Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How

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.

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!