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.<p>If you're interested in the Oops episode, check out.
<a href="http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/" rel="nofollow">http://www.radiolab.org/2010/jun/28/</a><p>EDIT:
I looked, the section I'm referring starts around 4:30
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).
Kaczynski's thesis rests on the idea that technological progress is intrinsically evil or intrinsically results in evil.<p>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.<p>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.
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.