Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How Second edition

I heard about this book a few years ago, but honestly, would not buy it because I didn't want to put money in Kaczynski's pocket. When I learned the proceeds were going to the victims and their families, I felt better about buying it. Initially, I began the book with an attitude of contempt towards his views. As I went further into the book, however, I realized some of his points were valid. I'm not a nature freak by a long shot. I don't even recycle. There is a lot of truth that we, as a species, are over-technologied. This book drives that point home. Except for the ramblings and over explaining that is sometimes in the book, he does an ok job expressing his views. It does read a lot like something from a college reading list, but it's tolerable. It does make me feel a bit more strongly that we need to take better care of our species and our earth, so I'm glad I read it. Maybe I'll start recycling, who knows?

Read this. Don't hesitate.

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

It’s not an easy read, you may need to read it a couple times to understand it but it’s very much worth the read. There’s a lot of important ideas and information in there.

The book contains excellent analysis on the dynamics of power between social structures and individuals (not unlike Foucault in some ways). He also utilizes a non-linear view of history which exposes it not as a progression of events towards an ultimate end, as in Hegel’s massively influential Dialectical model but instead as events which are connected in time, yet bring more truth to light when looked at as having common patterns of chaos and entropy. He reveals the uncontrollable nature of complex human systems (but especially Industrial society). There are many parallels between his views and classical anarchism as represented by thinkers such as Bakunin. Professor Kaczynski is not wrong in his analysis but every comment on his work must also reconcile the horrific violence that he set upon many people. Some may see him as a revolutionary but I see his life as a culmination of so many social issues. When his behaviors in reality are viewed from a psychological perspective, he seems to be a very disturbed man with many anti-social traits. As with many people who suffer from this disorder they are often a product of severe trauma, combined perhaps with a certain degree of genetic predisposition towards certain conditioned responses when under intense stress. The Professors life is a conundrum of academic brilliance and a descent into homicidal dysfunctionallity. I believe in many of the ideas espoused in his book, but I do not believe in violence for revolutionary means. For this reason, the Professor is still rightfully controversial. Truly a contradiction of moral and social problems. The book is well worth the read.

The media could not be loaded.  Dr. Kaczynski puts forth another great read. He is a genius and has the foresight to see into the future and the problems technology has caused. Written in simplistic terms and thats one of the great draws for me - easy to read and understand. Thank you.Edit: I see your like :)

Kaczynski utilizes the time he has on his hands to pour details into his books creating an unshakable argument against Tech and how Man is giving away the future. The solution he provides makes it that much more of a good read. Too bad reading books itself seems to be becoming obsolete. I was surprised to read reviews of this and other books of his by scholars but then that makes sense.

Kaczynski has devoted his life to the anti-tech revolution and this book is an invaluable resource for understanding why technology is ultimately ruinous to human society, as well as the life of the planet. Kaczynski takes on and exposes the weaknesses of many of the arguments that Tech enthusiasts promulgate. He shows how past societal revolutions can provide clues on how to take advantage of current conditions to further anti-tech aims. This is a fascinating read.

It seems to me that Kaczynki tries too hard, as if writing an academic paper, with masses of notes, appendices, and references occupying many pages at the end. This would be fine, were it not for the fact that he is trying to get some simple ideas across to the masses, who need simple facts and counterarguments.His key ideas are sound, and are laid out in a series of Propositions in Chapter 2 (p51). They constitute an extension to the idea of natural selection, as it applies not just to living organisms but also to groups, systems and 'supersystems'. His particular point is that the system we find ourselves in began with the industrial revolution, which led to technological development that took off with a speed never seen before. Humans were complicit in this development, because it helped them in their short-term goals and made their lives easier, but at the same time it created, in the longer term, a world that was in conflict with their instinctive needs, leading to an epidemic of what we call 'diseases' in the modern world: depression, anxiety, autism, self-harm, eating disorders, suicides and so on, especially perhaps in the young. To reject any aspect of our modern world that causes this stress, such as by giving up our phones, or not watching television, or not going into a boring workplace is to put ourselves at a huge disadvantage against our fellow humans; and so most people just go along with it while repressing feelings, and in many cases they get ill. It is 'the system' that is controlling them, and because of these feedback mechanisms that entrap us the only way out of our pain, according to Kaczynski, is to destroy 'the system', by shutting down technology and technological development. Kaczynski of course, regarded by his peers as a genius, gave up a stellar academic career to go and live off nature in a cabin in the forests of Montana, before engaging in a sixteen year terror bombing campaign that finally landed him in prison for life.Though Darwin is held in high esteem today, because he supposedly brought us 'a theory of evolution by natural selection', it has long been obvious to me (and I am not alone) that he did no such thing. Natural selection, I maintain, is a self-evident fact (but not a tautology); things that are best fitted to their environment are more likely to survive than those less well fitted. It could not be otherwise, and needs no empirical evidence. What Darwin provided lots of empirical evidence for was the more basic hypothesis that life forms came about by evolution, at a time when the idea of evolution, though it had been around for a very long time, was rejected by religion. He recognised that organisms change, but he did not know what the source of that change was, and although today it is widely said to be random mutation in DNA, the mechanisms of variation are still far from understood (something I specialise in). I might mention that my hero (of the Lunar Society) Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles, wrote about evolution and even natural selection, but in a poem about nature, because he lived in dangerous times, and so his ideas remained in obscurity.My point here is that natural selection is a fundamental self-evident property of systems that needed no empirical demonstration. Kaczynski simply carries on the logical thinking to list other self-evident properties of what he calls 'self-propagating systems' - ideas that are not new to me, but which need to be clearly stated and understood more widely. I would even go so far as to say that these ideas should be taught in primary schools, along with rational thinking, and some genetics, instead of a jumble of 'facts'. Just as Darwin did not need to spend twenty years trying to make his case, I don't think Kaczynski needed to either. Perhaps he should have started with a simpler book (his manifesto was not an easy read either). The organisation and presentation of his ideas is far from ideal; like Darwin, he has spent a long time in a struggle to be understood and accepted, and become trapped in his own passion. Like Erasmus and Charles, he lives in a time when his ideas are rejected because they threaten the system; in this case the system of growth, profit and progress that has largely replaced religious belief (at least in Britain if not in the USA where the basic idea of evolution is still fighting for recognition too).The rest of Kaczynski's ideas are less sound, but grounds for discussion. I don't believe that bringing down the system by revolution is the only answer, and nor do many others who are struggling with this problem. Other reviewers have felt the need to dissociate themselves from Kaczinski on moral grounds, but I think that what he did (kill three people and injure many more) is a separate issue, and the reason why he writes from prison with no chance of ever regaining freedom. Nobel invented dynamite, others invented the atom bomb and used it, but their actions do not invalidate their theories. Many intellectuals are in conversations with Kaczynski now, and helping him write his books, and that is a good thing.A very important book that I recommend, and my hope is that Kaczynski's writings will form material for others to study as the basis for a growing new movement dedicated to understanding the evolution of human life and societies and their relation to so-called mental illness.

The Unabomber's prophecy for the world doesn't seem to show any signs of happening. The world is not falling apart because of tech. We love our phones and online shopping etc. We can make friends with Facebook. I love Kindle! The first part where he talks of unintended consequences of development is good. However, he quickly then jumps to "Everything will collapse " without explaining why. A bit like the underwear stealing gnomes in South Park.