An unpopular stance on technology?

I just read an essay in defense of the Unabomber’s manifesto against technology by Chuck Klosterman in his book “Eating the Dinosaur”. I agree with Klosterman’s conclusions:
1) Theodore Kaczynski was turned into a sociopath by Harvard and his actions undermined his credability and his message AND most importantly it is completely unacceptable to use violence for a cause, any cause – unless it is to stop someone from directly killing you or your family. Period the end. Violence Bad. Let me say it again absolutely unacceptable behaviour and Theodore Kaczynski should remain behind bars for at least one life time. Once we have perfected the technology – we need to bring him back two or three more times imprisoned for life. Let's of course let the High Priests at Harvard go unpunished as they are High Priests after all.
Jim's own aside: I also don’t accept that States should become murderers by proxy – death penalty unacceptable, until there is absolute honesty from legal authorities and perfect human judgement from jurors and judges – state sponsored life termination is not acceptable. Even assuming absolutely the best intentions – to err is human.
2) Kaczynski’s point, albeit ramblingly said, is spot on and that conclusion is that technology is bad overall for humans as it is fundamentally dehumanizing

AND lastly

3) I agree with Klosterman - so what if it is bad – I ain’t signing up – I am going to continue to advance, participate in, and promote technology. I further agree with Chuck Klosterman, he and I would be at the top of Kaczynski’s list if he were still on his rampage of very discriminate terror. Why? Because we get what he says – we agree with it, but we flat out ain’t going along with it. I am staying on the dark side. Long live science and technology.

I am more concerned with those with absolute faith and belief in science and technology more than those that are fearful and suspicious of the same. Because philosophically speaking Science and Technology have become the main religion of the 20th and 21st centuries. How is this so?
1) Science has become the source of omniscience and omnipotence,
2) Explanations and messages are given only by metaphor in scientific jargon that has replaced Latin by High Priests (scientists) who discover the wisdom and are held separate from the layity (the rest of us) in terms of authority and status,
3) there is an implicit societal requirement for all people to absolutely believe these metaphors handed down by the high priests of this religion. When in fact all knowledge is provisional and flawed at best, completely erroneous at its worst.

Long live our new god science and may I be seen as its humble servant.

We have to believe in something now that Markets are no longer our god and source of omniscience and omnipotence.

By the way if you haven't read any of the works by pop culture essayist, critic, and incredible writer Chuck Klosterman - do so now.