Member-only story
The hardest part about a radical premise is avoiding a radical conclusion. Industrial society might destroy the earth, but does that mean we have to destroy industrial society? Is the rational response to out of control tech companies, pollution, political instability to become ecoterrorists? Neo-Leninists? Inevitably, there will be acts of violence — shootings, bombings, small insurrections — as some people conclude that, yes, the state, or the corporation-state amalgam, must be destroyed. I stress the utter rationality of this future choice: there is a very bad thing, and some people will want it to go away by any means necessary.
I was instigated to these remarks after reading this article about neo-Unabombers.
I was troubled, and weirdly elated, to discover that I shared a number of views with the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski — whose manifesto, it turns out, is brilliant, accurate, damning, enlightening: except for the fact that it calls for murder. Kaczynski — who I’ve never read before — thinks of industrial society (and uses that term, as I do, or have) as a nightmare; a deep, stupefying sleep. We share a premise, just not a conclusion.
Some people go to a coffeeshop, hear Fleet Foxes, order an espresso from the underpaid cute barista chick, and conclude the world is broken — a homogenous nightmare; others, sit down, open their Macbooks, and conclude the world is beautifully efficient and predictable. Some see smoke stacks and see the dying of the earth, others —useful power. Most people just order a coffee; the rare…
