A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts.

It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Forced labor, as the name suggests, is whereby anyone is compelled to work or provide services against their will for fear of some form of punishment. Source: pxhere 2. Debt bondage is rife in some parts of the world Many people have negative feelings about technology and a majority of 69,000 surveyed in North America can be classified as “technological pessimists”.A key peremptory norm of general international law, the prohibition of slavery is entrenched in various instruments. It is incumbent of every country to take measures to ensure that forms of slavery do not persist within its territory. The 1998 Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court also lists enslavement as one of the crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the Court. [5] A recent poll of 69,000 people in North America revealed that a majority, 51%, can be classified as “technological pessimists,” meaning that they are at best indifferent to modern technology, and at worst outright hostile toward it.24 This is a huge number—something in excess of 100 million adults in North America alone. We know from experience that Europeans tend to be even more skeptical about such things, and thus they are likely to have an even higher number of pessimists. So there seems to be a widespread and deep-seated feeling that something is wrong with our technological age.

From an objective standpoint, then, the situation seems clear: In advanced technology we are dealing with something—a set of tools, a structure, a mindset, a force, a power—which is damaging all aspects of our lives, and seriously undermining the health of the planet. And, for all practical purposes, it is beyond our rational control. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society. As reported in the Independent, “using a mobile phone for more than 10 years increases the risk of getting brain cancer” (7 October 2007). Long-term users “are twice as likely to get a malignant tumor on the side of the brain where they hold the handset.” See Hardell et al (2007). See also AP story, “Cancer expert warns employees on cell phones” (24 July 2008). In fact Kaczynski’s writing style is perfectly suited to the task. He is clear, precise, and articulate. He writes in a commonsense manner, largely free of technical terms. When he does introduce precise terms, he is generally careful to define them. He is respectful of the reader. He writes to a broad audience. He is methodical and meticulous. Clarity and precision are of utmost importance, befitting the severity of the situation. How can we, creatures of nature, who have spent 99% of our existence using only the simplest of tools, thrive and live well in a high-tech world? Rationally, it seems impossible—and it is impossible. There is no good reason to expect that human beings, whose physiology is virtually unchanged since the Stone Age, could adapt well to such a radically altered lifestyle.

Then we turn him loose. We give him a few dollars, a small home in the suburbs, dress him up in a suit and a tie, and say, “Have a good life.”“Be a good citizen,” we say; “and don't do anything wrong. But don't worry, you'll adapt—we did!” There were of course a few exceptions, including: Wright (1995), Fulano (1996), Akai (1997), Finnegan (1998), and Coatimundi (1998). It seems amazing that those who advocate energy conservation haven't noticed what happens: As soon as some energy is freed up by conservation, the technological world-system gobbles it up and demands more. No matter how much energy is provided, the system always expands rapidly until it is using all available energy, and then it demands still more.Platform for Peace and Humanity is a non-profit civic association of young professionals dedicated to promoting peace and humanity around the world by international law. In the short term, natural selection favors self-propagating systems that pursue their own short-term advantage with little or no regard for long-term consequences. Environmental legislation has failed to protect the environment despite initially appearing to do so.

Present technological society is radically different than our natural state, and imposes unprecedented stresses upon us, and on nature.

As will become apparent, Kaczynski is a careful, insightful thinker who makes forceful arguments against technology—arguments that are not easily refuted. In spite of this, even at the peak of the Unabomber trial, one rarely heard anything of these arguments. Instead we were treated to an interesting spectacle: a near-universal assault on his character and actions, without a shred of meaningful discussion of his ideas. This shameful, deliberate act of mindlessness was typically ‘justified’ in three ways—none of which are rational. These tactics need to be firmly buried, so that a real inquiry can proceed.