Take a photo of a barcode or cover
xolotlll 's review for:
Industrial Society and Its Future
by Theodore John Kaczynski
Ordinary humans
F.C. (Fagioli Craver) is an arrogant and deeply frustrated sociopath with a crippling lack of emotional intelligence. Because he is arrogant, he refuses to engage with other thinkers - only he alone can diagnose society's ills and identify the appropriate response. Because he lacks empathy, he has an embarrassingly rudimentary and schematic understanding of how other people work. He seems to think we are stupid drones, subject to a small number of natural laws that only someone with a brain as big as his could possibly identify and articulate. Fortunately, he has taken it upon himself to wake us from our ignorant slumber. I see the same terrible arrogance and childish egotism in a number of other famous killers, including Ted Bundy and 'supreme gentleman' Elliot Rodger. Because F.C. (Fairly Concerning) sees himself as a superior being, he thinks it's okay to murder strangers to bring attention to his cause.
Why 'leftists' hate Western civilisation
It's actually funny how wildly out-of-balance F.C.'s (Fresh Catastrophe's) intellect is. An IQ of 167 coupled with a monumental lack of emotional intelligence seems to produce immense frustration. His manifesto is full of the desperate, arbitrary armchair psychology of a man who lacks all empathy and self-awareness. His comments on human behaviour are almost entirely baseless, but of course a super-genius like him needs no method. F.C. (Fantasy Communist) opens with a psychological critique of contemporary 'leftism' that reads like it was written by an angry incel overdosing on the whole rainbow of pills. His big insight is that 'leftists' hate Western civilisation because they hate THEMSELVES. Possibly because he dislikes 'leftists' so much, he insists that all of society's problems are technological rather than cultural or economic.
Empirical data are for losers
F.C. (Frustrated Chad) is not a fascist, but he falls for that classic fascist urge to pit the past against the present, and justify violence with reference to an almost mythical golden age. Many of his arguments are predicated on the idea that people were better off before industrialisation, but that's just not supported by the evidence. Physical health, longevity, literacy, nutrition, and many other objective measures of wellbeing have improved enormously over the last few centuries, no doubt in large part due to the techno-industrial system F.C. (Friendless Caveman) rails against. He also claims that various social ills are less acute in rural areas than urban areas, but - in Australia, at least - mental health hospitalisations, suicide, intentional self-harm, and alcohol abuse increase with remoteness.
F.C. (Furry Convention) also comes up against the empirical data when he argues that revolution is a more powerful psychological motivator than reform. He reasons that reform involves avoiding a negative outcome, whereas revolution involves pursuing a positive outcome; because people are more motivated by the pursuit of positive outcomes than the avoidance of negative outcomes, they are more motivated by revolution than reform. Contrary to F.C.'s (Fantastic Cunt's) arbitrary assertion, studies in behavioural economics show that people tend to be more strongly motivated by loss aversion than the pursuit of gains.
The power process
F.C. (Femboy Club) argues that most social ills stem from a frustrated power process, which is a kind of psychological need to attain a sense of purpose and self-efficacy through the effortful pursuit of long-term goals. Techno-industrial society interferes with this process:
Neil Postman makes a similar argument in Amusing Ourselves To Death, writing that the 'information-action ratio' has increased as a result of the constant stream of information we're exposed to that is not actionable or relevant to the sphere of our lives in which we have any control.
The notion of the power process has a lot of face validity, although there are many other ways to think about psychological needs. I wouldn't be surprised if F.C. (Flippant Condescension) was projecting his own sense of powerlessness here, especially considering powerlessness is a known risk factor for radicalisation.
F.C. (Frankly Concerning) argues that people need autonomy to fulfil the power process, but it's not clear how that works in the 'primitive' societies he idealises. Arguably, many of them allow less individual autonomy than techno-industrial societies because they have more exacting, prescriptive traditions. Ironically, F.C.'s (Fabulous Corset's) fetish for individual autonomy is historically associated with the very system he wants to destroy.
Predicting the course of history
One of F.C.'s (Fractal Churro's) better ideas is that the long-term effects of new technology are just too complex to predict:
Social media, for example, have had all sorts of bizarre and unpredictable consequences, and many other widely-used technologies are probably too new for us to have seen the full extent of their effects - what are the cultural and psychological consequences of the mainstream consumption of online porn, for example? And what happens to an infant's brain when they spend several hours a day from the watching Baby Shark and unboxing videos on an iPad?
F.C's (Fragile Cop's) paranoid, pessimistic take here reminds me of the accelerationist notion of techno-capital - an eerie, quasi-agentive force pulling us blindly into the future. Unlike accelerationists, however, F.C. (Frightening Children) believes the process can be reversed.
Freedom and social control
F.C. (French Cinema) makes an interesting observation about how new technologies tend to reduce freedom when they're so widely adopted that they are no longer optional. Most people can't get by without motorised transport, for example, and it can be a real pain to keep a car going. Many people would also find it hard to get by without a smartphone.
F.C. (Fictional Character) seems to believe that freedom is incompatible with any form of widespread social control, including all the rules and regulations that perpetuate the techno-industrial system. He defines freedom with reference to the power process, but he fails to consider the other psychological and physiological needs that are met through the immediate restriction of freedom. It's only because laws are made and enforced, for example, that my local supermarket can help me fulfil my need to eat without too much fuss. This frees up time and energy for me to spend on other things. F.C. (Fried Chicken) doesn't explicitly make this distinction, but it seems like the freedoms he values are freedoms to (analogous to the pursuit of gains), whereas the freedoms enabled by the explicit forms of social control he opposes tend to be freedoms from - motivated, arguably, by the general preference for loss aversion that he fails to take into account.
F.C. (Finger Chopper) also fails to consider the ways in which technology has increased freedom - personally, I think it's pretty cool that I can travel great distances by plane, video chat with my friends in Europe, and learn about F.C.'s (Fraulein Cucumber's) nefarious misdeeds online. He might argue that these are just the trivial decisions I get to make as a consumer, though - that they are a cheap image of freedom created by the techno-industrial system, and they have very little to do with the few things I need to be a healthy, happy human being. And he would probably be right!
F.C. (Fagioli Craver) is an arrogant and deeply frustrated sociopath with a crippling lack of emotional intelligence. Because he is arrogant, he refuses to engage with other thinkers - only he alone can diagnose society's ills and identify the appropriate response. Because he lacks empathy, he has an embarrassingly rudimentary and schematic understanding of how other people work. He seems to think we are stupid drones, subject to a small number of natural laws that only someone with a brain as big as his could possibly identify and articulate. Fortunately, he has taken it upon himself to wake us from our ignorant slumber. I see the same terrible arrogance and childish egotism in a number of other famous killers, including Ted Bundy and 'supreme gentleman' Elliot Rodger. Because F.C. (Fairly Concerning) sees himself as a superior being, he thinks it's okay to murder strangers to bring attention to his cause.
Why 'leftists' hate Western civilisation
It's actually funny how wildly out-of-balance F.C.'s (Fresh Catastrophe's) intellect is. An IQ of 167 coupled with a monumental lack of emotional intelligence seems to produce immense frustration. His manifesto is full of the desperate, arbitrary armchair psychology of a man who lacks all empathy and self-awareness. His comments on human behaviour are almost entirely baseless, but of course a super-genius like him needs no method. F.C. (Fantasy Communist) opens with a psychological critique of contemporary 'leftism' that reads like it was written by an angry incel overdosing on the whole rainbow of pills. His big insight is that 'leftists' hate Western civilisation because they hate THEMSELVES. Possibly because he dislikes 'leftists' so much, he insists that all of society's problems are technological rather than cultural or economic.
Empirical data are for losers
F.C. (Frustrated Chad) is not a fascist, but he falls for that classic fascist urge to pit the past against the present, and justify violence with reference to an almost mythical golden age. Many of his arguments are predicated on the idea that people were better off before industrialisation, but that's just not supported by the evidence. Physical health, longevity, literacy, nutrition, and many other objective measures of wellbeing have improved enormously over the last few centuries, no doubt in large part due to the techno-industrial system F.C. (Friendless Caveman) rails against. He also claims that various social ills are less acute in rural areas than urban areas, but - in Australia, at least - mental health hospitalisations, suicide, intentional self-harm, and alcohol abuse increase with remoteness.
F.C. (Furry Convention) also comes up against the empirical data when he argues that revolution is a more powerful psychological motivator than reform. He reasons that reform involves avoiding a negative outcome, whereas revolution involves pursuing a positive outcome; because people are more motivated by the pursuit of positive outcomes than the avoidance of negative outcomes, they are more motivated by revolution than reform. Contrary to F.C.'s (Fantastic Cunt's) arbitrary assertion, studies in behavioural economics show that people tend to be more strongly motivated by loss aversion than the pursuit of gains.
The power process
F.C. (Femboy Club) argues that most social ills stem from a frustrated power process, which is a kind of psychological need to attain a sense of purpose and self-efficacy through the effortful pursuit of long-term goals. Techno-industrial society interferes with this process:
'Modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence . . . the result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person'.
Neil Postman makes a similar argument in Amusing Ourselves To Death, writing that the 'information-action ratio' has increased as a result of the constant stream of information we're exposed to that is not actionable or relevant to the sphere of our lives in which we have any control.
The notion of the power process has a lot of face validity, although there are many other ways to think about psychological needs. I wouldn't be surprised if F.C. (Flippant Condescension) was projecting his own sense of powerlessness here, especially considering powerlessness is a known risk factor for radicalisation.
F.C. (Frankly Concerning) argues that people need autonomy to fulfil the power process, but it's not clear how that works in the 'primitive' societies he idealises. Arguably, many of them allow less individual autonomy than techno-industrial societies because they have more exacting, prescriptive traditions. Ironically, F.C.'s (Fabulous Corset's) fetish for individual autonomy is historically associated with the very system he wants to destroy.
Predicting the course of history
One of F.C.'s (Fractal Churro's) better ideas is that the long-term effects of new technology are just too complex to predict:
'If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance'.
Social media, for example, have had all sorts of bizarre and unpredictable consequences, and many other widely-used technologies are probably too new for us to have seen the full extent of their effects - what are the cultural and psychological consequences of the mainstream consumption of online porn, for example? And what happens to an infant's brain when they spend several hours a day from the watching Baby Shark and unboxing videos on an iPad?
F.C's (Fragile Cop's) paranoid, pessimistic take here reminds me of the accelerationist notion of techno-capital - an eerie, quasi-agentive force pulling us blindly into the future. Unlike accelerationists, however, F.C. (Frightening Children) believes the process can be reversed.
Freedom and social control
F.C. (French Cinema) makes an interesting observation about how new technologies tend to reduce freedom when they're so widely adopted that they are no longer optional. Most people can't get by without motorised transport, for example, and it can be a real pain to keep a car going. Many people would also find it hard to get by without a smartphone.
F.C. (Fictional Character) seems to believe that freedom is incompatible with any form of widespread social control, including all the rules and regulations that perpetuate the techno-industrial system. He defines freedom with reference to the power process, but he fails to consider the other psychological and physiological needs that are met through the immediate restriction of freedom. It's only because laws are made and enforced, for example, that my local supermarket can help me fulfil my need to eat without too much fuss. This frees up time and energy for me to spend on other things. F.C. (Fried Chicken) doesn't explicitly make this distinction, but it seems like the freedoms he values are freedoms to (analogous to the pursuit of gains), whereas the freedoms enabled by the explicit forms of social control he opposes tend to be freedoms from - motivated, arguably, by the general preference for loss aversion that he fails to take into account.
F.C. (Finger Chopper) also fails to consider the ways in which technology has increased freedom - personally, I think it's pretty cool that I can travel great distances by plane, video chat with my friends in Europe, and learn about F.C.'s (Fraulein Cucumber's) nefarious misdeeds online. He might argue that these are just the trivial decisions I get to make as a consumer, though - that they are a cheap image of freedom created by the techno-industrial system, and they have very little to do with the few things I need to be a healthy, happy human being. And he would probably be right!
'Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false.
Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.'