ludditeI'm not saying you have to agree, or that reading it and being able to comprehend it will lead you to agree. I'm only pointing out how little of an effort you made to even try to understand something that is admittedly not as black-and-white as you would obviously like to believe
Sure it's not black and white, but the original comment I went against was saying that
DesonatorYou are a fool if you think there is any chance to work out the kinks. Besides my comment is the opening line of the infamous Unabomber's manifesto.
That's a very clear case of "educate yourself." It literally doesn't justify anything by itself, but apparently the only way to go against the claim that "you're a fool if you think there is any chance to reform society" is to read the entire essay and deconstruct it point by point
The manifesto ends with a vague plan to destroy the "technological society". A revolution not to remake society, but to destroy all traces of technology and society in the entire world so that it will never be remade, while somehow keeping nature and the human species intact. It's written by a terrorist that had previously been an unwilling subject to CIA's mind control project MKULTRA.
I've read the first 190 paragraphs (about 70%?) now and it really hasn't progressed on the key point imo. There's good critique on the problems of society and the lack of freedom it "inevitably" causes, the motives of scientists part, etc. but there's so many assumptions like "mental illness has increased dramatically", as if the cause couldn't be that pre-industrial revolution people just didn't have as much time to document their mental problems. (And that was one of my original points, before I read any of it except for the opening paragraph.)