disagree with their ideals that we call them "crazy."
To call him a sociopath may be closer to the mark, in the same sense that Hitler was undoubtedly a sociopath: both brilliant men in their own ways but with little ability to connect with anybody on a human level. In this sense one could maybe call Kaczynski "undersocialized" in allusion to his manifesto's discussion of the term "oversocialization." His known early life and academic career bear out the hypothesis that he was unable to relate to other humans, and that he therefore never developed the crucial ability to empathize with them.
Is being a sociopath enough to discredit one's ideas entirely? I'm not sure. Our society certainly seems to reward sociopaths in certain sectors (business, politics, entertainment), so it doesn't feel fair to condemn one solely on the basis of his academic sociopathy. But that's not to say you shouldn't weigh his sociopathy when considering his ideas, which is precisely what I intend to do in the remainder of this review.
From the outset this book feels like a less passionate version of Derrick Jensen's compelling Endgame, and later on in its strategic discussion becomes a cross between Endgame and Gene Sharp's influential From Dictatorship to Democracy. It begins as a logical, mostly convincing argument about why our technological society is doomed, but then devolves into vague "guidelines" that feel relatively punchless in the face of such daunting odds.
Whenever I pick up a book that is criticizing the trend of our society or political system, it's always with the hope that finally, this time, the author will provide some simple, actionable solutions that can immediately address the issue at hand. I am almost invariably disappointed with the denouements of these books, as they often dissipate into vague platitudes, unfeasible strategies, or in the worst cases an unforgivable omission of any such discussion. Unfortunately that trend of disappointment continues here.
Given the issues I discussed above with the difficulty of Kaczynski presenting himself as an "expert" on any topic given his past actions, the book begins on a troubling note in the preface itself, where not only does the first footnote cite "many letters (I've received)" as the source for his statement, indicating a troubling lack of academic rigor, but then proceeds to grandiosity in the 2nd paragraph of p.2, where he writes:
Luckily the first chapter, describing how we will never be able to control or predict the development of an advanced society, largely avoids further evidence of these issues. Kaczynski uses clear, precise prose with a somewhat staccato rhythm. His historical examples of the inherent difficulty in controlling complex systems do not feel controversial, though they do feel random and somewhat tedious by the end of the chapter.
Chapter 2, "Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself (And Everything Else)," also appears logical and presents little with which to argue. In his discussion of self-propagating systems and natural selection, his analogy between biological systems and social systems seems tenuous as there's little to indicate that we have in any critical sense been able to replicate the seamless functioning of an organic system. Also, it does feel like Kaczynski dedicates an inordinate amount of space to technology-based immortality, which intuitively feels like an utter fantasy.
Overall, however, his point stands, and we get what appears to be the first formulation of his thesis on p. 68, when he says that instead of waiting for the system to destroy itself, "if the technological system were eliminated now a great deal could still be saved. The longer the system is allowed to continue. . . the worse will be the outcome. . ."
One quibble I have is with Kaczynski's introduction of the concept of "Technianity," which simply sounds clumsy. If you're talking about the religion of technology, it's not only analogous to Christianity (the only religion that ends in "-ianity") but rather to all religions and dogmas, which are commonly referred to as "-isms." It seems like it would both be more precise and aesthetically sound to call this concept either "Technism" or "Technologism."
But in any case, after almost half the book I was on board with Kaczynski's thesis and intrigued to see his proposals. Chapter 3, however, which lays out the postulates and rules for transforming society, begins on a relatively ominous note. First of all, Mao's epigraph discusses a "principal contradiction," which seems itself to contradict Kaczynski's entire first chapter dedicated to the inherent complexity and insolubility of system-level problems. Next, the chapter's very first paragraph, with its prescription of "success," recalls the principal issue anyone might have when approaching this book: given his past actions, how credible can Mr. Kaczynski really expect us to find him as a determiner and prescriber of a political movement's success? His past actions don't grant him much benefit of any doubt.
The chapter itself is fairly innocuous, as Kaczynski's "postulates" on the nature of radical political movements are sound and the "rules" based on these postulates are logical. A minor organizational issue I had would be solved by simply shifting the explanation of the postulates to precede the rules in order to provide a more intuitive transition.
The bulk of the chapter, however, is dedicated to tedious and over-explanatory examples of these postulates and rules in action, focusing chiefly on the Irish independence movement and the Bolshevik revolution. These are frankly unnecessary, and they divert the momentum of Kaczynski's argument.
The end of this chapter is where Kaczynski really began to lose me, as he engages in needlessly harsh attacks on other thinkers in the field, beginning with Chellis Glendinning and Arne Naess. He then proceeds to refer to basically the entire group of writers -- including Ivan Illich and John Zerzan -- as "useless." This is not merely unprofessional; Kaczynski's arrogance and belligerence undermine the merits of his arguments and put his readers on the defensive (and in my case, more intent on finding holes). Furthermore, his lack of civility immediately reminds readers of his past crimes, which one would think he would want to avoid.
With regards to the content of his closing argument in this chapter, Kaczynski's goal is to "(bring) about the collapse of the technological system," but this goal appears to violate his very first rule in that it is anything but "simple." It's also not readily apparent how this would be "irreversible," in violation of Rule III.
The first two pages of the last chapter -- where Kaczynski writes among other things, "No specific route to victory for an anti-tech movement can be laid out in advance." -- deflated any hope I had of the book offering real, practicable solutions. The first three guidelines for revolutionary movements are: "build its own internal sources of power," "build power in relation to its social environment," and "do what it can to undermine people's faith in the technological system." For those keeping track, none of these are "clear, concrete, simple" objectives, thus violating his 1st rule.
Two pages later Kaczynski makes the unfortunate choice of pointing to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and jihadist suicide bombers as examples of those with the necessary dedication to a movement. I can't imagine many people wanting to be included in such company, and its at best a dubious association to conjure for somebody already on questionable moral ground.
Throughout the rest of the chapter, which again gets bogged down in justification of theory by way of over-explanation of history, Kaczynski skates around addressing certain points which seem far more relevant to the discussion, and the omission of which makes his argument feel incomplete. For example, on p. 153 he mentions and dismisses the concern over nuclear winter as something in which "serious students of this matter do not believe." He offers no evidence for this claim besides a lone, unelaborated book citation.
A few pages later he reluctantly recommends undemocratic hierarchy as a method of political organization while only acknowledging in passing the danger of this method and not giving any specifics at all as to how this hierarchy should be organized to prevent abuse/corruption of power. Frankly, this feels not only misdirected but lazy, and one can't help but feel that he should have devoted much more energy to these points than he did to the history of Ireland and Russia, or to the fantasy of immortality. By this point my confusion over his reliance on these exhaustive historical examples had been resolved, as it became clear that he was substituting these historical events for any proof of the legitimacy of his theory. As someone who spent the first half of his life in academia's hard sciences, he should have had a better grasp on academic and scientific rigor.
Finally, a big hole in Kaczynski's argument was the absence of any discussion of capitalism as one of the root problems of global society. I was pleased to see that he addressed it in one of his appendices, but I feel that it should have been a much larger part of chapter 2's discussion. His argument that capitalism is "subordinate" to technology is not entirely convincing despite his lone example of Soviet communism. Furthermore, arguing communism as the only alternative to capitalism is facile, and he certainly must understand that lone communist/socialist countries (e.g. Cuba, N. Korea) attempting to exist in an overwhelmingly capitalist global system can never survive.
I would be curious, for instance, to see what Kaczynski thinks of E.F. Shumacher's Small Is Beautiful, which discusses economics as the global driving force, superior even to technology. He lays out some interesting -- and in my inexpert opinion, much more concrete than Kazcynski's -- steps for how we can transform our capitalist economy into one that harnesses technology for the good of humans on a small scale. Given Kaczynski's opinion of the rest of his ideological cohort, he would probably scoff at Schumacher as "utterly naive" (p.121) and "useless" (p. 124). . .
In conclusion, Kaczynski presents a compelling argument on the need for anti-technological revolution, but he fails to convincingly explain (especially vis-a-vis capitalism and more general economical factors) why it is the most pressing need. Also, while childishly criticizing others for their lack of concrete solutions, he simultaneously fails to provide his own beyond a framework laid out in more concrete terms by Derrick Jensen and Gene Sharp. In fact, with his last two chapters I can't escape the impression that Kaczynski is neither as ground-breaking nor as brilliant as he believes himself to be in the arena of global revolution. He would do well to accept outside counsel in this regard.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
It is difficult to review this work without considering Kaczynski's past actions, i.e. the fact that he is a confessed multiple-murderer serving eight life sentences due to a fanatical dedication to his ideology, an ideology which is the focus of this book.
Some would say that even reviewing this work lends unwarranted legitimacy to an immoral/insane/monstrous person, and they may have a point. I tend toward separating ideas from their bearers, but there very well may come a point at which a person's heinous actions delegitimize entirely their motivations for said actions, philosophically-speaking at least. I don't know if that's the case, and furthermore I don't know how to figure out if that's the case apart from reading multiple philosophical tomes on the subject. Because I was asked by the publisher to do this review, I'm going to do my best to parse the message from its messenger, and explain where I think the latter detracts from the former.
I can say to begin with that I don't believe Kaczynski to be insane. His writings -- both this and his original Manifesto -- are far too lucid, and the nature of his crimes involves entirely too much time and space for contemplation to be written off as fits of mania. When other people dedicate their lives wholly to an ideal from a very young age, even behaving in morally questionable ways to achieve it, they get our admiration; perhaps its only when we disagree with their ideals that we call them "crazy."
To call him a sociopath may be closer to the mark, in the same sense that Hitler was undoubtedly a sociopath: both brilliant men in their own ways but with little ability to connect with anybody on a human level. In this sense one could maybe call Kaczynski "undersocialized" in allusion to his manifesto's discussion of the term "oversocialization." His known early life and academic career bear out the hypothesis that he was unable to relate to other humans, and that he therefore never developed the crucial ability to empathize with them.
Is being a sociopath enough to discredit one's ideas entirely? I'm not sure. Our society certainly seems to reward sociopaths in certain sectors (business, politics, entertainment), so it doesn't feel fair to condemn one solely on the basis of his academic sociopathy. But that's not to say you shouldn't weigh his sociopathy when considering his ideas, which is precisely what I intend to do in the remainder of this review.
From the outset this book feels like a less passionate version of Derrick Jensen's compelling Endgame, and later on in its strategic discussion becomes a cross between Endgame and Gene Sharp's influential From Dictatorship to Democracy. It begins as a logical, mostly convincing argument about why our technological society is doomed, but then devolves into vague "guidelines" that feel relatively punchless in the face of such daunting odds.
Whenever I pick up a book that is criticizing the trend of our society or political system, it's always with the hope that finally, this time, the author will provide some simple, actionable solutions that can immediately address the issue at hand. I am almost invariably disappointed with the denouements of these books, as they often dissipate into vague platitudes, unfeasible strategies, or in the worst cases an unforgivable omission of any such discussion. Unfortunately that trend of disappointment continues here.
Given the issues I discussed above with the difficulty of Kaczynski presenting himself as an "expert" on any topic given his past actions, the book begins on a troubling note in the preface itself, where not only does the first footnote cite "many letters (I've received)" as the source for his statement, indicating a troubling lack of academic rigor, but then proceeds to grandiosity in the 2nd paragraph of p.2, where he writes:
. . . I feel safe in saying that virtually all people -- even people of exceptional intelligence -- who merely read this book once or twice at an ordinary pace will miss many of its most important points. This book, therefore, is not a book to be read; it is a book to be studied with the same care that one would use in studying, for example, a textbook of engineering.Okay then, Mr. If-I-do-say-so-myself. . .
Luckily the first chapter, describing how we will never be able to control or predict the development of an advanced society, largely avoids further evidence of these issues. Kaczynski uses clear, precise prose with a somewhat staccato rhythm. His historical examples of the inherent difficulty in controlling complex systems do not feel controversial, though they do feel random and somewhat tedious by the end of the chapter.
Chapter 2, "Why the Technological System Will Destroy Itself (And Everything Else)," also appears logical and presents little with which to argue. In his discussion of self-propagating systems and natural selection, his analogy between biological systems and social systems seems tenuous as there's little to indicate that we have in any critical sense been able to replicate the seamless functioning of an organic system. Also, it does feel like Kaczynski dedicates an inordinate amount of space to technology-based immortality, which intuitively feels like an utter fantasy.
Overall, however, his point stands, and we get what appears to be the first formulation of his thesis on p. 68, when he says that instead of waiting for the system to destroy itself, "if the technological system were eliminated now a great deal could still be saved. The longer the system is allowed to continue. . . the worse will be the outcome. . ."
One quibble I have is with Kaczynski's introduction of the concept of "Technianity," which simply sounds clumsy. If you're talking about the religion of technology, it's not only analogous to Christianity (the only religion that ends in "-ianity") but rather to all religions and dogmas, which are commonly referred to as "-isms." It seems like it would both be more precise and aesthetically sound to call this concept either "Technism" or "Technologism."
But in any case, after almost half the book I was on board with Kaczynski's thesis and intrigued to see his proposals. Chapter 3, however, which lays out the postulates and rules for transforming society, begins on a relatively ominous note. First of all, Mao's epigraph discusses a "principal contradiction," which seems itself to contradict Kaczynski's entire first chapter dedicated to the inherent complexity and insolubility of system-level problems. Next, the chapter's very first paragraph, with its prescription of "success," recalls the principal issue anyone might have when approaching this book: given his past actions, how credible can Mr. Kaczynski really expect us to find him as a determiner and prescriber of a political movement's success? His past actions don't grant him much benefit of any doubt.
The chapter itself is fairly innocuous, as Kaczynski's "postulates" on the nature of radical political movements are sound and the "rules" based on these postulates are logical. A minor organizational issue I had would be solved by simply shifting the explanation of the postulates to precede the rules in order to provide a more intuitive transition.
The bulk of the chapter, however, is dedicated to tedious and over-explanatory examples of these postulates and rules in action, focusing chiefly on the Irish independence movement and the Bolshevik revolution. These are frankly unnecessary, and they divert the momentum of Kaczynski's argument.
The end of this chapter is where Kaczynski really began to lose me, as he engages in needlessly harsh attacks on other thinkers in the field, beginning with Chellis Glendinning and Arne Naess. He then proceeds to refer to basically the entire group of writers -- including Ivan Illich and John Zerzan -- as "useless." This is not merely unprofessional; Kaczynski's arrogance and belligerence undermine the merits of his arguments and put his readers on the defensive (and in my case, more intent on finding holes). Furthermore, his lack of civility immediately reminds readers of his past crimes, which one would think he would want to avoid.
With regards to the content of his closing argument in this chapter, Kaczynski's goal is to "(bring) about the collapse of the technological system," but this goal appears to violate his very first rule in that it is anything but "simple." It's also not readily apparent how this would be "irreversible," in violation of Rule III.
The first two pages of the last chapter -- where Kaczynski writes among other things, "No specific route to victory for an anti-tech movement can be laid out in advance." -- deflated any hope I had of the book offering real, practicable solutions. The first three guidelines for revolutionary movements are: "build its own internal sources of power," "build power in relation to its social environment," and "do what it can to undermine people's faith in the technological system." For those keeping track, none of these are "clear, concrete, simple" objectives, thus violating his 1st rule.
Two pages later Kaczynski makes the unfortunate choice of pointing to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and jihadist suicide bombers as examples of those with the necessary dedication to a movement. I can't imagine many people wanting to be included in such company, and its at best a dubious association to conjure for somebody already on questionable moral ground.
Throughout the rest of the chapter, which again gets bogged down in justification of theory by way of over-explanation of history, Kaczynski skates around addressing certain points which seem far more relevant to the discussion, and the omission of which makes his argument feel incomplete. For example, on p. 153 he mentions and dismisses the concern over nuclear winter as something in which "serious students of this matter do not believe." He offers no evidence for this claim besides a lone, unelaborated book citation.
A few pages later he reluctantly recommends undemocratic hierarchy as a method of political organization while only acknowledging in passing the danger of this method and not giving any specifics at all as to how this hierarchy should be organized to prevent abuse/corruption of power. Frankly, this feels not only misdirected but lazy, and one can't help but feel that he should have devoted much more energy to these points than he did to the history of Ireland and Russia, or to the fantasy of immortality. By this point my confusion over his reliance on these exhaustive historical examples had been resolved, as it became clear that he was substituting these historical events for any proof of the legitimacy of his theory. As someone who spent the first half of his life in academia's hard sciences, he should have had a better grasp on academic and scientific rigor.
Finally, a big hole in Kaczynski's argument was the absence of any discussion of capitalism as one of the root problems of global society. I was pleased to see that he addressed it in one of his appendices, but I feel that it should have been a much larger part of chapter 2's discussion. His argument that capitalism is "subordinate" to technology is not entirely convincing despite his lone example of Soviet communism. Furthermore, arguing communism as the only alternative to capitalism is facile, and he certainly must understand that lone communist/socialist countries (e.g. Cuba, N. Korea) attempting to exist in an overwhelmingly capitalist global system can never survive.
I would be curious, for instance, to see what Kaczynski thinks of E.F. Shumacher's Small Is Beautiful, which discusses economics as the global driving force, superior even to technology. He lays out some interesting -- and in my inexpert opinion, much more concrete than Kazcynski's -- steps for how we can transform our capitalist economy into one that harnesses technology for the good of humans on a small scale. Given Kaczynski's opinion of the rest of his ideological cohort, he would probably scoff at Schumacher as "utterly naive" (p.121) and "useless" (p. 124). . .
In conclusion, Kaczynski presents a compelling argument on the need for anti-technological revolution, but he fails to convincingly explain (especially vis-a-vis capitalism and more general economical factors) why it is the most pressing need. Also, while childishly criticizing others for their lack of concrete solutions, he simultaneously fails to provide his own beyond a framework laid out in more concrete terms by Derrick Jensen and Gene Sharp. In fact, with his last two chapters I can't escape the impression that Kaczynski is neither as ground-breaking nor as brilliant as he believes himself to be in the arena of global revolution. He would do well to accept outside counsel in this regard.
Not Bad Reviews
@pointblaek
January 14, 2020
Technology is a blessings but too dangerous...
December 28, 2019
"Theodore J. Kaczynski's Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How is mostly a practical manual on how to initiate a future anti-technological mass movement with the overall intention of overthrowing the current technological system. It abounds in quotations from Lenin, Mao, Alinsky, Trotsky and Marx and one of the most interesting aspects of the book is the exploration into how past revolutions (the Bolshevik, Irish nationalist, Maoist etc) were successful. The first half is more theoretical and speculative, outlining Kaczynski's ideas of self propagating systems i.e. corporations through natural selection, and how that may affect the future globally. I thought his criticisms in this regard toward capitalism and its tendency to sacrifice long term benefits to short term goals to be especially enlightening. Kaczynski argues that capitalist endeavors that place long term objectives above profit motivated economic decisions that result in gains in the short term tend to be eliminated in the process of natural selection. The second half takes a more "hands-on" approach in describing how a future anti-tech movement may look like and what things those directing the movement should do, what attitudes they should take, and what they should look for to make such a movement successful. While I am from not only a political, but religious point of view pro-environmental, one of the things I don't understand about radically environmental activists and intellectuals like Kaczynski and Linkola is why they are so concerned about the planet, when eventually the earth will become a cold dead rock anyway because of the expanding universe or because of the death of the sun etc. I could understand if they had a transcendent metaphysical view of things, but they appear to be thoroughgoing materialists. In the span of billions of years, and amidst a meaningless indifferent universe, what does it matter if the earth and its inhabitants live 20 years or 20 million years? Yet their approach toward environmentalism and technology are fanatical to a religious intensity. Kaczynski was willing to kill for his beliefs and did, while Linkola advocates killing off most of the population on the planet. In some ways their environmentalism even mimicks religion. For instance, I am reminded of an interview I saw once in which Linkola confessed what "environmental sins" he was guilty of. To quote H.P. Lovecraft: "What does it all amount to, anyway? In a few million years there will be no human race at all. Man, at best, is but an incident-and a very trifling incident-in the limitless history of Nature... Planets are born, die, and are born again-and so on without end. It really makes one quite dizzy to think of such expanded matters! Possibly it is better to be near-sighted and orthodox like [Maurice W.] Mo[e], trusting all to a Divine Providence, R.I.""
January 31, 2021
A simple but sharp analysis of the world and how Kaczynski sees that we may change it. There is little to fault in this book (other than the gaping ommission 1) and while I have read of other similar theories to K. on civilization and its direction of travel, never before have I read such a concise grouping of these ideas. Nor have I ever hear them all come from the mind of a single author. That is solely why I rate this book 5 stars. The rest of the book is very good but as I said, overlooks a very fundimental problem.
1: The revolutionary analysis also holds up
very well but unfortunately K. ommits one vital danger we face, (or at least the degree of this danger) that being nuclear waste. Although I don't put this on him personally as data on this problem is extremely difficult to come by and seldom discussed in the public sphere, it does stick a wrench in the gears of his theory. In this writing he gives no explanation as to how we would overcome this problem - but as far as I'm aware; nor does anyone else on this planet. If they do they can't be sure it is 100% safe and the timescales for disposal quickly arise as a huge problem. Not to mention that new nuclear power stations are still being built all over the world.
1: The revolutionary analysis also holds up
very well but unfortunately K. ommits one vital danger we face, (or at least the degree of this danger) that being nuclear waste. Although I don't put this on him personally as data on this problem is extremely difficult to come by and seldom discussed in the public sphere, it does stick a wrench in the gears of his theory. In this writing he gives no explanation as to how we would overcome this problem - but as far as I'm aware; nor does anyone else on this planet. If they do they can't be sure it is 100% safe and the timescales for disposal quickly arise as a huge problem. Not to mention that new nuclear power stations are still being built all over the world.
October 7, 2021
Well I believe this book will be the next communist manifesto of coming century.
June 13, 2023
Very good book. Enjoyed reading it.
October 10, 2021
Coherent.
March 9, 2022
pls read
October 19, 2016
Ted Kaczynski may seem a strange candidate for devising a revolutionary "grand strategy", being best known for what most would consider just desperate acts to get attention, and which most would also say only made it easier for the Right to demonize environmentalists. He does have a lot to say that's worth thinking about though. The first half of this book summarizes the problems brought on by technological development, explaining why it's foolish to ever expect such large-scale and complex industrial societies to be controlled rationally by wise decision-makers. He talks about power being a bit of an illusion, basically how leaders' decisions are never truly just their own. Some conclusions drawn from this are a little exaggerated and he does admit to simplifying his arguments for the sake of clarity but the general idea is pretty sound. I think it comes across as a little too kind to the corrupt leaders of the world, creating the impression that they do most things out of necessity despite the fact that golden toilets, pet tigers and other examples of extravagant waste would suggest otherwise. At this point their decisions actually seem to be bad even for themselves in the short-term, as "consumers" lose so much that they can no longer consume. Part of his analysis is actually that irresponsible societies have an advantage over responsible ones since they're willing to sacrifice the future for the present, allowing them to cause more damage to their environments, letting them increase their numbers and manufacture more weapons than their competitors. I would have to agree with that general idea. My biggest disagreement with this part of the book is probably just the emphasis he puts on the dangers of artificial intelligence and self-replicating machines, and that's not to say that I see nothing to worry about regarding these technologies, just that in my opinion the real problem is the environmental damage caused in the creation of these things rather than the effects of them being used. I just feel like there's so little chance of technology progressing to that point before totally destroying everything anyway, but I can't honestly say that I know how things will play out.
The second part of the book is focused on what needs to be done about the problems he brought up in the first half. He spends a lot of time criticizing the vague goals of typical resisters, emphasizing the importance of having one "single, clear, simple and concrete objective" to focus on. Objectives like "freedom", "democracy" and "social justice" get harsh treatment here. It's actually pretty similar to my own conclusions that I wrote about in my book, A Proposal For Primitivism ( http://aproposalforprimitivism.blogsp... ). My own choice for a common goal was ending economic growth, and I spent a good deal of space explaining why our economic system is preventing just about every change that we currently need. Kaczynski's opinion is that "the objective chosen should be that of "killing" the technological system...." I found this a little disappointing since it's hard to say what that even means. It's not really much less vague than the objectives he spends so much time criticizing. It also seems kind of backwards to me. If all high-tech manufacturing disappeared tomorrow, we'd still see imperialism and corrupt businesses raping the world. Immense damage was done to the world with stone-age agriculture and war. Also, if people are forced to start providing their own food and firewood locally, how environmentally responsible can we expect them to be now that they lack these traditional skills and are in such dense living arrangements? I'd expect what little is left of our forests and soils to only be depleted faster. I'd expect more overfishing (except in deep oceans) and hunting, more fighting over scarce resources and more scapegoating of environmentalists by those who would rather blame some easy target for their impoverishment than face the harsh realities of our ecological and social problems. Our current lifestyle is the most disconnected from sustainable that we've ever been, making people more dependent on the system's survival than they were at the times of past revolutions. Plus surveillance is more advanced and ubiquitous than ever before. We can't just expect people to join our movements when we threaten their livelihoods. Again, I can't say for sure that he's wrong but I personally feel like we're better off starting with some sort of large-scale reform to make further changes easier to accomplish.
He explains a little more in Appendix 3 why he feels that focusing on targets like capitalism and centralization first would be a waste of effort. In his view, capitalism won't go anywhere until a more "efficient" system is invented. But I would have to ask, is capitalism really more efficient than other systems? We're doing so much pointless work for so little benefit. Capitalism promotes planned obsolescence, brainwashing people to want things that make their lives worse, packaging and processing food thousands of miles from where it's grown and eaten, etc. You can say that by promoting the production of more stuff than other systems it's had an advantage in acquiring power, so the point he's trying to make is sort of partially true, but there's nothing "efficient" about capitalism. A lot of vital industries wouldn't even be profitable without receiving enormous subsidies. If we can put so much effort into artificially protecting such a stupid system then why is systemic reform of any kind so hard to imagine? Frankly, just about anything could be subsidized into existence. There are a few other conclusions in the book that I at least partially agree with even though I disagree with the examples he uses to make his case, like saying that the Irish had no reason other than their own egos to demand independence from Britain, which he was basically using to make the point that revolutionaries of the past, who we should study, weren't necessarily perfect role models for an anti-tech revolutionary movement.
This book is really more a list of things to consider when devising a grand strategy for resistance than an actual grand strategy. I was hoping for a little more specificity to be honest but it still seems worth reading for anarcho-primitivists, radical environmentalists, rewilders, and others involved in resisting the destruction of our planet. Even though I have disagreements I can at least appreciate the attempt at offering solutions. There are too many books out there, and more keep being written, that just rehash what we've already heard a million times then, instead of following their own logic, basically tell us the best we can do is support Democrats. We need more of these attempts at coming up with real solutions. This book also has the bonus of being written by someone that people are interested in even if they totally disagree with his ideas. As it says on the back cover, no remuneration goes to Ted Kaczynski from the sale of this book, so whatever your opinion of him is, you're not actually supporting him by reading this book anyway. As long as this isn't treated as a revolutionary bible or something I see no reason not to recommend it.
The second part of the book is focused on what needs to be done about the problems he brought up in the first half. He spends a lot of time criticizing the vague goals of typical resisters, emphasizing the importance of having one "single, clear, simple and concrete objective" to focus on. Objectives like "freedom", "democracy" and "social justice" get harsh treatment here. It's actually pretty similar to my own conclusions that I wrote about in my book, A Proposal For Primitivism ( http://aproposalforprimitivism.blogsp... ). My own choice for a common goal was ending economic growth, and I spent a good deal of space explaining why our economic system is preventing just about every change that we currently need. Kaczynski's opinion is that "the objective chosen should be that of "killing" the technological system...." I found this a little disappointing since it's hard to say what that even means. It's not really much less vague than the objectives he spends so much time criticizing. It also seems kind of backwards to me. If all high-tech manufacturing disappeared tomorrow, we'd still see imperialism and corrupt businesses raping the world. Immense damage was done to the world with stone-age agriculture and war. Also, if people are forced to start providing their own food and firewood locally, how environmentally responsible can we expect them to be now that they lack these traditional skills and are in such dense living arrangements? I'd expect what little is left of our forests and soils to only be depleted faster. I'd expect more overfishing (except in deep oceans) and hunting, more fighting over scarce resources and more scapegoating of environmentalists by those who would rather blame some easy target for their impoverishment than face the harsh realities of our ecological and social problems. Our current lifestyle is the most disconnected from sustainable that we've ever been, making people more dependent on the system's survival than they were at the times of past revolutions. Plus surveillance is more advanced and ubiquitous than ever before. We can't just expect people to join our movements when we threaten their livelihoods. Again, I can't say for sure that he's wrong but I personally feel like we're better off starting with some sort of large-scale reform to make further changes easier to accomplish.
He explains a little more in Appendix 3 why he feels that focusing on targets like capitalism and centralization first would be a waste of effort. In his view, capitalism won't go anywhere until a more "efficient" system is invented. But I would have to ask, is capitalism really more efficient than other systems? We're doing so much pointless work for so little benefit. Capitalism promotes planned obsolescence, brainwashing people to want things that make their lives worse, packaging and processing food thousands of miles from where it's grown and eaten, etc. You can say that by promoting the production of more stuff than other systems it's had an advantage in acquiring power, so the point he's trying to make is sort of partially true, but there's nothing "efficient" about capitalism. A lot of vital industries wouldn't even be profitable without receiving enormous subsidies. If we can put so much effort into artificially protecting such a stupid system then why is systemic reform of any kind so hard to imagine? Frankly, just about anything could be subsidized into existence. There are a few other conclusions in the book that I at least partially agree with even though I disagree with the examples he uses to make his case, like saying that the Irish had no reason other than their own egos to demand independence from Britain, which he was basically using to make the point that revolutionaries of the past, who we should study, weren't necessarily perfect role models for an anti-tech revolutionary movement.
This book is really more a list of things to consider when devising a grand strategy for resistance than an actual grand strategy. I was hoping for a little more specificity to be honest but it still seems worth reading for anarcho-primitivists, radical environmentalists, rewilders, and others involved in resisting the destruction of our planet. Even though I have disagreements I can at least appreciate the attempt at offering solutions. There are too many books out there, and more keep being written, that just rehash what we've already heard a million times then, instead of following their own logic, basically tell us the best we can do is support Democrats. We need more of these attempts at coming up with real solutions. This book also has the bonus of being written by someone that people are interested in even if they totally disagree with his ideas. As it says on the back cover, no remuneration goes to Ted Kaczynski from the sale of this book, so whatever your opinion of him is, you're not actually supporting him by reading this book anyway. As long as this isn't treated as a revolutionary bible or something I see no reason not to recommend it.
October 20, 2016
A review is pending.
February 21, 2017
Let me begin this review by stating up-front that I was contacted by the publisher with the offer of receiving the book free of charge for providing a review. This was an opportunity which I eagerly accepted as I am a fan of Kaczynski and his philosophies. I currently own "Technological Slavery" (the book contains "Industrial Society and Its Future" as well), which profoundly altered my views on technology, philosophy, and life in general.
In "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How", Kaczynski brilliantly expounds on his philosophy. Much like a teacher to a student, he provides constant references, examples, arguments, and logical conclusions which any open-minded reader may find hard to dispute.
Kaczynski can be sometimes be long-winded; often I found myself lost in the details, wondering what point he was trying to make. However, many of the topics he covers require lengthy exposition in order to make his point or draw a conclusion. He has a lot to say, and he wants to make sure you understand exactly where he is coming from.
My only true grievance with this work is that Kaczynski writes in what may be considered an antiquated mode. It is quite off-putting that he prefers a clinical style ("This author feels..." or "In the opinion of this author...") instead of using a more conversational tone, which would make for an easier read. I feel that this book is an appeal, not a text book (though he does, slightly pompously, say in the preface that this book is "not a book to be read; it is a book to be studied with the same care that one would use in studying, for example, a textbook of engineering") - it would hit home better if it were more personal.
Although I truly appreciate his efforts and his foresight into what may ultimately befall humanity, I feel I have to point out that the revolution he calls for could never happen. Because of the global nature of this 21st century planet, because technology is pervasive in almost all places on this planet, and because supporters of the downfall of technology are scattered, the successful coordination necessary to take down the entire system at once would be impossible. The very technology being used for coordination would be the same in line for destruction. And if one were to start with just a single country in the hopes of spreading across the planet, one would quickly find themselves quashed by outside forces.
In the end, however, on the slight chance that revolution were to come, it would undoubtedly not last long. He has not taken two things into consideration: human desire to "rise above" and human desire for sloth. Even were all the computers smashed, all the power plants torn to the ground, and all the wire sunk to the bottom of the sea, humanity would still find a way to overcome and progress. Technology would be rediscovered, power plants rebuilt. And once mankind was again comfortable, the propensity to remain in that comfort would ensure that the system would again grow back and we would quickly find ourselves in this same position, having this same debate, calling for a revolution.
It may be depressing to contemplate the destruction of this planet by our own greedy hands; it is a topic which must be studied with complete frankness. But I do not share Kaczynksi's opinion that revolution must be quick, total, and final. I choose to believe that we can overcome the evolutionary powers that drive us to consume resources without regard to the future. Technology can be a force for evil, true: but it can also be a force for good. "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How" may not find its place in the annals of history as a call to supreme revolution, but I think it will definitely find its place as a rallying cry and an admonition to look forward to our children's children, and do the right thing.
In "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How", Kaczynski brilliantly expounds on his philosophy. Much like a teacher to a student, he provides constant references, examples, arguments, and logical conclusions which any open-minded reader may find hard to dispute.
Kaczynski can be sometimes be long-winded; often I found myself lost in the details, wondering what point he was trying to make. However, many of the topics he covers require lengthy exposition in order to make his point or draw a conclusion. He has a lot to say, and he wants to make sure you understand exactly where he is coming from.
My only true grievance with this work is that Kaczynski writes in what may be considered an antiquated mode. It is quite off-putting that he prefers a clinical style ("This author feels..." or "In the opinion of this author...") instead of using a more conversational tone, which would make for an easier read. I feel that this book is an appeal, not a text book (though he does, slightly pompously, say in the preface that this book is "not a book to be read; it is a book to be studied with the same care that one would use in studying, for example, a textbook of engineering") - it would hit home better if it were more personal.
Although I truly appreciate his efforts and his foresight into what may ultimately befall humanity, I feel I have to point out that the revolution he calls for could never happen. Because of the global nature of this 21st century planet, because technology is pervasive in almost all places on this planet, and because supporters of the downfall of technology are scattered, the successful coordination necessary to take down the entire system at once would be impossible. The very technology being used for coordination would be the same in line for destruction. And if one were to start with just a single country in the hopes of spreading across the planet, one would quickly find themselves quashed by outside forces.
In the end, however, on the slight chance that revolution were to come, it would undoubtedly not last long. He has not taken two things into consideration: human desire to "rise above" and human desire for sloth. Even were all the computers smashed, all the power plants torn to the ground, and all the wire sunk to the bottom of the sea, humanity would still find a way to overcome and progress. Technology would be rediscovered, power plants rebuilt. And once mankind was again comfortable, the propensity to remain in that comfort would ensure that the system would again grow back and we would quickly find ourselves in this same position, having this same debate, calling for a revolution.
It may be depressing to contemplate the destruction of this planet by our own greedy hands; it is a topic which must be studied with complete frankness. But I do not share Kaczynksi's opinion that revolution must be quick, total, and final. I choose to believe that we can overcome the evolutionary powers that drive us to consume resources without regard to the future. Technology can be a force for evil, true: but it can also be a force for good. "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How" may not find its place in the annals of history as a call to supreme revolution, but I think it will definitely find its place as a rallying cry and an admonition to look forward to our children's children, and do the right thing.
January 8, 2017
An interesting book. Admittedly, I have never read any of Kaczynski's previously published writings; my interest in other anarchoprimtivist works got a review copy of this sent my way, and now here we are.
The premises set forth here are concise and entirely well thought out, researched, and presented. The idea that our increasing technology will eventually create a worldwide catastrophe is not a new one, and Kaczynski's warnings of organizing against this end have been presented by plenty of other writers. Nevertheless, this was a thoughtfully presented argument on the topic.
The premises set forth here are concise and entirely well thought out, researched, and presented. The idea that our increasing technology will eventually create a worldwide catastrophe is not a new one, and Kaczynski's warnings of organizing against this end have been presented by plenty of other writers. Nevertheless, this was a thoughtfully presented argument on the topic.
February 17, 2019
An excellent distillation of Uncle Ted's though on how to build an effective radical movement. People new to his work should be warned, this book is more about the "How" and less about the "Why". Still he manages to further explain the many shortcomings of most anarchist groups.
The book is slightly marred by the fact that it is clear that Uncle Ted did not have much access to research resources through his prison library. He says as much in the introduction, and it shows. If he were pardoned and set free, he would have been able to write a much more well-argued book.
The book is slightly marred by the fact that it is clear that Uncle Ted did not have much access to research resources through his prison library. He says as much in the introduction, and it shows. If he were pardoned and set free, he would have been able to write a much more well-argued book.
April 28, 2019
Rambling at times but overall interesting and engaging.
February 10, 2023
In a more formal and clear approach than his manifesto Kaczynski gives a detailed insight to his thinking about modern ecological activism and its issues. While not a deductive proof and admittedly making some generalisation (which he is open about) he details an axiomatic approach to analysing social systems in terms of analogously biological systems which desire to 'reproduce' these can be kingdoms or families, companies or churches. Whatever they are, Kaczynski holds, they act accordingly to similar generative and competitive principles.
Introducing this system allows Kaczynski to attack *in principal* many proposed solutions to the ecological crisis, not on a contingent social or technological level but as impossible a priori (almost). The strength of his axiomatic basis and its applicability are to the taste of the reader but once accepted he provides compelling arguments about why contemporary and popular approaches to solving ecological issues are generally futile or too slow moving.
The book is divided into two parts, a diagnosis of social systems and how this dismembers many modern approaches to environmental change (dotted with a few colourful metaphors along the way, take for example the comparison of Elon Musk fans being in a millenarian cult of the Singularity) and how given such a state of the world the true environmentalist *ought* to provoke change.
Kaczynski's origin is not forgotten in the second half as he very carefully dances as close to suggestions of terroristic actions as possible but it does offer quite interesting views on how to approach trying to make revolutionary change be it for gay rights, women's equality, global communism or primitive anarchism; his principles are abstracted from many radicals and hold water as organisational principles. If one abstracts away the principles for how an important social movement should organise and sustain itself in a non-violent manner this work is as powerful as Saul Alinsky's in showing how this can be done.
Overall it's a very good book to challenge your calmness about the ecological crisis going on around us and an analysis that shows many of our idealistic solutions to be perhaps untenable while the final section will give you an interesting account of how radical movements did and do operate though I would say the impact of this is only lasting if you want to engage in such a movement. Nonetheless, it is important to disentangle Kacyznski's acceptance of political violence from the other threads of his arguments to give a sensible reading and this can be done relatively easily.
Introducing this system allows Kaczynski to attack *in principal* many proposed solutions to the ecological crisis, not on a contingent social or technological level but as impossible a priori (almost). The strength of his axiomatic basis and its applicability are to the taste of the reader but once accepted he provides compelling arguments about why contemporary and popular approaches to solving ecological issues are generally futile or too slow moving.
The book is divided into two parts, a diagnosis of social systems and how this dismembers many modern approaches to environmental change (dotted with a few colourful metaphors along the way, take for example the comparison of Elon Musk fans being in a millenarian cult of the Singularity) and how given such a state of the world the true environmentalist *ought* to provoke change.
Kaczynski's origin is not forgotten in the second half as he very carefully dances as close to suggestions of terroristic actions as possible but it does offer quite interesting views on how to approach trying to make revolutionary change be it for gay rights, women's equality, global communism or primitive anarchism; his principles are abstracted from many radicals and hold water as organisational principles. If one abstracts away the principles for how an important social movement should organise and sustain itself in a non-violent manner this work is as powerful as Saul Alinsky's in showing how this can be done.
Overall it's a very good book to challenge your calmness about the ecological crisis going on around us and an analysis that shows many of our idealistic solutions to be perhaps untenable while the final section will give you an interesting account of how radical movements did and do operate though I would say the impact of this is only lasting if you want to engage in such a movement. Nonetheless, it is important to disentangle Kacyznski's acceptance of political violence from the other threads of his arguments to give a sensible reading and this can be done relatively easily.
August 21, 2022
Estremamente meglio di La società industriale e il suo futuro.
Kaczynski sviluppa e corregge molte delle numerose ingenuità che minavano pesantemente il suo cosiddetto manifesto, in particolare la mancanza di un approccio sociologico e le troppe interpretazioni freudiane della società. Ted sembra aver capito che è proprio indagando la relazione tra l'uomo e il potere che si possono capire i meccanismi del ragionamento umano all'interno della società industriale e trovare i "punti deboli" per distruggerla.
Detto questo rimangono diversi punti poco approfonditi, ad esempio: cosa avverrà dopo una volta avvenuto il collasso della società industriale e la distruzione della tecnologia? Nemmeno Kaczinski lo sa né gli interessa, l'importante è l'obiettivo della rivoluzione antitecnologica.
Bisogna anche considerare che una certa crudezza e sciatteria di fondo seppur tenendo conto che non è frutto dell'autore ma - da come detto dallo stesso autore nella prefazione - la volontà di non essere sottoposto a editing o revisioni di nessun tipo e soprattutto la scarsità dei testi cui gli è stata data la possibilità di usare come note per la stesura dell'opera. Una stellina in più ci sta tutta considerando anche questo particolare.
Kaczynski sviluppa e corregge molte delle numerose ingenuità che minavano pesantemente il suo cosiddetto manifesto, in particolare la mancanza di un approccio sociologico e le troppe interpretazioni freudiane della società. Ted sembra aver capito che è proprio indagando la relazione tra l'uomo e il potere che si possono capire i meccanismi del ragionamento umano all'interno della società industriale e trovare i "punti deboli" per distruggerla.
Detto questo rimangono diversi punti poco approfonditi, ad esempio: cosa avverrà dopo una volta avvenuto il collasso della società industriale e la distruzione della tecnologia? Nemmeno Kaczinski lo sa né gli interessa, l'importante è l'obiettivo della rivoluzione antitecnologica.
Bisogna anche considerare che una certa crudezza e sciatteria di fondo seppur tenendo conto che non è frutto dell'autore ma - da come detto dallo stesso autore nella prefazione - la volontà di non essere sottoposto a editing o revisioni di nessun tipo e soprattutto la scarsità dei testi cui gli è stata data la possibilità di usare come note per la stesura dell'opera. Una stellina in più ci sta tutta considerando anche questo particolare.
July 19, 2021
Ted Kaczynski may be crazy, but he ain't stupid. In this work from 2016, he warns of climate change, pesticides and fertilizers contaminating water tables and nuclear waste leaking at Yucca Mountain. A lab in Brazil accidentally released hybrid killer bees and our scientists continue to play God with unforseen consequences. The earth will be left a dead planet with only bacteria and algae remaining. AI is in the process of surpassing and possibly overtaking the human race at some point in the future. Kaczynski points out that most revolutions were started by a small minority; the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and South African ones are given as examples. Castro had a band of fifteen at the start of his overthrow of the Battista regime. Politically, Ted is equally disdainful of the PC left and dogmatic right. His sources vary widely, from Jesus, Martin Luther, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, to more current figures such as Edward Snowden and his exposure of our Big Brother government. We live in dangerous times and this book is an excellent overview of our present and future peril.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews