Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, correct? But to what extent is too much when trying to make a message out of your beliefs? I know the extent that Ted Kaczynski took his beliefs to was too far. Ted was a troubled but very smart man, who dropped out of school to chase what he believed in, a strong belief that technology was a “dynamic holistic system” meaning, he believes that technology is ruining society and technology is no longer serving humanity, humanity is serving technology. This is a very logical and reasonable belief, I believe that this is something that should be displayed to the younger generations, because the coming generations including my generation would be the main group of people that all these technological advances affected. Mr. Kaczynski is a person who follows his beliefs truthfully and would go the extra mile to be heard, and that he did. There are plenty of people in this world who believe that Ted “had a point”. The University of Chicago hosts a group meeting called “the Unabomber had a point” every year. I just feel as if Ted could’ve made a huge impact on the US or even a larger scale if he were to put his beliefs to good use and impact people in a different way than how he did. Ted had a 35,000-word manifesto explaining himself and trying to get his message out to the world. Some of his points were, “personal freedoms are constrained by society, as they must be”, “The stronger that technology makes society, the less freedoms”. All these points and arguments make sense but not enough sense to be displayed by bombing people who involved themselves in modern technology. Ted is the cause of three deaths and twenty-three injuries, just to try and make a point.

Does what the Unabomber did affect the way the people who share the same beliefs that Ted the way they attempt to portray their ideas? Which leads to the question did what Ted do positively effect society or negatively effect society? I feel as if the way Ted went about trying to prove his point negatively affected the way his belief lingers but it didn’t affect the impact. Meaning that whenever you think about technology is beginning to have too much power of the way us as humans control things you immediately think of Mr. Kaczynski rather than a solution or the focus of the problem. Just imagine if Ted chose a different and positive way of using his knowledge in trying to prove his point about technology rather than trying to get revenge on technology, he would’ve had a way different legacy. There’s a fine line that changes the way Ted could’ve became famous instead of infamous. He had a reason to seek revenge but not to that extent.

The effect that Ted had on society itself was a very confusing affect. I am still stuck in the middle on if it was positive and or negative. Simply because, Ted most definitely got his belief out there and read. He definitely made people notice what he believed in and made people understand his points. Was it in a good way? No not at all but did it get his point across, yes, across the Washington post. All of these reasons plus more are positive ways he effects his belief and society. He negatively affected his name, which may blind people from his point because whenever someone hear the name Ted Kaczynski they may automatically think of the way he killed people and why he is in jail. Which may put a shade over the point he was trying to get across. He also, put himself away for life, so there is no way of further advancing his belief. One must outweigh the other and that is something that I personally need to do more thinking on because what he did was wrong but what he believed in is something I really agree with, so it is hard to find a median.