People who resort to violence against civilians are largely wingnuts. I'm saying that most people who seriously consider his ideas are engaging with his geopolitical analyses, not his religious fanaticism.

You exemple supports Bin Laden's sanity, isn't ? It's a pertinent idea that is already discussed in our western society : the usage of woman corpse to produce sexual arousal may not be aligned with a better condition for the others women.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, neither if the proposition has been debunked.

Here's the Wikipedia page, it's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut...

It's relevant today more than ever:

> [It argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.

Parent poster probably should have mentioned Ellul, who the unabomber was heavily influenced by. Makes it easier for people who simply pattern match based on culturally enforced taboos instead of reading the source material and drawing their own conclusions.

To begin, I'm most interested in his argument that technology can become autonomous to the point that human beings can no longer control it and will become reliant on it, undermining human agency. AI will accelerate this issue and will be used by elites to subjugate lower classes.

From the Wikipedia page for Industrial Society and Its Future:

> [He argues] that the Industrial Revolution began a harmful process of natural destruction brought about by technology. Furthermore it states that forcing humans to adapt to machinery creates a sociopolitical order that suppresses human potential and freedom. [...] The manifesto states that the public largely accepts individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, including the erosion of local and individual freedom and autonomy.

This leads to some interesting questions. Do human beings still have autonomy if we allow our decisionmaking to be offloaded to machines? Is technological progress for the sake of progress a good thing? Does it serve humanity? If it does serve humanity, who does it serve and at what cost? What does our society become when human beings no longer have purpose?

Independently, Bill Joy quoted Kaczynski in a Wired article in 2000, arguing that unregulated technology can lead us down a dystopian path: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_Future_Doesn%27t_Need_...