This text was really interesting to read because it addresses fears about technology that are still present in today’s society. It was also interesting to read around the text because I have heard references to the Unabomber and the Unabomber sketch, but I never really knew anything about him or the case. Now I know what Ted Kaczynski did, that he was caught, and how he was caught. In fact, he was identified when he was because his brother read Industrial Society and Its Future in the Washington Post and recognized his writing style.
One thing that he wrote about that struck a chord in me was his fear of genetic engineering. He believed that in time technology would be great enough that society would start to make babies that they deemed “correct” and “normal.” Today those potential babies are called “designer babies” and a lot of people today are scared of what will happen when this technology is available. It will create even more divides in our society based on who can afford it and who cannot. Then there could be a divide between the “better” genetically engineered people and the “worse” natural people. I kind of agree that the morals and laws of our society are not keeping up with the technology. I mean who will decide what is right and what is wrong? There are some genetic mutations that exist that lead to external or internal differences in people but cause no problems in living a normal healthy life. I agree with him that we need to be careful with technology and consider its effects carefully before using something new, but I do not agree with the way he tried to get attention for his argument. Killing academics, scientists, and other innocent people was not right way to be heard. I mean he was an academic himself, so there are probably some more legal ways he could have gotten his ideas to politicians or newspapers, or he could have just staged peaceful protests, and he probably would have gotten the support and recognition that he wanted.
My questions for this text are:
- Are his fears about scientific and technological morals relevant today? If they are, are the possibilities that people fear the same or have they evolved?
- Would this text be as controversial if he had not also been a domestic terrorist? Is it not so similar to other texts where technology and the government control everything about the human race?
- Did having it first published in well-respected newspapers instead of in a book or pamphlet add to or detract from the public receival of the text? Why?