There are times when the death of a person serves as a bookending to a particular chapter of history. It signifies the passing not of an era as such, but an evolving epoch which blends into our times. Such is how we can understand the death by suicide of Ted Kacyznski, known to the world through the media-manufactured celebrity villainy label of the Unabomber. He had terminal cancer, and was transferred to a prison medical facility shortly prior to his death at age 81.

Kaczynski was an outstanding student in mathematics, gaining an early entry into college. Having a high IQ, Kaczynski was reportedly shy and socially withdrawn. The image of a sad loner is comforting to us, but not necessarily true in Kaczynski’s case. While he was shy, he was not without friends, and participated in sports. So he was not outside the social conventions of the time. The sad, mad loner stereotype is convenient, but inaccurate, in attempting to understand Kaczynski’s actions.

A Harvard mathematician, Kaczynski underwent a period of traumatising abuse at college, subjected to a large mind-control experiment ultimately controlled by the CIA. The experiment intended to understand human behaviour under conditions of extreme stress, isolation, interrogation. This experience, according to some authors, was crucial in shaping Kaczynski’s hostility to the technological-scientific complex. The impact of a brutalising experience such as this can be overstated, but it helped to crystallise Kaczynski’s attitudes.

Retreating from the contemporary technological panopticon, he lived a life of natural primitivism in Montana. He advocated a kind of eco-primitivism, a degrowth ecology which involved a return to nature. Hostile to technology, he authored a 35-page manifesto where he detailed his anti-technology views. Condemning the Industrial Revolution, Kaczynski contended that technological progress severed the connections between humans and nature, and produced a destructive sociopolitical order which suppresses human freedom.

Waging a letter-bombing campaign from 1978 to 1995, Kaczynski targeted those he perceived as responsible for the new regime of technological intrusion.

Killing three people and seriously injuring 23, he was apprehended in 1996. I remember the media coverage of his crimes and eventual arrest. The Washington Post published his manifesto for the purpose of identifying him. Kaczynski’s brother, David, recognised the language and writing style. He informed the authorities.

Known by the FBI as the Unabomb suspect (University and airline bomb) the media cleverly came up with the moniker Kaczynski is most associated with – the Unabomber. Kaczynski was not an original thinker, in fact, he borrowed most of his ideas about technology from a French sociologist Jacques Ellul (1912 – 1994). Ellul, a Christian anarchist philosopher, condemned what he called the technique, the threat posed by mass technological advances to human freedom.

Kaczynski’s manifesto has been approvingly quoted by far right killers and white supremacists. While not a white supremacist himself, Kaczynski did contribute to a form of ecological primitivism. While concern for the natural environment is viewed as a left wing preoccupation, domestic terrorists and their right wing ideological brethren have used couched their motives as driven by ecological concerns, promoting an anti-immigrant eco-fascism.

Let’s make a number of observations about technology today.

How many of us could live without our mobile devices? I venture to suggest that in today’s world, with its reliance on IT, none of us could. Even those of us who grew up in the days prior to the internet, smart phones and social media, could not function within the parameters of contemporary capitalist society without relying on mobile devices. Now consider the following statement regarding the impact of new technology:

if the use of a new item of technology is initially optional, it does not necessarily remain optional because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology.

Who made that statement? Ted Kaczynski. That quote sounds eerily prescient, given the ubiquity of IT and surveillance capitalism in our modern times. That quote is hardly the nonsensical rambling of a lunatic. Kazcynski’s warnings about the increasing intrusive of technology into our lives are sounding rather reasonable in the light of subsequent developments. We are outsourcing our ethical and cognitive judgements to the algorithm.

Forty years ago, who would have surmised that people would seek out romantic partners, sharing our intimacies, through dating apps? We rely on apps to bring us happiness in our romantic lives. It is not only our personal lives that we are integrating with technological applications. The era of drone warfare is upon us – software-directed armed and unarmed aerial vehicles are deployed across the globe, collecting information and carrying out military strikes. How long will it be before we witness robotic warfare?

Basing itself on our choices, the music app Spotify generates playlists of songs related to the genres to which we listen. The app decides our music tastes for us. Now there is Spotify Rainbow Collage, a generator which analyses your music choices, and creates a customisable collage of your favourite artists. Everyday, Spotify suggests playlists to me, based on my listening history. The app is a friend who caters for my musical preferences.

There are no tears for Kaczynski; let’s reserve our sympathy for his victims. He died in prison for his crimes. The tragedy is that he did not receive help for his problems. His crimes only served to marginalise the serious issues that he (and ecological activists) are trying to raise. The corporate media did their part to focus on Kaczynski’s mental disturbance, his ‘lone madman’ status, ignoring the valid concerns about technological intrusion which he raised.

It is unsettling to recognise that an eco-terrorist – for that is what he was – asked legitimate questions about the harmful impact of technology. As R H Lossin wrote, Kaczynski’s violence was ethically reprehensible, but it was not incomprehensible. He took the road of an individualistic escape and rebellion, but the problems with technology that he identified require collective solutions.