Kelly's basic argument is that, yes, the Unabomber was fundamentally correct in his understanding of the tension involved in a technopoly (a society where technology is no longer a tool but actually driving the society--read Neil Postman's book of that name for a good read), but that he (Kelly) disagrees with what to do about it.
Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology.
Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them.
For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)
Kelly's page lacks historical depth. My short essay http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/back-to-nature.2.html could serve as a wake-up call, alerting people to the need to read older books and learn enough of the history of technology to appreciate the depth of its roots in human society.
Obviously, Kascinzki (sp?) was crazy in how he responded to this tension, but I think we should be thinking a lot harder about the challenges he raises, rather than simply accepting the forward march of technology.
Kelly makes some good points about decent alternatives being hard to find. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be thinking hard about them.
For further good reading along those lines, I'd recommend any of Wendell Berry's commentaries (his novels are good reading, too) and Neil Postman's (Amusing Ourselves to Death, Technopoly, etc.)