Of all the texts we read so far, Industrial Society and Its Future was definitely the most coherent. I believe this is a result of the intelligence of the writer. Ted Kaczynski is an incredibly intelligent man. His IQ scored at 167. He received a scholarship to Harvard at age 16 and became an acting assistant professor by the age of 25. He is definitely far more intelligent and capable in writing than Adolf Hitler or Valerie Solanas. His manifesto is often called the Unabomber Manifesto due to his role as the Unabomber. He actually really intrigued me and I studied him a lot for a project a few years ago, but he essentially mailed bombed to various individuals with key roles in businesses that he believed were destroying the environment. His goal was to protect the wilderness that he loved while bringing about the collapse of industrial society. His manifesto reflects this belief. His writing is actually coherent, and the topic of environmental preservation is a hot topic today. His reasoning makes sense in many ways, and he seems to be an intelligent person. Where we differ is in his analysis of industrial society as a whole. I believe that the advances in technology have been beneficial for the human race overall, and allow us to live more fulfilling and happy lives. We have improved healthcare, entertainment, computing technology, and comfort through our adoption of industrialization. His argument is that the Industrial Revolution has caused needless and harmful destruction of the environment while forcing people to adapt to machines. He also argues that it has actually made our lives worse by creating a society that suppresses human freedom and potential. His arguments to support these claims are actually well constructed, though I absolutely do not agree with him nor his methods. Once again, I believe we benefit from Industrial Society, while his experience is clearly a much different one. Overall, his manifesto was actually an interesting read because it wasn’t incoherent like the others. It made me think and debate his reasoning, which was a welcome diversion from previous works.