Thanks for that in-depth critique. I found some points helpful and will correct some of what you pointed out. However, some of your points are not only uncharitable, but biased in the extreme, arrogant and pedantic. Pointing out typos and claiming that “behaviour” is an incorrect spelling, when it isn’t (it’s just a difference between British-Canadian and US-American english) is outright pathetic.
First, I would like to point out the title of the piece: “Quick Thoughts”. This is not intended as a deep analysis, and there is no reference to any other part of Kaczynski’s work, since it is a look only at this document. But let’s go through your points one by one.
You take issue with the “wasted human potential” claim. Your main argument seems to be that it isn’t decided yet. That if Kaczynski does succeed in inspiring an anti-tech revolution, he will have been one of the greatest thinkers ever. However, if the moral virtue of actions depends on whether you win an eventual conflict or not, you are operating under a strange idea of ethics. The fact remains, he is a killer who murdered and injured random people to get attention to make a political/philosophical statement. That is bad. If you do not agree that this is bad, then I can’t help you. But to pretend that somehow the moral virtue of his life is not yet decided, is relativistic. This has nothing to do with being pro or anti tech. It is a moral question that would have had the exact same answer 5000 years ago as it has now.
But in fairness, perhaps phrasing it in terms of human potential is prone to be misinterpreted.
The connection to leftism is not strong enough. That was my claim and I stand by it for now. It may be that he elaborates on this further in other writings, but in the context of this essay alone, it’s not sufficiently developed. Mind you, I’m not saying he’s wrong about leftism. I’m suggesting that his discussion of the power process and industrial society aren’t really dependent on his thoughts on leftism. Sure, there is a connection, as you mentioned, but it doesn’t seem that strong to me.
Regarding primitive society, I do mention that he offers a more realistic picture than some other romantics. He does mention the Australian case for instance. However, I will just point you to Steven Pinker’s research again, as I do above, who clearly shows that tribal/stateless societies were extremely violent, and unpleasant.
You seemed to have completely missed my point on developing countries. My point is this: people in developing countries are often much happier than people in the west. Developing countries are still industrial, large-scale societies though. They are not as organized and developed as the west, of course, but they do have all the features, more or less, of what Kaczynski describes. The reason I’m pointing this out is that perhaps Kaczynski is wrong about what makes us miserable. Is it really all that reasonable to suggest that developing countries are happy, but trust me, tribal societies would be even happier? Compared to primitive life, these developing countries are also miserable! That just seems silly.
I make reference to Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape. Perhaps it is the case that primitive life can make people happy, but it also seems to be the case that some developing, yet still industrial, societies are happy too. Unless you want to engage in a “happiness measuring” competition, that is a problem for Kaczynski. That is, it may be that there are features in western society that uniquely contribute to our misery, that are NOT related to industrial or technological advancement. It’s not a dichotomy, necessarily.
You seem to put a lot of stock into the distinction between “maybe” and “likely”, but from reading the manifesto, it seems that “likely” is the correct term, even in Kaczynski’s own view. He describe technology as a more powerful social force than our desire to be free. Therefore, he obviously thinks that technology will simply return, as this makes perfect sense under the conditions of human nature he himself has laid out. What, next time around people won’t want to improve their lives or seek competitive advantage over their opponents or rivals by using technology? Come on…
Regarding the part about his ideas not being fully developed, this is correct. They are not fully developed in this manifesto. You seem to have great trouble understanding that this review is of the manifesto only. Not other books published 20 years later. Specifically, what I meant by full development, was in regards to my critique about not including women in his hypothesis. The problem is that he constructs an entire psychological thesis about why we are miserable in society, and then just shrugs off half the population. This is a glaring lack of development. He is calling for violent revolution based on his analysis of men’s psychology, and hand-waves away that of women. This is pretty weak and would never be an acceptable practice in a rigorous academic environment, especially given his big claims and even bigger ambitions.
I’m working on the Svend Brinkman review, which will be linked once it is done.
Again, going through an essay looking for typos is pretty pathetic on your part, and you ought to spend your time more constructively. But thanks for challenging my writing anyway.