/lit/ - Literature

>>13916526
They're in the broad spectrum of Deep Ecology, i.e. that recycling, changing consumer habits etc is shallow stuff that won't fix the real issues, and that deeper issues with the way society is structured need to be address for meaningful change to occur.

With Uncle Ted, his main thesis is that the rise of technology in industrialised society has led to a class of social illnesses occuring, which he refers to this as 'leftism', and his analysis of what would become the modern left is pretty prophetic. Ultimately his work suggests that technological progress is at the root cause of environmental (and social) disasters.

Ultimately I disagree with Ted's conclusion that collapsing industrialised society is the only way forward for humanity (he himself says he doesn't know how to stop humans from regaining the technology), but ultimately Industrial Society and Its Future is a fascinating read on environmentalism that is not exactly Greenpeace-approved.

With Pentti, his main thing is overpopulation, i.e. that the fundamental issue is not consumption habits or industrialised society, but simply that there are too many people consuming too many resources, and speciifcally that the population growth is in areas of the world where people dgaf about the environment. This is combined with other social factors to cause a the current environmental crisis. He is essentially arguing for massive population reduction to save the environment, this would be achieved through, for example, stopping aid to Africa.

Anti-tech messiah when? What will this man look like? What should you accomplish to become one?

>>13866995
It's obvious that you haven't read ISAIF. He suggests using industrial technology as a tool to destroy the industrial society as it would be futile if you tried doing the same with primitive means. Also not all technology is evil. If a local craftsman/small group of craftsmen can produce something without using industrial machines then this technology isn't evil in the sense that it doesn't make you dependent on a giant production line with complex logistics.

>Have multiple wagie friends who are in the top 10% of earners in the UK
>They all describe their lives as miserable, never ending drudgery with no point or meaning they can discern
>Some of them got wives and kids thinking it would help but after the novelty wore off they were even more miserable
>They have plenty of money, work 9 to 5 and go on holiday 3 times a year
>Still dissatisfied with life
I know some autistic little queer is already typing up his "W-Well your personal experiences don't prove anything NYEEEEEE WHERE'S YOUR PEER REVIEWED STUDY NYEEEEE?!?!" reply.

Society and civilisation is not the answer so stop looking for it there.

We all want to retire to a cabin innawoods. But if your family can't support you in this venture, you have to find another role model.

>>13734103
In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one’s physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.

>The trouble was that I didn’t know how to go about it, and it was extremely difficult to work up the nerve to cut loose from my civilized moorings and take off to the woods. It’s very difficult because sometimes we don’t know how much the choices we make are governed by the expectations of people around us, and the fact that we go and do something other people would regard as mad—it’s very difficult to do.
He barely broke free when all they had was books, radio and tv with 3 channels. We've got internet, thousands of movies and tv shows available for free day and night, youtube, instant messaging to people on the other side of the planet, infinite porn, cheap delicious junk food, phones that contain everything you would ever want to know and can instantly do anything you'd want them to. It's entirely feasible in 2019 to never leave your house and have everything delivered cheaply to you.

What fucking chance do we have?

Everyone knows he's right.

Even if they don't agree with his methods, everyone can admit on some level he was right. So why does no one listen? I think it has everything to do with comfort. The body's basic needs. Food, water, sex, socialising, warmth, shelter. Even the lowest of the low possess these in society. Their brain tells them "this isn't right" but their body is drunk with comfort and says "fuck off faggot, I can't be arsed with you right now". It's something like that but I can't pinpoint it better, anyone else wanna have a crack at it? At why you think nobody follows in his footsteps despite agreeing he's right?

>>13605061
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

So what strings do we need to pull to get Land and pic related to have a recorded discussion with each other?
And who would win?

>>13555277
>>13555421
>>13557420
Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

>>13553426
204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

>>13509072
Yes, the collapse of industrial society, God bless

that smile... that damned smile

>>13459592
>The probability you'll become left is proportional to your level of education.
Correct, a phenomenon we call oversocialization.

To me, he was right, and I had the same thoughts as him before reading his work, but I don't understand why he would commit acts of terrorism. What would that realistically achieve?

>>13388042
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

any plans to bust him out of ADX Florence?

Hello there everyone!!! This is Ted from U.S. Penitentiary ADX-Florence. Please stop using that mug shot of me. Look, I'd been through quite a lot, as you can imagine, right up to before they took that photo. And so I look, well, you'd look like a mess if you went through what I did. Anyway, then the dishonest media paraded that photo around everywhere to brainwash normies into thinking that's basically how I am--some crazy ugly freakish monster. For more information on the crazy media, and my detailed inside accounts on how the media operate, please read my unpublished book "Truth vs. Lies" or access my letters at the University of Michigan's Labadie collection archive. And from now on, please try to use a picture of me that more accurately represents how I look!

For the revolution,

Ted

Do you think he knows a bunch of weebs on 4chan worship him?

Bombers are better than shooters

>>12679802
This man is saner than most of the people alive today

What books do eco terrorists read?

>rails against modern technology
>uses airplanes to send bombs to people
now wait just a mintue