/lit/ - Literature

>>16443792

>>16424644
nope

Without a doubt unironically Ted Kaczynski.

>>16328055

>>14206892

>>13083217
ambitions for what? status? fame? wealth? power? what a waste that is...

dude, get a property near the wilderness and live wild. live wild or die.

Also read "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution"

>>12609818
this is better, and more dignified.

Double time!

>>12415957
Not even meming but Uncle Ted's manifesto

Uncle Ted
Sayings of the Desert Fathers
Tom Holland's book on the rise of Islam, forget it's name.

>>12216395
this. lol.


Never forget who the truly authentic, genuine, self-sacrificing, real deal, actually insightful, extremely important thinker is!

Hey! I'm a mathematician too! We'll, I was anyway... until I realized math was just a useless swindle--a surrogate activity. Any "useful" math just benefits the evil techno-industrial system!

Read "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution" !!!

>>12184936
The impossibility of rationally controlling technology and society in the long-term.

"The development of the technoindustrial system cannot be controlled, restrained, or guided, nor can its effects be moderated to any substantial degree. This, again, is not an eccentric opinion. Many writers, beginning with Karl Marx, have noted the fundamental importance of technology in determining the course of society’s development. In effect, they have recognized that it is technology that rules society, not the other way around. Ellul especially has emphasized the autonomy of technology, i.e., the fact that modern technology has taken on a life of its own and is not subject to human control. Ellul, moreover, was not the first to formulate this conclusion. Already in 1934 the Mexican thinker Samuel Ramos clearly stated the principle of technological autonomy, and this insight was adumbrated as early as the 1860s by Samuel Butler. Of course, no one questions the obvious fact that human individuals or groups can control technology in the sense that at a given point in time they can decide what to do with a particular item of technology. What the principle of technological autonomy asserts is that the overall development of technology, and its long-term consequences for society, are not subject to human control. Hence, as long as modern technology continues to exist, there is little we
can do to moderate its effects.
A corollary is that nothing short of the collapse of technological society can avert a greater disaster. Thus, if we want to defend ourselves against technology, the only action we can take that might prove effective is an effort to precipitate the collapse of technological society. Though this conclusion is an obvious consequence of the principle of technological autonomy, and though it possibly is implied by certain statements of Ellul, I know of no conventionally published writer who has explicitly recognized that our only way out is through the collapse of technological society. This seeming blindness to the obvious can only be explained as the result of timidity."

--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery (2010), Preface

>>12187612
"Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How," both books by Theodore Kaczynski.

"The development of the technoindustrial system cannot be controlled, restrained, or guided, nor can its effects be moderated to any substantial degree. This, again, is not an eccentric opinion. Many writers, beginning with Karl Marx, have noted the fundamental importance of technology in determining the course of society’s development. In effect, they have recognized that it is technology that rules society, not the other way around. Ellul especially has emphasized the autonomy of technology, i.e., the fact that modern technology has taken on a life of its own and is not subject to human control. Ellul, moreover, was not the first to formulate this conclusion. Already in 1934 the Mexican thinker Samuel Ramos clearly stated the principle of technological autonomy, and this insight was adumbrated as early as the 1860s by Samuel Butler. Of course, no one questions the obvious fact that human individuals or groups can control technology in the sense that at a given point in time they can decide what to do with a particular item of technology. What the principle of technological autonomy asserts is that the overall development of technology, and its long-term consequences for society, are not subject to human control. Hence, as long as modern technology continues to exist, there is little we
can do to moderate its effects.
A corollary is that nothing short of the collapse of technological society can avert a greater disaster. Thus, if we want to defend ourselves against technology, the only action we can take that might prove effective is an effort to precipitate the collapse of technological society. Though this conclusion is an obvious consequence of the principle of technological autonomy, and though it possibly is implied by certain statements of Ellul, I know of no conventionally published writer who has explicitly recognized that our only way out is through the collapse of technological society. This seeming blindness to the obvious can only be explained as the result of timidity."

--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery (2010), Preface

>>12169988

"The development of the technoindustrial system cannot be controlled, restrained, or guided, nor can its effects be moderated to any substantial degree. This, again, is not an eccentric opinion. Many writers, beginning with Karl Marx, have noted the fundamental importance of technology in determining the course of society’s development. In effect, they have recognized that it is technology that rules society, not the other way around. Ellul especially has emphasized the autonomy of technology, i.e., the fact that modern technology has taken on a life of its own and is not subject to human control. Ellul, moreover, was not the first to formulate this conclusion. Already in 1934 the Mexican thinker Samuel Ramos clearly stated the principle of technological autonomy, and this insight was adumbrated as early as the 1860s by Samuel Butler. Of course, no one questions the obvious fact that human individuals or groups can control technology in the sense that at a given point in time they can decide what to do with a particular item of technology. What the principle of technological autonomy asserts is that the overall development of technology, and its long-term consequences for society, are not subject to human control. Hence, as long as modern technology continues to exist, there is little we
can do to moderate its effects.
A corollary is that nothing short of the collapse of technological society can avert a greater disaster. Thus, if we want to defend ourselves against technology, the only action we can take that might prove effective is an effort to precipitate the collapse of technological society. Though this conclusion is an obvious consequence of the principle of technological autonomy, and though it possibly is implied by certain statements of Ellul, I know of no conventionally published writer who has explicitly recognized that our only way out is through the collapse of technological society. This seeming blindness to the obvious can only be explained as the result of timidity."

--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery (2010), Preface

>>11494656
lol. I love the photo.


IQ 167

>>11319527

It's a technological problem. You could say, there are less good books BECAUSE there have been so many scientific discoveries and technology breakthroughs...

1) People are far more distracted today.

2) People are far less reflective today.

3) People experience far less today (I mean real, authentic experiences, like truly wild adventures, life-and-death dangers, meeting truly different and diverse people etc.)

4) People read less (less of a market, less livelihood)

5) STEM has totally out-balanced humanities in terms of prestige and popular excitement. The culture of the middle-class has shifted to caring far more about Tech, so literature is seen as worth far less (its insights less helpful etc.)

6) Popular electronic media have exposed most people to pretty much everything. People are therefore far less excited or intrigued by novel ideas like they once were (unless, of course, they're technology ideas...see Item 5, above).

7) There's far more anxiety and depression in our society today, and anxiety and depression historically has affected writers disproportionately.

On Ted's bicycle

>"At times Ted's bike chain would squeak so loudly I don't know how he could stand it. Whenever he rode up Stemple past my home and I was out in the yard, I could hear him coming long before I'd see him. Since he was afraid of our dogs, his pedalling, speed and squeaking would pick up tempo as he neared my driveway, until it reached a frenzied pace."

__________

On Ted's run-in with a mule

>"One day as Ted rode from his home cabin down along the fence line on the south end of the field, the mule trotted over and began to chase him. Ted tried to outrun the mule, but the critter was faster and started to catch up. While looking over his shoulder to see how fast the mule was gaining, Ted hit a hole in the road and piled up his bike. Bitch and a couple of friends who were watching laughed, but Ted wasn't amused."

__________

Ted in college