Essay/Term paper: Is he serious (an opinionated report on the unabomber's man

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Law

Is He Serious?




There comes a time when everyone has something to say. The next step would be
to find someone to listen. If that doesn"t work, I suppose you just have to make them
listen.

The Unabomber"s Manifesto was probably one of the most interesting and
thought provoking points of view that I have read in a while. It"s just too bad that every
time he made a point that I could relate with, he would contradict himself before I was
finished with the paragraph. In my opinion, the entire manifesto and every viewpoint
expressed therein, was a strange mix of confusion, fact and storytelling. Although
written with an abundance of detail and many strong convictions, I finished reading the
selection without being able to see the purpose behind it all and what he stood to gain.
I"m sure that wasn"t exactly his intentions when he wrote it.

I feel there is one thing the author deserves credit for right from the start; his
uncanny ability to set a pessimistic mood. From the minute you glance at the
introduction, he, assuming the author is male, begins to paint a picture of destruction and
demise of the world in which we live. What could cause such a catastrophe? According
to the author, it would have to be industry and technology of all things. He was convinced
that due to the industrial-technological system in which we live, ultimately humans are
going to be subjected to world wide suffering and inevitably a total shut down of
humanity. Now at this moment I felt a little disbelief. I had heard he was actually an
intelligent person, but I was starting to wonder.

His whole theory was based on the fact, that at one point or another, the human
race will be taken to the point of complete break down. He feels that if it"s bound to
happen, we should make it happen now. The longer we wait, the more people will suffer.
Now, I know our sun will eventually burn out, so does that mean that it should be the
concern of everyone on the planet to devise a method to destroy it immediately and save
us the trouble of having to do it later? I guess I wasn"t too surprised when I read how he
intended to induce an early break down with a revolution, but the next thing I read left
me a little confused. I was interested in how and when he planned to do this. It didn"t
take me long to run across it. I would expect a violent display from the Unabomber,
especially in a revolution, but his answer to that was that he may or may not use
violence. Well, maybe he"ll keep some details quiet, but I was sure he would release an
approximate idea of how long he planned this new world revolution to last.. He wrote
that it may be sudden or it may span decades. There were many things that made sense
to me after reading that, for instance, if he was this vague when he walked his pen across,
it"s no wonder he"s been able to stay free for this long.
Now, from this point on, I think his writing became much more understandable to
me. I started to agree with much of what he had to say and what he used to describe the
majority of our society. I shared a lot of his beliefs in the fact that our society needs help,
we all do sometimes. I just don"t believe that things are so bad that it"s time to clear the
pallet and start over.

He seems to have a perfect ideal of how each group of people should act and
respond to the world around them. If they don"t posses these features, then there has to
be something wrong with society, because that"s not the way he remembers them. He
seems to group everyone in the world into two groups: the weak, and the weaker. There
are the leftists, or the ones who should the social rebels, and the oversocialized, or the
ones who have to grow up obeying society"s rules.

Now, I feel it wouldn"t matter which category he placed me in. According to
him, people jump from one group to another constantly. Either group, in his opinion, has
deteriorated into a flock of sheep. No one has a mind of their own, nor do we stand up
for ourselves, nor believe in anything. He believes that due to this evil
industrial-technological society in which we live, everyone operates with low self
esteem, guilt, and self-hatred. Because we think we"re so "advanced", we are afraid to
say anything which may offend others. We will constantly change our minds to suit the
situation or just to make ourselves look better. Now don"t get me wrong, but since we
are such an "advanced" society, couldn"t that be viewed as progress towards
understanding others and caring for their needs? His pessimistic outlook was getting
annoying.

His discussion then moved into power. In his perfect view, we all must work as
hard as possible to really appreciate what we have. I believe that, very much so, but he
also states that people today have all their needs filled or taken care of so easily that we
don"t appreciate anything. People as a collective group are getting bored, therefore more
and more generations are causing trouble just to have something to do. He actually has a
good point there. I have to agree with him, because we are driving and driving for
something better in our lives, the unfortunate who don"t have direction are getting left
out. Is that our demise? I don"t think so. Life in general has always been survival of the
fittest, it"s a natural process.

The next topic pertains to all the sources of our problems. If he truly believes he
knows all of them, then why can"t he tell us so we won"t have the problems? He says we
blame all our problems on the fact that our lives are so different from our ancestors. I
agree, that"s called progress. We dominate nature according to him, we are to detached
from the outdoors. I suppose that"s why we have national parks, since we"re moving
towards a society that won"t need these things. We don"t have family values because we
can"t favor our family over others due to the fear of nepotism or discrimination. Is that
just being fair to others? Besides, how many people can work with their family members
anyway? If that"s the extent of our problems, I would rather deal with those than bother
about a revolution.

I believe this about the point where he begins to go off the deep end. All this talk
about technology and industry and how it affects us, and no one to believe him. I guess
that would get to me as well. That shows our freedom to decide not to listen to him. The
freedom that he claims we have lost due to technology ruling the law. Electronic
surveillance, police forces, propaganda we see on television, what"s this world coming
to? He tries to make his point by saying that laws like freedom of speech should not be
considered a freedom because the average person doesn"t have access to television or
radio to get his point across. Can"t argue there, but it doesn"t mean it"s not a freedom
because I can"t use it at the moment. It"s a freedom because I can use it when I need to.
He says it is impossible to have freedom with modern technology. I just say it gives me
more time to enjoy my freedom.

It"s only a matter of time when society will not accept society and use technology
to improve it. He has a point with that statement. How does he think technology has
come so far? Because man has and always will have a need to improve himself. He takes
that one step over the edge when he states that man will eventually build better men, a
stronger race. We strive for individualism. Society will never accept a world full of
cloned shells. If man can rid each other of all disease and suffering, then by all means.
If he wants to stop progress and live in the dark, then that"s his freedom, or lack there of
through his eyes. When someone believes they are sick, they can actually make them
selves sick. If we had more people like this guy around, I suppose society would
probably start to fall apart. It"s those who believe there"s something better out there who
actually make a difference.

Technology was a turning point in man"s struggle in life. When we were first
learning to use it, we used it for the wrong reasons. I believe we"re moving past that now.
We don"t fear technology like he does any more. More and more people, including older
generations are learning to use it. Not because they have to, but it"s only natural for the
majority of us to try something new. When everyone begins to use it, working together,
that"s what advances us into tomorrow. If everyone was as pessimistic as he, where
would we be? Sometimes it takes someone like him to remind us what we used to be and
how we used to think. It helps us all stay on track. In the long run, he just becomes
someone who wouldn"t change and society will forget him. It"s ironic to think that we
already have. People don"t want war, revolution, or violence. We don"t need to be the
aggressor and more. Our survival isn"t assured, but at least we have the means to provide
it, to really harvest it when that need arises. People like the Unibomber only give us the
motivation to keep on going. And what do we have to thank for our advancement?
Technology.