In late June 1995, The New York Times and The Washington Post received copies of a long, rambling essay from a man known then only as the Unabomber (University and Airline Bomber), who was at that time responsible for three deaths and 23 injuries due to various mail bombs he had sent around the country. Along with the essay, the bomber sent a promise: publish this and I will stop killing. Publishers, journalists and law enforcement officials debated whether to publish the "Unabomber Manifesto," as it was widely known, for months. Some argued any chance of saving lives made the effort worthwhile, while others felt it made no sense to trust a terrorist's promise and thought publishing would, in effect, condone or even encourage such behavior. In September, after vigorous debate, the Times and Post editors decided to publish.

The eventually discovered author of the work - Ted Kaczynski, a former mathematical prodigy - had a far less gloomy title for his work than did the media. He called it "Industrial Society and Its Future." In it he discusses the consequences of the Industrial Revolution, making sporadic accusations especially against "leftists." His most important message regards the future of technology. He avoids the cliché Hollywood depictions of super-intelligent machines turning against us, but feels nonetheless that advancing technology will ultimately mean the end of meaningful human existence. One possibility, he wrote, is that we will develop machines that can make decisions and perform human functions far better than human beings ever could. As a result, even without violent takeover, "the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions." This will lead, he thought, to humans eventually doing nothing, having all people's functions served by machines - an existence he considered meaningless. Most people don't want advice from a terrorist, no matter how smart.

But what about a genius?

"Genius" automatically seems like a hyperbolic label, but Bill Joy deserves the title. He is a computer programmer of almost legendary caliber and a founder of Sun Microsystems, one of the oldest and most important producers of microprocessors and other computer technologies. It's hard to imagine someone less Kaczynski-like. Yet Joy wrote an article for the April 2000 issue of Wired magazine titled "Why the future doesn't need us," and in it he quotes Kaczynski. While he doesn't directly echo Kaczynski's sentiments, the ideas come close. In particular, Joy worries about the future of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robots, all of which he believes may spell disaster for human society. It seems possible and even easy to dismiss some of these points.

I, for one, agree to some extent with the character Rube of Showtime's Dead Like Me: "When a computer loses it with a meter maid or kills itself because it thinks it's too fat, then I will believe in artificial intelligence." Some elements of the human brain seem too complex and elastic to be mimicked even by ever-more-powerful computers. On that basis, maybe I can just throw the whole argument out. It's not a problem if the premise is wrong.

The thing is, it doesn't matter which specific technologies we talk about at this point. Apocalyptic or not, increasingly sophisticated technologies have ever-magnified implications for human society. Kaczynski and Joy both explained how, even without artificial intelligence, current advancing technology could prove fatal. Regardless of whether we agree with them (and they both have many prominent critics), their positions deserve credence and consideration. What matters is that we talk at all. You could likely ask a random stranger about their political affiliation and get into an hour-long discussion about the purpose of government, individual versus social welfare and so on. You could get opinions on health care, economics and foreign policy. Ask that stranger instead for a position on the societal and ethical implications of advancing computer technology and you're likely to get a stare. We as a people - rather than just elite scientific and technological minds - should start asking questions about the future of technology. We'll need answers very soon.