Humans will work first to obtain their basic needs, such as food and shelter. Some may complain that there are people on welfare, who have these basic needs provided, so that they no longer need to make an effort for these things. But for these people, how would they provide for their basic needs, if they were forced to? They can't just go out and grow food, because they don't own any land. They can't build a house, because they don't own land or have access to building materials, skills, or the right government permits. Their only option would be to go out and get a job, but what if they don't have the right background, training, experience, and nobody wants to employ them?

In any case, once humans have satisfied their basic needs, one way or another, they can then do what they want. Some will want luxuries, like expensive and visible possessions or travel and fancy meals. Others will accumulate wealth to try to obtain power and control over others, or at least financial independence for themselves so they can opt out of employment. Some will just relax and play games all day, or follow other hobbies or sports as they prefer. The latter are what you are classifying as "surrogate activity", but I don't know if there's really any harm in it.

No that's not what's meant by "surrogate activity," not in the way OP quoting Ted Kaczynski meant to mean. They define anything other than the most basic, like hunting and gathering, as a surrogate activity. So anything that we call a career today where you can work, make progress, and maybe even enjoy is, in their opinion, a "surrogate activity." I suggest reading TK, it's a very cynical worldview, but there is some truth to some of the arguments, and definitely something worth taking seriously.

Human populations are too large today to rely on hunting and gathering, but perhaps you could replace it with subsistence agriculture. But in the modern economy, it shouldn't really require anybody to work more than 10 or 15 hours a week to satisfy basic needs such as food and accommodation: otherwise, they are likely being swindled. So it leaves the problem of what to do for the rest of the time.

Of course there are movements that say science, technology, industrialisation are things to be avoided, such as the Amish or primitivist anarchists.

> The concept of "surrogate activity" breaks down once you understand human action. Whether in pre-historic African savanna or in modern-day NYC, people always act to improve their present conditions.

Have you read Jacques Ellul (i.e. the ur-"Kaczynski-style" argument)? Ellul defines technique as "[..] the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity." I don't think you can reasonably state that Ellul nor Kaczynski fail to "understand human action".

In this case, the problem isn't that people are maximizing their own self-interest. The problem is that they aren't. Yes, they're making a "voluntary" "choice" to use an addictive technology and a liberal, market-based society is providing individuals with what they actually "want" rather than what they think they want. What those people without antibodies "want" are Skinner Boxes and the market is happily providing them, all up and down the line. This does not seem to be resulting in a functional civic society.

> Humans are different from animals in that we can initiate voluntary conscious action. Kaczynski doesn't differentiate between involuntary (animal) action in response to stimuli, and purposeful human action, which is not and never was about mere "biological needs."

Where is the evidence that there is such a thing as "voluntary conscious" or "purposeful" action" and not "mere biological needs"? If there were a difference in principle between the two, how exactly does that invalidate the argument that "voluntary conscious action" is not triggered when people aren't bored and have meaningful hurdles to overcome in their own lives?

> Because humans prefer wealth to poverty, much of human action is about creating wealth. You can create wealth without "looting" others. In fact, it's a lot easier to corporate with others, trade, and help each other build wealth than it is to steal.

I'm sure that some members of every society that reached an equilibrium with their environment that was later disrupted by the intrusions of foreign markets would disagree. "Staying competitive" is a more compelling explanation for as to why "humans" "prefer" "wealth" rather than that all humans are naturally materialistic and acquisitive. If you don't run faster than the slowest member, you will be eaten. If you don't think faster than the slowest member of the tribe, you will be sacrificed. If you don't adopt, you will be enslaved by those who do. That's a great way to optimally allocate resources, but once again, this dynamic and addictive technology does not seem to be creating a functional civic society.