His ideas are not original at all and he's no "thought leader"; the anarcho-primitivists had raised the same points a lot better and more coherently than he did. Just read the original sources, no reason to pay attention to a violent nutcase.
It's the same stupid arguments that people use to justify population control due to "overpopulation". There's a school of thought called anti-civilization that's a tad similar with some divergences that offers far more interesting critiques of industry. Once you get through that, post-civilization thought is also rather interesting.
But really, Anarcho-primitivism is essentially fascist dribble disguised as environmentalism and social justice.
Why shouldn't it be taken seriously when it's the only variety of anarchism that's actually self-consistent? You can't run a large, mass society on anarchist principles, because social organization on a large scale will always require some way of formally resolving disputes, and that pretty much implies that conventional politics and "rule" by some over others will be a thing.
I mean, in my mind that's right up there with negative utilitarianism's benevolent world-exploder in terms of clever ideas that aren't good ideas.
The "thought leader" thing was supposed to be a joke.
Yes, I got your point but it could be misinterpreted. Plenty of people are quite unaware of where these ideas actually come from, and who deserves credit for them.