[californiadreem]

Anyone who disagrees with Kaczynski's ideas because they came from a convicted terrorist should read the works of Jacques Ellul instead, of which Kaczynski's was largely a popular reduction. The Technological Society is the clearest influence on Kaczynski's manifesto, but Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes is possibly more pertinent in this day and age.

Ellul was a professor, a pacifist, and a Christian anarchist. Attacks the ideas, not the man.

[ly3xqhl8g9]

Also Lewis Mumford [1], Günther Anders [2], or if you want to go truly underground, Gilbert Simondon [3] [4] or Friedrich Kittler [5].

If there are thinkers who have been in the conceptual space of the 23rd century and beyond, Simondon was surely one. Also radically of the future and forgotten is FM-2030 [6] [7].

All in all, blowing up people is easy, blowing up antiquated concepts, grasping for the grounds of a new metaphysics, painstakingly implementing and debugging is the hard part.

Besides, to think that there even is such a thing called technology (as distinguished from what) is incredibly naive after following to conclusions systems such as the Grotthuss proton translocation mechanism driving motion in a F_0/F_1-ATP synthase rotation mechanism [8] [9].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Anders

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Simondon

[4] Gilbert Simondon - 'The Technical Object as Such', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXDtG74hCL4

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Kittler

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM-2030

[7] Futurist FM-2030 Appears on CNN's Future Watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT__dTtX2ik

[8] Prof Levin, Prof Frasch (2022) Mitochondria, bioenergetics, information, electric fields, https://youtu.be/MEhrMR-Jaw0?t=3429

[9] 2021, Living Things Are Not (20th Century) Machines: Updating Mechanism Metaphors in Light of the Modern Science of Machine Behavior, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.65072...

[jlkanowski]

This is the correct list everyone, I wrote a thesis about the parallels between those thinkers and Ted K

[sizzle]

Got a copy we can read? Sounds interesting

[golemotron]

> Besides, to think that there even is such a thing called technology (as distinguished from what) is incredibly naive

The same could be said about Capitalism.

[dbspin]

This is an ideological position, termed Capitalist Realism [1]. Given the failing of social reproduction, environmental protection, long term planning against existential and systemic risk, the mental health crisis and the collapse of civil and political life, under entrenched and victorious capitalism - an increasingly absurd one.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Realism

[dylkil]

>collapse of civil and political life

civil and political life is terrible and still better than it has ever been

[wizzwizz4]

Depends who you are, and depends how long a timeframe you're averaging over.

[cscurmudgeon]

All of those happen in non-capitalist societies too and some times to a more larger extent.

[dbspin]

Both of us seem to agree that there is such a thing called capitalism.

[goblin89]

One can say “non-capitalist society” yet mean that capitalism is the only thing that there ever is. Capitalism is a way to look at things, and it doesn’t require a modern society—social capital and economics of prestige is a thing since forever[0].

Indeed, in all large-scale supposed “non-capitalist” societies today there is capital—it doesn’t stop being so if a few people use unlimited power and oppression to install arbitrary rules and restrictions on capital for others without having being subject to any checks or balances themselves; it just becomes more contrived and perhaps perverted.

Some would probably say that it’s the infectious external influence of other capitalist countries that precludes full abolition of capital, but another way to look at it is that said external influence is in fact what gives such a regime life in the first place—i.e., if you remove the agitating antagonistic existence of “capitalism”, the pretend “non-capitalism capitalism” would not suddenly turn into a perfectly “non-capitalism non-capitalism” but rather revert to capitalism, regardless of whether it would be called so or not or whether it would happen violently or peacefully.

[0] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/03/03/inequalities/

[cscurmudgeon]

Yes, and I can even bet that unless a species is a hive mind, any intelligent species will have something like capitalism. The inverse is that to enforce a non-capitalist system, you have to brutally shape a society into something that is like a hive mind.

[sgregnt]

I personally don't see these failing that you mention, far from it. Whatever you believe, this kind of propoganda claims stating your opinion as a fact, is very transparent, and just discredits your argument.

[msla]

Don't make this political.

[FrustratedMonky]

Don't make it political?

>"He sounds like an ecofascist to me, someone willing to use violence in pursuit of a "green" ideology."

The use of "green" ideology is pretty sarcastic remark from the political right, or climate deniers.

[DonHopkins]

That's exactly what people with indefensible politics say during political discussions, when somebody raises a point they don't like and can't counter.

If your politics are too vile to discuss and defend, then don't participate in political discussions. And stop trying to inject your own politics while telling others not to mention their, like you've been hypocritically doing repeatedly.

[moffkalast]

> Friedrich Kittler

Whoever decided to not name him Adolf did the guy a huge favor.

[msla]

> If there are thinkers who have been in the conceptual space of the 23rd century and beyond, Simondon was surely one.

The 23rd Century shouldn't belong to ecofascists.

[ly3xqhl8g9]

None of those mentioned are ecofascists, especially not Simondon [1], that was the point: the true radicals destroy the future worlds, not directly the present one. Alan Turing destroyed all the multiverse branches [2] in which we don't use computation. Norman Borlaug [3] destroyed all the multiverse branches in which we don't have high-yield wheat.

Perhaps an even better parallel would have been Alexander Grothendieck [3], the mathematician of the 20th century (maybe even of the 21st century if concepts as the topos [4] are made into usable tools for deep neural networks [5]), but also a person who was teaching mathematics in Vietnam [6] while hiding from bombs. When the world burns, all that remains is the Glasperlenspiel [7].

[1] 2022, Governing progress: From cybernetic homeostasis to Simondon’s politics of metastability, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00380261221084...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topos

[5] 2021, Topos and Stacks of Deep Neural Networks, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.14587

[6] 2013, Grothendieck’s 1967 Lectures in the Forest in Vietnam, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00283-013-9368-6

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game

[msla]

You're throwing out a lot of names to defend a White Supremacist Fascist named Ted Kaczynski.

[ly3xqhl8g9]

Reading comprehension is certainly irrelevant if one is interested only in their tunnel-visioned thesis.

At no point the impromptu syllabus from above defends anyone or anything. In fact, it is so tame it didn't even mention more problematic, although arguably important and interesting, works such as Martin Heidegger's [1]. To think referencing someone as Günther Anders defends fascism is just too ludicrously functionally illiterate for any other words to be further possible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Question_Concerning_Techno...

[tenpies]

His published works aside, it seems he was corresponding with people and answering letters until fairly recently. Many of these letters (or quite convincing forgeries) are archived in your favourite 4chan archive of choice.

Also worth mentioning what was essentially a partial autobiography by Kaczynsky: Truth Versus Lies[1]. I'm not sure it was ever completed and there are a couple versions floating around. He was still working on it well into the mid 2010s.

---

[1] One version: https://archive.org/details/TruthVersusLiesPart1

[happytoexplain]

People don't disagree with him because he was a convicted terrorist, they disagree with him because of the specific things he did to be convicted of terrorism. That's reasonable (correct, even). People might know or not know each opinion he expressed, and might reasonably agree or disagree with each one, but that's not the same thing.

[lm28469]

> People might know or not know each opinion he expressed, and might reasonably agree or disagree with each one

Isn't that the definition of agreeing (or not) with someone ?

> but that's not the same thing.

How so ?

[emodendroket]

He forced his way into the conversation through terrorism. It seems reasonable enough to reject his ideas out of hand rather than give them respectful hearing.

[forgetfreeman]

With respect this is not correct. What you are describing is Ad Hominem driven by some kind of moralist knee-jerk reaction. The absurd extreme of this line of reasoning would be to refuse to acknowledge the existence of snow because Hitler mentioned in passing in a letter or a speech at some point.

[happytoexplain]

Not correct? Ad hominem? Moralist knee-jerk reaction? Absurd? Extreme? There is probably a more reasonable version of this disagreement, to put it lightly.

Unlike Hitler's opinions on snow, Ted Kaczynski's murders are inextricably linked to his ideology.

[forgetfreeman]

And how would you know what, exactly? Have you actually taken the time to read any of the man's writing? Because I've been picking my way through his manifesto off and on this evening and so far what I'm encountering is calm, lucid, internally consistent, and a fairly accurate critique. Something about this exchange is reminding me of all of the decades of inarticulate hyperventilating about "communism" by individuals who hadn't bothered to so much as read the manifesto, much less examine Marx's writings.

[bbor]

A) the hitler metaphor isn’t quite right - the parent isn’t saying that all of his ideas are inherently 100% false, but rather that reading his work is wasteful and disrespectful and dangerous. (Ok well some of that’s me but I’m guessing they’d agree) In my eyes, a better metaphor would be “refuse to read mein kampf even though it has some true paragraphs about the harms of monetary inflation”. Which, by god, I hope we can all agree is the right choice!

B) seeing “moralist” in this context seems a little absurd. He didn’t swear a lot or start an OnlyFans, he tried to kill dozens of people…

[goldenkey]

You can't read someone's book without being brainwashed by them? Sad state of affairs.

[emodendroket]

A more accurate Hitler analogy would probably be to reject his racial theories out of hand since they led to the world's first industrial-scale genocide.

[forgetfreeman]

Rejection out of hand is bankrupt regardless of what motivation one cares to use as a hood ornament. If one can't be assed to even examine the claims in question, one certainly isn't qualified to field a critique thereof. At minimum, one should know one's enemy.

[pixl97]

This gets messy quick. If for example you lived under a dictator and that dictator didn't like your conversation then you wouldn't expect to have a venue unless you took extreme measures.

Now let's say that you think AI was an existential threat to humanity and we were all going to die because of it. In your mind would it matter if you blew up 10 people? 100 people? 1000000 people? I mean in your mind they are all dead anyway and if this is the price to pay to stop it, it will have been worth it.

[happytoexplain]

First, I'm not sure you're using "quick" properly here. There is no trajectory - only individual cases. We can easily consider his actions unjustifiable and yet consider similar actions against a brutal dictator justifiable without straying into hypocrisy.

Second, the "imagine you truly believed X" defense is a good argument for sympathy, but not a good argument for justification or credence.

[onethought]

Yes, it should matter, because sane people admit there is a chance they could be wrong. You can walk back ideas, you can’t walk back deaths.

Also unless you’re a government you probably shouldn’t be applying utilitarian ideas of ethics to your actions, you do not have a right to decide on behalf of anyone but yourself as an individual, so even by utilitarian standards you are likely being unethical.

[emodendroket]

Anyway, if we want to apply utilitarian reasoning, taking someone’s ideas seriously simply because he garnered attention through random killings would seem to encourage more people to do violence for various different causes.

[emodendroket]

I mean, yes, if I sincerely believed in his project maybe I’d think that way.

[onethought]

Exactly if your ideas aren’t compelling enough to garner attention without murdering people… probably your ideas suck.

[bmitc]

Thank you for the reference to Jacques Ellul, as I hadn't heard of him before. From looking a few reviews, I'm liking what appears to be him having a critique of the worship of technique, which is an interesting thought.

[Kye]

You know how sometimes you'll see someone [dead] on here making salient points, then wonder why they're dead? Then you check them out, and every so often they go off on incoherent tirades.

That's Ted Kaczynski. He may have had two good ideas for every bad one, but he was still a piece of shit who deserved to be isolated from society where he couldn't hurt anyone, and there are better advocates for whatever good came out of his head.

Or to paraphrase the dril classic: you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"

edit: to be clear, I think the dude was little more than an ecofascist and not worth taking seriously. But if you're going to, you ought to know he was the worst advocate for any position he held. You can do better than propping up a dead asshole.

[bbor]

I'm curious to hear what in Ellul echoes Ted's manifesto? Ellul seems very like a very astute and interesting thinker, and Ted obviously referenced him, but to say that it's a "popular reduction" seems like a stretch to me. I say this based on this understanding of Ellul, pulled from his wikipedia page:

> The solution is to simply view technique as objects that can be useful to us and recognize it for what it is, just another thing among many others, instead of believing in technique for its own sake or that of society.

Which I would summarize as "we should examine technology as a means to an end, rather than a good unto itself". On the other hand, I would summarize Ted's thoughts (without having read the manifesto myself) as "technology of all kinds is inherently evil, and we have a moral imperative to dismantle and destroy basically all of it as quickly as possible."

Those two ideas seem related in that they're talking about some of the same concepts, but it kinda ends there for me...

[kevincrane]

“Do you like the unabomber’s ideas but get embarrassed when you talk about the unabomber in front of your friends? Try talking about Ellul instead, you might sound more worldly that way”

[Aerbil313]

If you’re embarrassed to talk about anti-technological ideas in this current technological dystopia, you’re as oversocialized as Ted described you in his works.

[JamesLeonis]

> Attacks the ideas, not the man.

It's unfortunate that people stop at the Manifesto, as Kaczynski has other critiques, but also admits to limitations or failures in his thinking. In one correspondence he admits he has no criteria to decide if a given technology is benign (small scale) or harmful (organization-dependent), a critical distinction! He tries to shore it up with analyzing a primitive Steam Engine, but I would point to Bronze as a contradiction harboring both characteristics. My interpretation is that the distinction is political, not based on any aspect of the technology itself including production. Technology acts as a magnitude, and how we apply it is the essence of our social/political organization.

This is, of course, one interpretation among many. Like professor Ellul, there are many other voices. There is Society of the Spectacle (a style ISAIF is imitating), or the works of Jean Baudrillard where he (early years) analyzes commodities under Consumerism or (later years) his work on Spectacle and Image. Even Karl Marx has a detailed understanding and critique of Machine Society in Chapter 15 of Capital [0].

Finally, Kaczynski is harmful to many anarchist spaces. His True Crime reputation attracts tons of media footage and mystique, which furthers misunderstandings. Crimethink has a great essay, "The Unabomber’s Unending 15 Minutes of Fame" [1], which details how this warps perceptions and action while ignoring who the victims are.

> As individuals within a movement professing a desire to reconstitute the world on the basis of love, harmony, peace, and sharing, an ethical question arises when a means inconsistent with an end is presented. In this case, the tactic of non-self-defense violence. This is not a question of armed defense such as was the case during the 1930s Spanish revolution, for instance, but rather, the validity of aggressive violence against those who are designated as The Enemy.

> The question of who is our enemy is a slippery one. Most of the dead and maimed from the Unabomber campaign were involved in this massive, almost entirely inclusive system of destruction and repression in a manner little different from most of us. Under the Unabomber rubric of complicity, almost all of us are potential targets. It should be remembered, his toll of three dead and 29 wounded was severely limited only when his bombs failed to go off in an airliner and outside a university classroom. Apparently, all of us were indiscriminately designated as The Enemy.

> I don’t have a lot of interest in people who advocate “armed struggle.” In this country, it usually comes down to those enthusiasts for armed adventures constituting a rooting section without taking the leap into the fray themselves. This is often accompanied by an arrogance and set of judgmental politics that condemn anyone not in the claque as timid, or reformist, or worse, counter-revolutionary. The latter, by the way, has historically been a pre-execution category, so I watch my back when ever I hear that phrase being thrown my way even by someone claiming to be an anarchist.

> My experience is that advocates of violence have a short shelf life. They break windows or plant a few bombs while furiously condemning everyone else for a lack of revolutionary ardor and then they are gone, usually with some wreckage that has to be cleaned up by those committed to long range organizing.

[0]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm

[1]: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/walker-lane-pseudony...

[wahnfrieden]

Thank you for the anarchist references, with how conservative his ideas were and not only against "leftists" / libs I was looking for this perspective here (given anarchism gets unfairly lumped in with leftism or authoritarian communisms even as post-left anarchism is a thing)

[emodendroket]

> Ellul was a professor, a pacifist, and a Christian anarchist. Attacks the ideas, not the man.

Who would care about Kaczynski's ravings without the murders?

[msla]

He sounds like an ecofascist to me, someone willing to use violence in pursuit of a "green" ideology.

[cogman10]

Funnily, Kaczynski was an ecofascist, he was also an anti-leftest.

You have to remember that when he performed the bombing in the 70s environmental protections had bipartisan support (Nixon famously created the EPA [1]).

It wasn't until much later that being green turned into a radical partisan issue. I mostly blame Rush Limbaugh [2] and the Koch brothers [3] for that shift. Turns out, a lot of big oil propaganda [4] can really sway public opinion.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/history/origins-epa

[2] https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-cli...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/opinion/sunday/david-koch...

[4] https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/big-oils-electric-fight-aga...

[NovaDudely]

One of his later letters he said was against Eco-fascisim. basically saying that a lot of it is driven by racism or some sort of political/social ideal. That these factors are not distributed equally globally means that it would never work as a long term strategy.

If one half of the global turned to ecofascisim and they got a non-technical world they desired, the other half would immediately capitalize on this and take over.

In a way I find Ted's idea fascinating in the same way I find a lot of smarter spiritual teacher fascinating. Here is this simple base idea, now here is 500 things you have to watch out for how the most simplistic path will cause more harm than good. To that, I don't think he had a complete picture on how to achieve what he wanted.

Like Ram Dass saying, be here now, but take it too far and you will go insane!

[gota]

Plugging in my (tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not a 100%) conspiracy theory that Big Oil was the financier and culprit behind the flat earth, anti-vax, moon landing conspiracies, and many others -

As a way to discret the whole of the scientific and academic establishment in the minds of enough (voting) people, so as to delay the inevitable consensus that fossil fuel consumption is killing everyone slowly

[gota]

*discredit

[matkoniecz]

> Anyone who disagrees with Kaczynski's ideas because they came from a convicted terrorist should read the works of Jacques Ellul instead

I refuse to read or become exposed to some ideas because one of their proponents murdered people.

I want this strategy to be less effective, not more.

[boredhedgehog]

But the very fact that Kaczynski's ideas were widely published and read directly led to his arrest. If the consideration is to be purely strategic, his case should be an argument in favor of dissemination.

[matkoniecz]

This stopped applying since they were become caught.

[halothane]

Would you apply the same logic then to Winston Churchill, the British monarchy and its government? Under the guise of "civilizing natives", they were responsible for exterminating and murdering large sections of the population across Ireland, Africa, India, Middle-East and East Asia. Churchill was racist and a terrorist to many in the colonized world but was a prolific author who won the Nobel Prize in Literature. What's the difference between him and the unabomber?

[vkou]

It sounds like the easiest way for ideas to be killed, then, is for a few abhorrent people to champion them.

[golemotron]

Not really. There's something called The Streisand Effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect ).

Invariably, people take the opportunity to publicly declare how opposed they are to various abhorrent people, indirectly making others aware of them and their ideas. This entire page of comments on HN is a good example.

It's hilarious that people don't recognize that when they say "I will not read this" it is an advertisement.

[matkoniecz]

If I would become aware of some idea and not as result of someone trying to promote them by murdering people then I have no problem with reading it.

[FrustratedMonky]

Agree, Kaczynski did make some good points. Maybe if he had learned to channel that energy better.

[NovaDudely]

That is the saddest thing. He had some great ideas and knew how to communicate them. He just didn't think he would be taken seriously unless he used the bomb cheat code on life to get notoriety. I suspect that if he had gone the path of writer with publishing, not only would his works be more popular, there would have actually been a realistic means of implementing some of his ideas.

He had some great ideas and simultaneously pushed back any real change by decades for his own self gain interest.

[bbor]

Which ideas? Everyone keeps saying this but I’d love specifics.

[Aerbil313]

Read his manifesto, they’re detailed. I was shocked for a straight week when I read it, I couldn’t believe I have been lied to my entire life. Or better yet his book Technological Slavery: https://archive.org/details/tk-Technological-Slavery

[bbor]

Yeah... I appreciate you taking the time to respond but "read this 35,000 word manifesto by a schizophrenic idealogical serial killer whose conclusions you already know you find vapid and deplorable" is not a great pitch lol. Was just hoping to hear some highlights. I think I'll just have to wander along for the rest of my life without gaining any insight as to why Hacker News is so in love with that work, beyond some variety of SV-guilt!

[NovaDudely]

Since we had know TK had been sick for a while and that this was coming soon, for about a month for I have been trying to distill TK's work down as an article about how others have gravitated towards his writing. It is not in praise of him it is just a study of some key points and as to why so many have seen solace in these works - especially over the last decade.

Normally I could write something like that over a week end but this article... it is an absolute doozy and the further in I go the worse it gets!

The issue is, you cannot really condense his writings down without doing a total dis-service to the points being made. Either you are going to misrepresent a point and it get wildly misinterpreted OR you come off a little to in praise of it.

It is very clear that TK had an academic background, even going so far as numbering the paragraphs - and in his book, The Anti-tech revolution : Why and how - he is very clear at the beginnings that these writings are not meant to be just read but studied. I don't disagree, they are written in a very tight manner. So while Industrial society and its future is 35,000 words, it is very specific in those words. It is about a 2 hour read, or you can just find a audio version on youtube.

If I had to summarize the essence of his works, he had a very decent analysis of the flaws of technology based societies. He had absolutely no idea on how to actually bring about change or even know where to start. The subsequent 27 years of writing from jail showed that he could analyses the problems and potential failings of revolutionary tactics but had no idea of how to actually analyze what technology as good or bad.

There is a reason he was called an insane Genius.

Personally speaking, yeah he was right on a lot of things... now what?

I ain't going to do what he did and try to bomb the world into submission, that is just idiotic. It is all just a some really good analysis but with no means of achievable execution. I more worry about others that are coming after him that will do a lot more damage. Anders Beivik who killed many at a youth summer came in 2011 also deeply reference TK's works in his manifest - an example of how this line of thinking can only lead down a dark and terrible path. But doesn't mean you shouldn't read these things.

One can read these things and take away some very good points without having to internalize the whole thing. Aristotle said something like that, you can read and think about ideas as though they are true and not necessarily have to believe them.

[bbor]

What points resonate with you? With as much sincerity as I can express, I’ve gotta ask: why aren’t you living in the woods if you think the guy who said that industrial society was a mistake “had some good points”?

[glimshe]

If you think that Buddhist monks have some good points, do you need to go live in a remote monastery? Kaczynski's critique can make us think about the extremes of modern life; it can encourage us to step back a little and live in more harmony with nature and less so in the grind of industrial society.

[bbor]

So you (y’all) are focusing on some of his incidental points, not the conclusions/purpose of the manifesto. Makes sense! Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I was writing a whole thing about why I find looking for nuggets of wisdom in a work that you fundamentally find severely flawed is a waste of time, but I think it’s best dropped. “Did you find these critiques interesting” isn’t even something I could really convince somebody to change their mind on lol, given all the paragraphs in Hacker News

[FrustratedMonky]

Oddly, the "why don't you go live in the woods", is the extremist view. Like "if you believe in God, why are you not going to church every day and out proselytizing", "If you are a vegan why aren't you out shutting down factory farms.", "If you care about environment why don't you live in a hut".

Why do you have to be an extremist about something or it doesn't count.

Think this is all the same mistaken view that a lot of extremists have. IF you can't be 100% dedicated without any slips then you are a failure and hypocrite.

So what if a vegan is stuck in an airport and has to cheat once and eat a burger, or I have family over for dinner and we do 'waste' more, or if I am vegan but on Thanksgiving, it is easier to eat some turkey and not argue about it.

You see, your view is the extreme one.

And also there is always Moloch. I may see technology and capitalism heading toward a brick wall, but I still do have to eat and live in the world. I'm not an extremists.

[Aerbil313]

My life plan has in fact changed to living in the woods after I read his manifesto and his book Technological Slavery: https://archive.org/details/tk-Technological-Slavery.

I don’t think he had just some “good points”, I think he’s completely right on the matter that modern (post steam engine & guns) technology is harmful for human life.

[yawboakye]

“hate the sin, love the sinner.” agreed!