I was not expecting such a passionate reaction. Your point (or argument, let's say) on "shit with titles like" is flawed. For example,
"Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" (wtf)
This clearly shows you are judging a book by its cover without reading critically. The citations that you are berating merely for their word choice or format (such as a movie) are not there for the data. They are there to establish the philosophical terms that the author uses. To me it sounds like you simply don't understand.
at least with respect to the whole 'industria vs. wilderness' thing going on, make industria a place amenable to wilderness.
And here you reveal you've missed one of the main points of the article, if you read anything beyond the bibliography. Industria is not a place. It is a network of knowledge and power; invisible, but its affects are everywhere. And furthermore, its a hypothesis. The author isn't parading around claiming absolute truth like you are:
6. Industria pays the bills for a large chunk of the population at the end of the day (see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), and given human existence prior to the Industrial Revolution, human quality of life would probably be a lot worse without it (see expansion in healthcare, decrease in disease burden, and other stuff).
The answer is...
Just because 'a large chunk of the population' (of what?) acts in a certain way does not make it sustainable. In fact, there are plenty of societies that do not operate in the same technological milieu, just ask any freshman anthropology student.
Not all knowledge is good knowledge.