Debate:Was the Unabomber right at all?
I was just wondering how exactly he was wrong. The page on him does not appear to explain that in a decisive and concrete way. People tend to focus on how he is a genius and a prodigy at math. They also like to reference how it is the government that tries to paint him as a monster. Even one of your sources on the philosophy professor makes it seem like he had valid points about the state of the world. I'm not sure if he really was wrong and this is more about not going against the established "fact" that technology and progress is good. Could it really be that we are just slaves to our own technology. Even the writer of the article stated that they skimmed through it so how can I trust you when you write him off?