/lit/ - Literature

>>15213133
>>15213163
>Semantical nonsense.

now that we settled that, Ted had a point, we have a problem with technology...and art. Since both are the same, just perspectives on creation.

Both art and "tech" (as technofile consoooomer say) today are: gaudy, ugly, useless, overrated, polluting, gimmicky, overpriced, shortlasting...and neither brings value to society in its current form, but inherently there is nothing wrong with mans creation.

>>13386406
If >>13385628 is your original argument:
>Their motivation is almost entirely due to their fumbling incompetency with modern technology.
Seeing how humans use technology today and what it is doing to nature is not the same as being incompetent with technology. I myself count as someone who doesn't like the way technology is used by humans despite knowing how it works and how to use it. In fact, it was only from exposing myself to technology more and more through work and personal interest that I came to learn more about how humans are using it and how that is impacting the planet. As they say, familiarity breeds contempt.

In my case, I'm not opposed to technology as a phenomenon, and neither is Ted from what I can tell, just the way it is used which has more to do with how people use it and less with what people are using it for. There is a positive feedback relationship between the two, and currently industrial use of technology, while regulated, is still unregulated enough to cause what is most likely unsustainable population growth, which will necessitate more technology, which will further spur on more growth, repeating while all the while further twisting humanity in to less natural environments. This will and in some ways already are causing all kinds of other problem for society and individuals subject to this system.

Ever wondered why transgenders are so common among millennials who work in IT, especially software development? Immersing themselves in technology has removed them so far from their natural state of being that they have lost all ability to recognize themselves or develop a concrete and independent sense of self. These people hardly seem like a "higher caste", and they are knee deep in tech. That is the kind of thing I think Ted was referring to when he talked about the "psychological suffering" industrial societies will suffer from, but that is just a hypothesis at this point in time.

Eventually the entire system will collapses under its own weight, however, and by that time nature will be fucked beyond repair. I like nature and think we should stop treating the pursuit of technology like something that only solves problems.

Not wanting to stab yourself doesn't mean you are bad at stabbing things. It just means you don't want to harm yourself. Likewise, being good at stabbing things that doesn't mean you should go do that the whole time either.

For what it is worth, I don't think a Ted style anti-tech revolution is feasible and that the collapse is more likely to happen if things keep going the way they are. These were my own conclusions from a few years ago before I even knew about Uncle Ted.

I really have to go now and can't address the rest, I've already spent more time on this than I can afford. Sorry for the poor quality posts but I'm trying to post while doing chores and very sleep deprived.

If the thread is still up in a few hours I can do a proper response from top to bottom.