/lit/ - Literature

>>21552797
>be math dude
>decide buy a home in the montana wilderness and live a primitive life
>go into the adjacent publicly owned land to hunt and collect firewood
>everything is fucking great
>absolute bliss and harmony
>wake up one morning to the sound of heavy powertools
>go outside
>vehicles taking trees right at the border of your 2 acre property, some of them encroaching directly on your land with permission from the county to remove neighboring trees that might interfere with construction
>get mad
>sabotage forestry and construction for a while
>calm down and just go deeper into the public land instead
>everything is okay for a few months
>one day go down into the forest to your favorite spot
>a fucking highway
>there is a fucking highway cutting through the middle of the forest
>become unabomber

>>21535703
Realize that society itself is a problem and not just in your head. Industrial Society And Its Future.
And obviously you may have problems that are your fault, not society's, and the absence of society or its influence on you will not solve those problems. Don't think that things will be sunshine and roses if society is removed from the equation. If you're fucked up you need to work on yourself too.

>What's a technology then? Should we go back to banging rocks together?
207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

This is also sufficient to answer a related question:
>So what? If you destroy technological society it will just come back!
Refer to the two paragraphs above and this one:
212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

>>21323218
>>21323256
A final three words:

>1. If an individual wants to become a "capable person" they are to go to college and get a job at a major industrial or administrative organization.
>2. Personalized messages to capable individuals should maintain alignment with their political views. A leftist should always be shown that the Industrial System prevents leftist aims, and vice versa with a rightist. Individualized booklets directed towards many major ideologies should be written and publicized. An example might be "Industrialization as a Tool of Oppression" designed to convince bourgeoisie progressives that the Industrial System is what prevents a peaceful multiracial society.

Anyway, that is the basics of how an anti-industrial revolution would work. I don't condone it in any way, I'm just explaining it for anons that were curious.