
Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000) - Flemlord
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm
======
achew22
In June, RadioLab (The NPR show), did a show called "Oops" that had a section
on this. It was a REALLY interesting episode and continues to be a spectacular
podcast.

If you're interested in the Oops episode, check out.
<http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/>

EDIT: I looked, the section I'm referring starts around 4:30

~~~
smcl
This article in The Atlantic is actually written by Alston Chase himself - the
gentleman Jad and Robert talk to in the Radiolab piece.

------
sedachv
The insistence on classifying Kaczynski as schizophrenic is disturbing. I'm
reading Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, and it resonates a lot with both
how he was perceived and tried, and what his thoughts on modern society are
(although there is nothing anti-technology in Anti-Oedipus, quite the
opposite).

~~~
tokenadult
I recall from contemporary news reports that when he was found there was a
medication (Trazodone) that is occasionally prescribed for major mood
disorders (NOT schizophrenia) in the cabin where he was living. I see the
"schizophrenia" diagnosis for him was not a finding at trial, but just one
psychiatrist's proferred testimony, since he told his lawyers to avoid using
an insanity defense and thus didn't put the issue to trial.

------
metamemetics
Kaczynski's thesis rests on the idea that technological progress is
intrinsically evil or intrinsically results in evil.

I think the evidence shows that technology is always ethically neutral. When
early humans begun welding rocks as tools (one of the first technological
developments), this could be used to both club someone to death more
efficiently OR to build a house and have a sturdier shelter.

To get to the level of development we are at today, it appears humans have
consistently chosen constructive uses of technology over destructive ones. I
can't see the evidence that the Industrial Revolution fundamentally changed
things in this respect.

------
dmfdmf
Ayn Rand wrote a pre-buttal, if such a concept exists, to the Unabomber's
manifesto in which she identifies the implications of the anti-reason and
anti-technology ideas of the Sixties and that it would not lead to peace and
love but to death and hate as manifest in a creature like Kaczynski. Read The
New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution and Kaczynski's manifesto and choose
your side because Kaczynski is correct as quoted in The Atlantic article; most
people vastly underestimate the number of his supporters.

~~~
caf
Kaczyniski apparently didn't believe that his ideas would lead to "peace and
love" - he was explicit that he was not trying to tear down the system to
replace it with something better, but simply as an end in itself.

I think trying to bundle the Unabomber in as a part of the tedious Left-vs-
Right culture wars misses the mark spectacularly. After all, he seems to have
been driven to act against technology and science based on its percieved
corrosive effects on individual liberty! Eg. _"In these pages, it is argued
that continued scientific and technical progress will inevitably result in the
extinction of individual liberty."_

------
tokenadult
Noting the date of this submission in the title would be helpful to readers.

~~~
photon_off
I respectfully disagree. It is as relevant today as it was in 2000, and the
date shows up in the status bar when you hover over the link.

~~~
almost
Yes, but given that it's a fascinating article written in 2000 and available
on the net we can assume a lot of people will have already read it. If you
stick (2000) after the title that helps those who have from having to click
through.

I say this as someone who hadn't read the article and has just done so due to
this link.

Plus, I usually see a year after a title as indicating quality. It says that
the article isn't about some current fad but is a genuinely good/interesting
read.

~~~
photon_off
I would suspect that people who have read it would realize this from the
title, not the year. And, again, the year is visible when you hover over the
link. There's not much more to discuss. Let's just agree to disagree.

