1 review for Industrial Society and Its Future and Other Works

1. 

   QpooQpoo – December 12, 2024

   A must-read and the best edition of the manifesto.
   First of all, this is by far the best edition of Industrial Society and Its Future. It is the “updated” version that the author improved with many more notes two decades after it was originally published, and it is free of the typos and errors that most other publishers have. It also includes several never-before-seen essays, letters, and short stories (the “other works”) which are fascinating and go well with the manifesto to further elaborate on the ideas and give insight into the author’s anti-tech philosophy. Industrial Society and Its Future, also known as the Unabomber’s Manifesto, is without question the most important political and philosophical tract to have been written in centuries, and it should be required reading for all students of the humanities. Frankly, it should be required reading in all college and university humanities courses. More broadly, it is a must-read for anyone who wants to think seriously and critically about the nature and development of our society. These are bold claims, and given the abundance of misinformation and misrepresentation of the manifesto in the public sphere it’s understandable if the reader is highly suspicious of them—or even finds them laughably ridiculous. I will offer this to the suspicious reader: I was just like you. Several years ago, I was discussing the addictive and debasing aspects of social media technology with a friend of mine. We both acknowledged that we did not use Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram because, besides being a waste of time, they were fundamentally perverting human relationships and represented a highly undignified way to live. Then she said something that shocked me: “Everything is progressing exactly as the Unabomber predicted. Have you read the manifesto?” My first reaction was to laugh. After all this friend was known for her sardonic and dark sense of humor. But then she told me she was serious, and that I should read it in all earnestness. At this point there was a long pause. I began thinking that my friend was nuts. The Unabomber?! The guy was an insane psycho who was also a serial killer, I haven’t read it because no serious person has discussed it previously because—it was assumed—there was absolutely no place for it in any serious and sober discussion. Anyway, I forgot the whole episode, but came away thinking that my friend was a lot dumber than I thought she was—that, sadly, she probably fell for one of innumerable kooky conspiracy theories that mislead the weary in our turbulent and restless age. It was only years later, after I heard some reference to Ted Kaczynski, that I came across the manifesto again. I decided, what the heck, I’ll read this crazy guy’s manifesto out of pure curiosity, and to refute anyone in the future who might cite it to me again. I read it all in 2 hours. It was the most intense, insightful, and revelatory 2 hours I’ve ever had reading anything. After re-reading it a second time I came away with the realization that everything pumped out by the mainstream media in representing Kaczynski and his ideas is deeply, insidiously inaccurate and flawed. In reality, the manifesto is an extremely cogent, concise, lucid extrapolation of the nature of our modern technological civilization, the material factors that are driving it, the dynamics of its growth, how it is impacting human freedom and happiness, and, most disturbingly, how it is impossible to reform. I’d like to first deal with some of the common misrepresentations of the manifesto, and then I’d like to briefly discuss what I think is the most important aspect of the manifesto that has not been given adequate treatment by even the rare few who have read it seriously and discussed it openly. First, the “criticisms” of the manifesto that exist are all extremely feeble. One such criticism is that it is “unoriginal.” This is false. The manifesto articulates several fresh perspectives on how societies evolve and the nature of human freedom. But aside from all of the individual insights, what matters is how they are systematically marshalled to argue overarching points. In this respect the manifesto is unquestionably original. No other social sciences tract so precisely strings its logical points together, such that each point neatly and tightly logically builds on the others, to yield a rationally valid whole that is both comprehensive and exhaustive. But aside from this, it’s utterly irrelevant. The point of the manifesto was never to be “original” (even though it is), its point was to place several highly complex arguments on the nature and development of industrial society in simple, concise, easy to read terms that is easily accessible to the average reader. In this respect, the manifesto is a great success. It covers a huge range of philosophical ground, yet it is always grounded, always plain spoken, and always direct. In this respect it’s great breath of fresh air. One will get more out of reading this relatively brief manifesto than reading the collected works of all the current “philosophers of technology.” If there are any aspects on the manifesto that the reader thinks are not flushed out enough, or should be expanded on in more detail, well, realize that you are reading a manifesto. The whole point is to relay the major ideas in as concise a form as possible. If you want more elaboration on the arguments from the author, then he provides it in his two published books, Technological Slavery and Anti-Tech Revolution. In short, the criticisms of the manifesto are the result of a completely bankrupt academic establishment that is far too timid or too foolish to actually engage with it and thus desperately need some excuse so as not to, and an obviously hostile social establishment, where all the powerful interests in society, from government to the media, have a vested interest in maintaining technological civilization and the belief in the benefits of technological growth. I’ll finish here with what I consider to be the most important and often overlooked part of the manifesto: the subsection titled “Some Principles of History.” The reader would do well to reread this section carefully, and then, if interested, read Chapters 1 and 2 of the author’s second book, Anti-Tech Revolution. In this section, the author identifies 5 principles of history that relate to how societies form and change. The principles are self-evidently true, but the author backs them up with evidence anyway. The point is that the main conclusion derived from the principles is the rational prediction and control of society is fundamentally impossible. Societies evolve as systems in environments much the same as biological entities evolve over time through natural selection. It is this essential facet, this shocking yet irrefutable insight, that makes plainly clear the impossibility of directing the course of technological progress. More and more thoughtful and intelligent people are reading the manifesto these days. These ideas will not go away, the issues they address are not going away. Modern technology continues to progress. Time will tell if this manifesto ultimately has as great (or greater) an impact on society that the communist manifesto had during the 19th and 20th centuries. But from my vantage point, it looks like that is a distinct possibility.