Reading the Unabomber's Manifesto

Now, onto the event that inspired the creation of this blog.

I was at my friend's house, on the computer doing what I always do on the computer: browsing Wikipedia. To call it 'browsing' is actually a bit laid back of me; more accurately it would be something like a 'reading spree,' the way you might go to the bookstore, spend five hours there, and end up buying ten books--when all you had intended to do was use the bathroom and leave.

Now was one of those times. I'd started out looking up Yale but ending up at an article on Ted Kaczynski (better known as the "Unabomber"). It was not the first time I had visited this article (I have a penchant for revisiting good Wikipedia articles) but it was some time ago, and I'd now forgotten most of it. Intending to soon move onto another article, I began to read and, like getting sidetracked at the bookstore, ended up reading the whole article.

The article mentioned that Ted Kaczynski convinced The New York Times and the Washington Post to print his essay in order to get him to stop his terrorism. The essay, titled "Industrial Society and Its Future," is available in full on Wikisource via a link in the article.

I was intrigued: what could possibly be so important to Kaczynksi that he felt the need to organize an entire bomb-mailing campaign? Thus I began reading the 35,000 word paper, and did not stop until I had finished.

Let's not be mistaken: I am not, in any way, condoning the man's actions. He killed three people and injured many others. But his essay, though certainly lacking in some places and not as well organized as it could be, explains to the reader what I thought was a perceptive and insightful view of our present society. To oversimplify, Kaczynski describes how today's society prevents the average person from reaching true fulfillment (and, by extension, real freedom), and how this is being caused by the advancement of technology. He ends with a call for a revolution that will stop the growth of technology and thus the expansion of a system that constrains human nature.

He says more than that, of course (I entirely left out his highly amusing explication of "leftism"); you can read the complete essay, with footnotes, for yourself here. I do not personally sympathize with his view that technology can be successfully overthrown or even stopped, more so reversed. I do, however, see his point that technology is heading in a direction that will eventually (as in maybe 100 years from now or so) be detrimental to humanity as a whole.

My initial reaction to the essay was a unsettling feeling of dread; I have found yet again something else to exacerbate my own pessimism about what horrific events might unfold during my lifetime, among others.

But more than that, his essay raised many more questions in my mind. If Kaczynski is right--that technology will eventually eclipse humanity--is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I know; we humans are of the utmost importance to ourselves, and it is natural to want to oppose anything that may threaten our very existence. But everything runs its natural course. Humanity has not existed forever, and I highly doubt we were meant to exist forever. The dinosaurs had their heyday; now maybe humanity is reaching its own swan song. Perhaps technological dominance is simply the next stage in the historical timeline. But this view smacks of determinism; no one wants to think he or she cannot control their own fate.

I wanted to know others' reaction to the essay, and found this. It highly analytical, probably overly so, doing more criticizing than anything else--and the author can't seem to spell Kaczynski's name right. But it does at least make some valuable points, points that the essay's possible sympathizers would have to grapple with. A less scathing and more accessible review of the essay by another blogger can be found here, which provides a thoughtful response to the ideas presented in the essay. A commenter called Bobo challenges many of the essay's ideas on a logical ground as well.

These are not the only reviews, of course. A certain Scott Tinley has even created an addendum, adding his own words to Kaczynski's. Alston Chase gives an insightful description in The Atlantic Online of the public's changing attitude to Kaczynski's essay, although I admit I've not read this entire article. But my purpose is not to list all the reactions to the essay. I wish to see what others make of it. Is the paper simply the product of a deranged murderer? Or does it have merit, and possibly even truth? Should we heed Kaczynski's warning to start some sort of revolution against technology before it's too late? Or is the paper a bunch of hogwash, and I'm only wasting my time blogging about it? What are the ethical implications of even suggesting the paper has some merit; by doing that are we, on some level, excusing or perhaps even lauding the actions Kaczynski took to get the paper published?

These are the questions running through my mind; I want to see what answers (and questions) other people have running through theirs.