Kevin  Kelly’s discussion of the Unabomber is startling for many reasons.  Not only does Kelly agree with the infamous Ted Kaczynski, but after reading the pieces that Kelly puts forth it’s hard to disagree with some of his arguments.  One piece in particular startled me with its clarity and left me stunned that I hadn’t thought of it sooner, that is, we are utterly dependent on technology.  In retrospect it seems silly that it should have struck me the way it did, but I’m living proof of the arguments validity.  Technology has become such a prominent factor in life that we forget it’s even there.  The more the technium grows the more impossible it becomes to stop or slow it and the less control we have organically over our lives.  Over time it has become impossible to live without, “The more people who participate, the more essential [a technology] becomes.”(209)  Take smartphones for example.  While there are still stalwarts who resist society’s infatuation with these devices, it is increasingly difficult to find someone who has owned a smartphone for a significant amount of time and then regressed to something simpler.  As Kelly puts it, “…transference is not inevitable, but it does happen.”(197)  The same can be seen in nearly all aspects of life, from the way we eat to the way we communicate, a life without computerized technology seems almost impossible to imagine.  The Unabomber echoes this point in his manifesto:

When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional.  In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it. (204)

I find it very difficult to disagree with this point.  Technology has spread so rapidly that it even effects the very earth we live on.  Recent studies have released harrowing figures showing the prevalence of sound and light pollution, increased atmospheric pollution and decreasing sovereign land.  All these reports simply point to one thing: we need to do more to protect the future.  It is obvious that technology will never slow its pace, but that may still work in our favor:  “There will always be ways to increase energy and material efficiency, to better mimic biological processes, or to ease the pressure on ecosystems.”(195)  All we have to do is keep our planet in mind as our technological powers rise.

In a similar vein, Kelly brings up a point that I constantly vacillate on, namely, are humans part of nature.  Traditionally, nature is defined as “the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities”(“nature”).  The Unabomber lands firmly on the side of humans existing outside of nature, “When I got [to his favorite outdoor location] I found they had put a road right through the middle of it…You can’t imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system.  Revenge.”(204)  But can’t we humans exist as a part of nature?  What sets us apart?  How is an ant hill any different from a mobile home?  Kelly makes the compelling argument that while species became extinct before humans arrived, now that we’re here extinction has rapidly increased, “We have historical evidence for the extinction of of about 2,000 species in the last 2,000 years, or one per year, four times the natural rate.”(195)  While I agree that we should be doing all we can to prevent species from going extinct, is it really that surprising that they are?  All we are is a sophisticated breed that is exceptionally good at taking advantage of its surroundings.

Can the technium then be considered natural?  That answer depends on if humanity itself is natural.  If the technium  is not natural, then there is no possible way that we are as it comes, or at least came, from us, but in this age the technium seems to be more and more its own organism.  As Kelly went to great lengths to prove in previous sections, the technium evolves alongside humanity and is now beginning to shape its creators.  This leads one to wonder what might occur should humanity step back from the controls and let technology run its course.  How long would it sustain itself?

The question I pose is simple:  Are humans a part of nature?  If not, what sets us apart?

Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking, 2010. Print.

“nature.” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 05 Oct. 2014 <Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature>.