4 ms·

You've buried an assumption in there: that there is only one possible future. That we can only choose between that one future and the past. Since at least the o

You've buried an assumption in there: that there is only one possible future. That we can only choose between that one future and the past. Since at least the original Luddites, the real tension has been between multiple futures enabled by technology. Kaczynski was in this tradition. It was an argument against inevitability, against the same glorification of one future that you condemn when it's about the one past. I suggest that you consider the possibility of one or more different futures, where technology still exists but is applied in ways that enhance our humanity instead of suppressing it.

api 3y ago
If this is the case then these writers should be spending 95% of their words talking about how to go from here to a different better future, or even better rolling up their sleeves and attempting to live or create such a future here and now. The only criticism you need is whatever it takes to frame the problem. I’ve read Kaczynski and numerous other primitivists and reactionaries and that’s not the dominant theme. The emphasis is on a lost golden age (that I do not believe actually existed) and accusing modernity in a moralistic tone.