/lit/ - Literature

>>11324882
>It's almost a sort of communist streak, that everyone deserves freedom, instead of the people who can earn it themselves
you completely missed the point of the manifesto, well you probably didn't read it.
The technological system is ENSLAVING EVERYONE. It's an entity of its own. People who 'earn it themselves' don't exist. A president relies on technology and logistics to feed himself as much as anyone. Presidents don't hunt their own game, you know. And even if they did, it would be in a place defined and protected by technological means.

Any inch of this planet has seen its fate decided by industrial society. If a place is free of industrialisation, it's only because the system has deemed unnecessary for this particular place to be stripped down of its natural ressources. Or because we don't have the technological means to extract those ressources, YET.

>>11325651
Very astute comment. I have to add that although industrialization together with urbanization is what I consider the deepest roots of our current problems, I reckon neither to be at fault in and of themselves anymore than a gun can be guilty and not the murderer.

What I consider the cause of the problem is the <way> in which we industrialize(d) and urbanize(d). Urbanization is forced, it is unnecessary and unnatural in the extends that it currently exists. Industrialization is centralized and not dispersed. Industrialization gives us a lot of the means to find the cure for our current condition e.g. the internet. An industrialization under morally sound people who conserve nature and aim to develop sustainably should not be harmful to our well-being.

Then there is endless growth - a direct result of wrongly implemented urbanization and industrialization. We mindlessly seek constant growth instead of using cycles, like the seasonal cycles of trees for example. You grow, then you pause and consolidate as long as that takes, then grow again. So that you can reflect on and direct the flow of industry, technology and development and so that the frame within which you grow can catch up with the growth.

The system itself provides us in each of its successive iterations with the means for organization and decentralization of power. In other words, move away from the city, use the internet to learn wholesome skills/crafts, learn to make money in various ways, become a freelancer. The more people do that the better. If you, like many have to work for a large business choose to work for e.g. Berlin Web Solutions instead of Google(never minding the salary gap). Vote with your dollars in the same way. Even if you might work in the city, live *outside* the city. Share the manifesto, 4chan, with others, educate them even though you might seem silly.

Even if nothing about industrialization changes, the world will be a completely different place if, say, 20 percent of everyone visited 4chan, online message boards, and knew about the problem of industrialization and urbanization. They would make different choices, consume wisely, not over-consume, what is more, educate their children, forsake the old systems of education and brainwashing(media, schools, universities). Imagine what a few generations educated this way would produce. The system cannot operate without human consent and ignorance. Once a critical percentage of the population withdraws consent and educates itself, the system will not crash for no one wants that, it will update to become more humane. We just have to force it to update and to adapt as we have done for so long.

Keep in mind that everyone feels the problem, everyone knows it exists, they just need to be shown its true nature and the many solutions. The above-described steps are already being taken in many regions of the world, more and more.

Maybe in decades /lit will be known as the Republic of Letters of the Internet.

>>11325912
Given the very short half-lives of information on the internet, and the way modern corporate internet monetizes short-term attention more than anything else out there, I question the overall effectiveness of your proposed solution, as well-intentioned as it is.

>>11325655 #
>a president relies on technology and logistics to feed himself because he's not FUCKING RETARDED
technology is not enslaving anything, POWER is doing what POWER does, FLOWING OUTWARDS
They require to follow rules that are there to ensure effecient and smooth operation of the economy and the Technological system. They must ensure the progress of the system itself to benefit of the power it grants Wich more and more has a logic of it's own called technique.

"the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity." While technique isn't limited to machines, machines are “deeply symptomatic” of technique. They represent "the ideal toward which technique strives."

Within this logic the Technological System is progressing on it's own while humanity must follow it's logic to ensure progress to total assimilation.

Human Domestication (Civilised) > Socialisation (Humanism?) > Cyberisation (Trans Human) > Total Assimilation (Post-Human)

The trick is that we are not separate of Technology but (currently) depend on it as the system itself depends on us while we must follow it's logic to maintain progress. It's the system and it's demands that control the situation here, not political or economic groups or systems, they are only there to ensure the progress and efficienty of the Technological system. Further on the system depends on a animal that hasn't envolved for these kind of things. The animal has to change/"fixed" to create improved and thus more effecient animals. I assume you haven't read the Manifesto, I recommend you to check it out and read it carefully.

>>11325997
>So the president is helpless against nuclear accidents, carcinogens (irrelevant, sickness happens in nature), pollution, war, TAXES, etc?
Yeah those things are given to a mass of people unable to control most circumstances and are only able to adapt and control what is limited to them. One engineer can not prevent a nuclear accident at another plant as that is the responsibility of other engineers. We depend on these people to not fuck up by means of a system of rules and education that teaches them to safely operate Technology that must be maintained by them to not result in consequences.

All these things are preventable and thats what everyone is doing at the jobs that they are responsible for. But to ensure this we need effeciency and follow it's logic to maintain a smooth and safe operation as the system is interdependent. Nature itself is too interdependent (ecosystems for example) but far more robust and harden to be able to survive and restore itself at major events. (Mass Extinction) the Technological system in turn is extremely fragile and when broken down is extremely hard to make it come back.

now it did

>>11326141

Four stages of technology in my opinion.

Civilised technology (Technology reliant on human interaction)
Industrial society (many people reliant on technology)
Post-Industrial society (many people assimilating with technology without interaction)
Post-Human technology (technology not reliant on human interaction)

Accelerationist views counted for, once we can remove humans from sustaining technology (i.e. everything becomes automated)
Selection will become as fierce as it was before civilisation started and we will all have to elevate in our fields or die. The advantage of course of a libertarian society in a post-human world is that the chaff gets cleansed as fast as the machines are built.

question for ted fans, do you consider chimpanzees using sticks and so on a technological society. if not, why not?

>>11326347
no. somebody explained it in the last few messages in the last thread. also read Ellul, he goes into much more depth about the difference between technique and technology.

link to last thread in case anyone wants to read it >>>11290823

>>11326141
>(Mass Extinction) the Technological system in turn is extremely fragile and when broken down is extremely hard to make it come back.
for now

>>11326529
>for now
How? Technological Society on minimum level depends on coal energy to kick start and to eventually move to fosil feuls Wich it's easy acces disposits are depleted. (That's why we frack, deep sea mine, artic mine and tar sands) How you ganne fill that fap with an energy that is equally so effecient as fosil fuel to progress to nuclear fission and fusion. (It honestly is pretty hard to make a whole infrastructure and transportation system based on nuclear and not fosil fuel. Further on you need to recreate the whole history of western Civilisation to create correct conditions for an industrial revolution to happen. This is in context of a post collapse situation Wich most likely makes another mass industrial revolution impossible and thus a great filter.

Incase you do not speak of a post collapse situation but just the future then I'm extremely curious how you could create more robustness in the system that is allready Extremely complex and interdependent and thus fragile.

>>11326347
Because chimps do not depend on a (artificial) system to provide the status. The creation, maintainance and use does not depend on systems that require the management of resources and chimps to provide the stick. It's a Technological System afterall, it's in the name. "System"

>>11326660
>Status
Stick

If you have the ability to INDEPENDENTLY or IN A SMALL GROUP able to produce, maintain and use a thing then you do not require or depend on a system.

when did unabomber general become a thing here?

>ted was right
>implying i have the balls to do anything about it
lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

It's interesting how both Technology and Capital has a self propegating logic attached to it. One of commodification towards profit and the other of technique to effeciency and rationalisation. The means of production has a logic of it's own. Perhaps too politics has a logic, would it be power Dynamics?

>>11326645
I'm talking about the future. Just construct fallback systems that can run from locally sourced materials and skills.

>>11326529
Actually basing it on the argument I made in this >>11326660 post. It can be argued that pre industrial Civilisations are too Technological Societys and that there allready is a sort of "robust" ability to restore itself in relation to collapse. This cause a small village has the ability to sustain some Technology at collapse (like feudal fillages) that can assist in restoring a Civilisation. So you can say there is a robust Technological Society but that type isn't an industrial level one but medieval one.

It depends a bit on the definition of a Technological society.

>>11326735
industrial society is unstable because everything is pushed to the limit, it's like an airplane that throws away the parachutes to lighten the load
it's not an inherent feature of post-medieval technology

>>11326745
Sure but pre industrial Civilisations still depend on organization dependent Technology and could be argued to be a Technological Society. But that really is more argueing about definitions and Ted is a little vague on that. (And he too is anti civ but focuses more on post industrial Civilisation as industrial tech as it's mechanized, scientific, rational has the logic of technique attached to it. (Thus also the concept of "progress")

>>11325649
so did anyone mention that the .txt is fucked?

>>11326683
It's the new FBI pick-list

>>11326777
aaahhhh, good thing i never read the book

>>11325912
You're much too optimistic, I agree in principle with what you said but most people are merely too stupid to realize anything that's written in the manifesto, and even if they read it it'd go over their head or they would refute its arguments because it goes against what they have been taught as facts.

I believe that people have to come somewhat naturally to read this kind of stuff, you can't just push them into it.

I've already told a few people to read the manifesto, all close to me, and none of them did. I did not forced them into doing it, I simply suggested it but if people aren't interested they won't bother.

Or maybe we are the ones who got it all wrong and transhumanism is the way, who knows.

>>11326707
Did you read Kaczinsky latest book Anti Tech Revolution? There's a whole chapter about self prop systems, you'd find it interesting.

Imo the agricultural revolution was the most drastic and negative change in human society. Does Ted ever address it?

>>11327502
most people are probably mentally sound enough to innately understand that it's not worth throwing their lives away and the future away just so mankind can revert to a primeval state for a while before dying
both because the primeval state is unenticing, and because we've already been there and done that

>>11327848
Enjoy your freedomless ratrace on a dying earth then. I wish you a good time.

Again like I said I hope transhumanism saves us all but I doubt it will. At best we'll be the sacrificed generations before attaining something greater like true AI and/or cyborgs.

>>11327903
>muh freedom
how american of you

How much do you guys think Ted being an autist affected his views? He is critical of over socialization, which are valid, but he clearly had social problems.

Everyone should read his latest book: "Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016)

The one independent variable behind all of the problems the world faces is technology itself.

>>11327939
Dae wish they just would have never discovered this stuff? Its just too heavy for me, everyone thinks im crazy when i talk about it, and its just overall very depressing.

>>11327911
I'm on the other side of the Atlantic buddy.

Read the manifesto as it's so obvious you haven't, or the last thread. You don't control shit in today's society, that's my definition of freedom; controlling your environment and having a direct impact on it, not being reliant on others to take decisions for you.

>>11327933
Yeah, but that’s irrelevant in this discussion. Either his work is flawed or it isn’t. Discussing his crime or his trouble with women has nothing to do with how we plan on handling the problems of the technological society.

>>11327960
Never reveal your true powerlevel in public, normies just want likes on their insta pics and dog filters on their snap story.
You can only talk about this to people you trust and know are not retarded.

>>11327973
I contend that having a mate is one of the few remaining natural states. So my question is if one has this can that offset fhe misery and lack of autonomy of the tech society. Surely people are better off with love and sex.

>because if the internal loyalties
of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system
He called out the jews the absulte madman

>>11328015
Such entites are actively squashed tho, see: ruby ridge/waco

>>11327963
i've read it, I'm not impressed
mankind was always fated to die out, ted just wants it to die out in the most boring way possible

>>11328011
Having a mate doesn’t make you more autonomous in other areas of life, and the trend of decreasing autonomy doesn’t diminish. What if having sex and love becomes deemed inefficient in the future and sexual desires are driven out of us? Before that happens we may even rely solely on robotic women and virtual reality.

Ted may have had personal issues, but because of that we are able to be aware of the possibility that we will one day be slaves to technology. He would’ve hated modern society much more than the 90’s, but his main point was never that we should all live in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, but that if we sat around and let the system do what it wants, there will come a time when we couldn’t abstain from technology even if we wanted to.

>>11328051
>Having a mate doesn’t make you more autonomous in other areas of life, and the trend of decreasing autonomy doesn’t diminish. What if having sex and love becomes deemed inefficient in the future and sexual desires are driven out of us? Before that happens we may even rely solely on robotic women and virtual reality.

Nah, until we can produce artificial babies or strong AI the industrial system needs to increase the number of humans for its growth.

>>11328088
It’s implied that sex would be curbed because of those advances in technology. I’m not saying it’ll happen tomorrow, but when it does, there’s no reason to think we would always be able to have a natural love relationship. It might not be instantaneous, either; we wouldn’t revolt because we would consent to slow changes over time until we weren’t aware of what we’ve lost.

>>11328119
>tfw everybody will be incel

>>11328021
lol. I love your logic!! So if you were a doctor and a sick child came to you, you wouldn’t treat it because, hey, it’s going to die eventually anyway.

lol. Another low-IQ anon who’s “not impressed” with the reasoning of one of the world’s top mathematicians!

>>11328701
Math isn't logic, bud. It employs logic, but the disciplines are not identical.

>>11328715
And one of the worlds foremost logicians. This according to all the academic accounts we have of him. I believe his advisor in htaduate school even remarked that his dissertation displayed “such an astonishing feat of logic” that he solved a problem in months that they had been working on for many years.

>>11328736
“Graduate”

>>11328736
Sure, but even the greatest can make mistakes. Godel did.

>>11328715
But even so, your rebuttal is irrational. Top mathematicians are, by virtue of the demands of logic they employ, far more logical than the average person. So that my point still stands, if only indirectly.

What are some books that would help me begin building the essential skills to live in isolation in the wilderness? Farming, trapping, etc.

civilian powered machinery was a mistake

>>11328742
True, i’m not some sycophant who thinks Kaczynski is infallible. But people are going to try harder than the prior arguments if they want to seriously challenge his reasoning.

>>11328752
Your initial argument isn't the most rational. Pure logic and math can only go so far in a political, philosophical, psychological treatise. I don't really take Lawrence Krauss seriously when it comes to philosophy, for instance.

>>11328755
That’s a great question! It almost deserves its own thread. If u give me a minute, ill give you what i think are the most important books.

>>11327832
Ted believes it's inevitable just like small scale Technology. He doesn't like it and prevers Hunter gatherer tribes but isnt idealistic about it.

>>11328783
I have to disagree with you here. Logic can only go so far as it is equipped with facts. If someone is incredibly logical, but lacking in knowledge, i’d agree that they “could only go so far” in the sense that an historian or political scientist more educated on a given subject could have more insight. But i’ve seen no reason to doubt how well informed Kaczynski is. His reading in the humanities and social sciences is voluminous, and he’s spent decades in quite intensive focus on understanding the present world aituayion—free from the distractions that plague the typical intellectual, such as raising a family, teaching, day to day chores, requesting research grants etc. etc.

I’ve also seen no reason to doubt the premises that Kaczynski starts with in all his formulations. His premises are by and large backed up with overwhelming evidence.

But he’s not infallible, and he could be wrong. Its just that most people are too lazy or too timid to take the time tequired to seriously engage with his reasoning.

>>11328819
Im using my “iphone” by the way to type this. lol. So... with the typos...

I don't know about you lads but we have allready passed a point of no return. The artic perma Frost is melting and releasing carbon that can turn to methane Wich is 86times stronger then co2 in holding heat. And we got 1.8 Trillion Tons of that stuff still to be released. That's twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere. Last time that happened we had an extinction event that killed 95% of most life on the planet. (Permian–Triassic extinction event) We are allready experiencing an extinction event right now but the permafrost problem will worsen the situation on Extreme level. Further on that specific extinction event that we are recreating the conditions of took about 10 million years to restore nature on stable levels.

Dunno if it's possible to survive after that or during those 10 million years.

>>11328787
if it's inevitable, then all the other advances are at least probable.

>>11325649
Why are we still reading ISAIF when Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How exists?

>>11328701
I don't give a shit about an autistic's reasoning if his entire premise is fucking retarded

like your "sick child" bit
no, the situation is not equivalent
what you are doing is more like choosing between either let him live to 20, or lobotomizing him so he stays of 2 year old intelligence until he dies of old age
2 year olds are happy, hey? And freedom and happiness is the AMERICAN DREAM

>>11329736
I read both and I gotta say for the general concept in and philosophical bits with I'd recommend reading the manifesto first.

>>11329686
Its probable yeah, thats why an industrial revolution even happend in the first place. Its an unique event tho as it depends on many conditions to appear and sustain to progress. And with exaustion of some resources currently there is a high possibility that a future industrial revolution can not happen anymore as the conditions cant be recreated anymore. We afterall live on a planet with resource scarcity and we have only delayed this scarcity with acces to new technology and methods. When you remove the tech with a complete reset and need to recreate and invent everything from scratch again you come to a stone wall at the realisation that the previouse society has depleted more disposits needed in creating and maintaining an industrial revolution.

bump

>>11329948
I think we're both starting from different premises then. You have a very, very narrow conception of freedom compared to me. Relative to my conception of freedom, yours is practically slavery. And I'm betting your idea of happiness is also superficial and demeaning compared to mine.

I don't understand what prompted you to say "freedom and happiness is the American Dream"
It should be clear that the anti-tech position is arguing that american society has a very limited notion of freedom and happiness relative to the freedom and happiness than mankind had for millennia especially prior to industrialization, but prior to civilization more generally. Anti-techs want people to have vastly more freedom and happiness than americans currently have.

>>11329948
You seem to think that humanity reverting back to a pre-industrial and/or hunter-gatherer state would result in a lower quality of living for humans--which is why you compare this alternative to a lobotomized child. But your wrong. A reversion to a Hunting-gathering life would be a vastly improved quality of life for humans everywhere.

So I fundamentally disagree with your analogy, because I, and other anti-tech people, have a very different (and more realistic) conception than you of what defines a higher quality of life, and by what standards a higher quality of life should be judged.

>>11331778
It's not about quality of life you sperg, it's about ability
Primevals do nothing, civilization does something, they both die in the end but with civilization the story is not already written
And lol, stop playing at the good samaritan, you well know your troglodyte lifestyle will only be possible on the graves of billions of starvation victims, a state which generally sucks more than being forced to live in a society. Not that I care about murders, but I'd rather they make the world better instead of gayer.

>>11332173
>Primevals do nothing, civilization does something, they both die in the end but with civilization the story is not already written

Can you clarify this? I don't understand the point you're making.

Re: Primitive living, you say it's, "a state which generally sucks" But you're dead wrong, and there's abundant evidence to the contrary.

Also, the anti-tech position holds that "progress" will eventually kill the billions of humans on the planet, as well as making life uninhabitable and therefore preventing thousands upon thousands of generations from living in the future. Measured against that outcome, the death of a few billion now is an extremely small price to pay.

>>11332289
Civilization has innumerable paths it can take. Primitivism is basically stasis. We don't know how civilization will play out, despite teds theorycrafting, we know very well how primitivism will end (humans do nothing forever, then are wiped out). And I said being starved to death sucks. By the way, your thousands of generations will be numerically equivalent to about one or two modern generations since the populations are so much smaller, though english measures like "lives saved" are autistic anyway.

>>11332336
Thank you for explaining your thinking.

>>11325651
>>11325912
>>11326141
>>11326338
so great to see a ted thread populated with posters who have actually read the manifesto

>>11332873
we all read it, but its shit

>>11332336
>(humans do nothing forever, then are wiped out).
I haven’t read Uncle Teds book, but why do you think it’s “do nothing”? Lots of “low tech”(by modern standards) societies have achieved a lot, I think I’d probably be happier in a small scale agricultural society for one. Look at medieval societies, they achieved a lot, quite a lot of beauty as well.

Bump

>>11334984
"Achievement" as it's understood in your post, is a civilized concept that has no value outside the context of civilization. The same with "doing things" If your philosophy rejects technology, and by extension civilization, then it also rejects the notion of "achievement." By our standards this is incredibly radical...but these are radical times. And incredibly radical ideas are not unprecedented (just think of the reformation, or the enlightenment).

What you people need to understand is that Kaczynski is elevating humanity ABOVE "progress" and "achievement" by arguing that progress and achievement have always been decoupled from human welfare and that if they are allowed to continue will ultimately destroy everything.

To take a simple analogy (used by Thoreau):

The ancient Egyptians obviously thought that the pyramids were an "accomplishment," yet they were only made possible by vast suffering and misery at the base of their populations. That people "could be found degraded enough to build them." On an individual basis, most members of that population would be vastly better off as hunter-gatherers.

Likewise, building rocket-ships to mars is considered an "achievement" by our modern techno-industrial society, but this project rests at its base on an extraordinary amount of docility, obedience, and conformity among the population in order to facilitate the technological processes required to make it happen. Mars exploration is not adventure and excitement the way individual persons have been physically and psychologically adapted to find must fulfilling and free...for the individual person it's sitting in a sterile cubicle designing an o-ring.

>>11334984
In the same way that pyramids were pointless in terms of human well-being, so too is space "exploration." Much as the ancient Egyptians tried to convince themselves via there mythology that the pyramids were not pointless, but benefited humanity on the whole, so to modern industrial society justifies NASA and similar investments via its mythology of "progress" by trying to convince itself that these investments help scientific and technological advancement generally, and scientific and technological advancement improves human well-being. But Kaczynski is arguing that this is no less a myth than it was in ancient Egypt.

For the sake of extreme simplicity I'm painting with a very broad brush so that the basic concept will stick, but the full arguments are indeed far more nuanced and well formulated than the foregoing.

You should read "Technological Slavery" (2010) and "Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016)

>>11337171
>there
"their"

>>11337133
>What you people need to understand is that Kaczynski is elevating humanity ABOVE "progress" and "achievement" by arguing that progress and achievement have always been decoupled from human welfare and that if they are allowed to continue will ultimately destroy everything.
he's a bum, he loves bums and want to turn us all into bums, doesn't matter if he makes a loveletter to bums and scribbles a big bum rant on why being a bum is so good, bums are still just bums and will be bums forever (but only on paper because they will eventually be processed into o-rings by the non-bum population no matter how many bombs they detonate)

So are "replacement levels" an actual real problem or a way into guilting people into loving immigrants. Especially as tech goes along

Machine learning scientist here. Based Ted knows the way

>>11337185
With all due respect you sound like an actual bum.

I'm betting Kaczynski "accomplished" more than you or you entire family line has ever or will ever accomplish.

Why bother if you'll always be second rate to far more accomplished people. Unless you want to be a bitch to more accomplished people. Yes, that's it exactly, you want to be someone's bitch. One is reminded of the slave-mentality...the "happy slave" of the U.S. South.

>>11337190
What's a "replacement level"?

>>11337247
The minimum population of young people needed to sustain a population entering retirement

>>11337242
oh yes the "he smarter than you" defence
listen up retard, there are a billion people smarter than you or me throughout history, and a million people smarter than ted, yet they have wildly differing opinions which basically means A PERSON IS NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE HE SOLVED A MATH PROBLEM ONCE
ps: I wouldn't try attacking other peoples lot in the system they support when you "winning" has about a ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine chance in a hundred thousand of you being literally cannibalized during the cataclysmic collapse of civilization
pps: if you tell me to read another collection of shitscribbles I will ruin your sunday diversion (because face it, you're never going to lift a single finger in support of this you fag fuck) so hard they will have to lock up me right next to kaczynski

>>11337287
>listen up retard, there are a billion people smarter than you or me throughout history

Statistically improbable in my case

>>11337278
Thank you.

>>11337287
please calm down

can someone explain to me why Ted thinks that surrogate activities cannot be as fulfilling as naturalistic activities wrt the power process? Is it just an arbitrary judgement on his part? It seems like the weakest part of the manifesto, although pretty much everything else is solid logically.

>>11337185
>>11337287
As much as this thread is pretty much and echo chamber to suck each other's cocks your rhetoric is pathetic.

>>11337528
Check out Letters to David Skrbina, October 12, 2004, found in the book "Technological Slaver"(2010).

I never understood why people find the "surrogate activity" aspect to be the weakest. It's actually one of the strongest points.

Reaching the goals of primary activities yields the reward of life itself. Biological organisms know this and feel this because they've been hard-wired by evolution to invest such extreme meaning into life-and-death related goals.

Kaczynski already anticipates arguments against surrogate activities never being as fulfilling as "naturalistic" activities (activities directly related to life-and-death goals). He's argued that the only way that surrogate activities will ever be as meaningful as naturalistic activities is if humans are biologically or psychological altered in a way to remove their drive for power, so that they will be engineered to find artificial activities just as fulfilling as natural ones. But he regards this outcome as disastrous. A total disgrace to human dignity and freedom:

If the technological system wins out, he writes, paragraph 174 ISAIF: "...Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them 'sublimate' their drive for power into some harmless hobby...They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals."

>>11337581
this is a recreational website, not a university or court of law
to add, literally everyone who follows this luddite shit directly or indirectly wants most of this board dead so I don't see any point in manners, really

>>11337642
Then we'll treat you with equal contempt. We view you wanting the earth dead for all time. You just don't realize it.

So, either we both treat each other with equal nastiness, or we can have some self-control and try to calmly reason toward the truth.

>>11337632
Ted is an autist and thinks only in autistic terms like biological procreation, when "surrogate" activities (aka creative activities) are also procreation. You're probably familiar with the term horizontal gene transfer, creative activities are horizontal meme transfer.

>>11337668
can you hippie faggots grasp the concept of the earth not lasting forever for once in your lives? It's really quite simple. It wasn't always here, and it will eventually return to not being here. Your conservationist project failed as soon as the big bang dictated the laws of the universe.

>>11332289
Sounds awfully tankie in here

Not shocking that the only retards who would ever think this is a good ideology are privileged first worlders that romanticize adversity.

>>11337744
um. no. https://deepgreenresistanceseattle.org/resistance-culture/indigenous/indigenous-leader-fighting-not-roads-electricity/

>>11337763

>The term was created for a conference entitled "Deep Green Resistance. Confronting Industrial Culture" in April, 2007 in Deerfield, Massachusetts. Lierre Keith was the main organizer.

>Deep Green theory draws on elements of anthropology, phenomenology, deep ecology and ecofeminism.

>Derrick Jensen is a prominent member of the Deep Green Resistance Advisory Board. In addition to being a radical activist, he is also a writer, philosopher and teacher. Lierre Keith, another board member, is a feminist activist, writer and small farmer. Stephanie McMillan, and Jack D. Forbes are also prominent influences on the movement. DGR draws on the philosophy and writings of many authors, including Arne Næss, Richard Manning, Andrea Dworkin, Peggy Reeves Sanday, David Abram, Chellis Glendinning, Chris Hedges, Joseph Tainter, Richard Heinberg, Daniel Quinn,Pablo Servigne, Tracie Marie Park (a.k.a. Zoe Blunt) and Jerry Mander, among others.[citation needed]

so thanks for proving my point?

>>11337763
these indigenous people are just too precious

>>11337780
lol. Fuck all those assholes. They're worthless from the point of view of anti-tech. They're part of what Kaczynski terms the "useless crew."

I didn't post that link for info on "deep green resistance" or whatever pseudo-leftist utopian nonsense they represent. I only linked it for the information on the indigenous leader Ati Quigua.

>>11337697
You just dont get it do you.

So it’s ok if someone kills you now because after all your going to grow old and die eventually? Obviously not because your murder would deprive you of future life.

Likewise, even though the earth will die out eventually, we can act to allow hundreds of thousands of years of future life to thrive on the earth. That seems worth fighting for, and dying for. If you disagree, than I think you’re a far worse criminal than the one who would murder you.

Anti-techs are saying that its technological growth which is destroying the planet, and the technological growth is not inevitable, it can be halted through revolution.

>>11338306
>If you disagree, than I think you’re a far worse criminal than the one who would murder you.
I agree, plumbing, modern medicine, commodities etc are to be done away with for utopia or you're worse than a murderer.

>>11338326
There’s nothing utopian about wild nature. It existed for millions of years. All you have to do is look at it. Read anthropology. It’s a world of sickness and health, violence and peace, full bellies and hunger.

The concept of progress is the one which is utopian. It always has been, as with every civilized project.

Now, arguing why those modern advances such as “plumbing” etc. add up to a system that inevitably destroys the biosphere and enslaves humans, and create a world that is worse than hunting and gathering life is another topic entirely. We can argue on that point if you like, but we should probably move to reddit or e-mail.

>>11338326
Wild nature is essentially the antithesis of utopia. The fact that you can grasp this is mind boggling to me.

>>11338326
They ARE the utopia you nutjob

>>11338326
And utopias are crazy and dangerous, just like our much praised technological system and the crazy Brave New World that all the technicians and scientists and promotors of “progress” are working to create.

>>11325912
>Maybe in decades /lit will be known as the Republic of Letters of the Internet.

Fucking lol.

>>11338510
lol. That's rich.

>>11325912
I think globalization is a much more of a problem than simple industrialization. If everyone had a stable community of about 100 people throughout their lives to interact with and compete with I strongly doubt tech alone would degrade quality of life too much.

>>11338666
one thing leads to the other

>>11338680
this

>>11337190
The whole idea is absurd, those in favour of immigration of this sort are blatantly arguing for a replacement of the people in order to continue some cycle of consumption and production. It's not just anti-native, it's downright inhuman

>>11337678
every time I see this I can't help but think of white countries importing the whole world, thinking "it's okay so long as they share our ideals"
In the end nature will always win

>>11338306
it's not worth fighting for, it's just as much of a nihilistic anti-goal as wanting to invent blind pleasure machines aka your dreaded future
a person with the same goals for his life as your goal for humanity would be someone who wanted to get an eternal holiday at the end of his life, where he did absolutely nothing. In other words, a decadent. (And if you think I am being mean to old folks, consider that they are physically breaking down and naturally trend to decadence).

>>11337744
Do you think primitive tribes in the Amazon or in Africa are unhappy? As long as their environment is not destroyed they're perfectly content with their way of life.

>>11340036
unhappier than industrialized folk

>>11339217
we'll just move to another planet, durrr

>>11325912
>the world will be a completely different place if, say, 20 percent of everyone visited 4chan, online message boards, and knew about the problem of industrialization and urbanization.

a-are you serious?

>>11340065
That's debatable, there's articles and research papers arguing for both sides.

>>11340101
yeah its a blast living without modern medicine

>>11340105
Modern medicine is a meme compared to cleanliness.

>>11340113
okay

>>11337744
>ideology
hahaha. read his fucking books please.
>romanticize adversity
hahahaha there's literaly an entire book by ted that thrashes primitivist' romanticization of hunter gatherers society.

Still waiting for people who read the manifesto and disagree with it to articulate their thoughts in a coherent manner.

>>11340113
hahahahah read the fucking manifesto. pathetic. I'll send you $1000 through paypal if you can pinpoint a paragraph in the manifesto where ted explicitly says that modern medicine is bad, or that technology in general is bad.

spoiler; it's the opposite. every antitech writers acknowledge that technology does good 95% of the time. Their entire premise is that you cannot separate the good from the bad. And no, no matter how much your domesticated urban ass wants it to be true, it won't.

>>11340226
meant for >>11340105 !

>>11340226
I never implied that he explicitly said modern medicine was bad

>>11340215
>>11337632
Would you recommend reading Technological Slavery or is it redundant knowing that I've already read the manifesto and Anti Tech Revolution? I've annotated the book but I read it a while ago

>>11340065
>>11340101
Totally. completely untrue. why do people people just make things up about stuff they don't know anything about??

>>11340105
You have to accept a high infant-mortality rate. But other than that, individuals reach equilibrium with their environment in terms of their immune system having adapted to holding local environmental bacteria and parasites at bay.

The infant-mortality rate is nothing to joke about, but it's unfortunately necessary if you want there to be some ecological balance. Without it, you end up with runaway overpopulation, crowding, resource exhaustion, environmental devastation etc. etc.

>>11340810
yeah and all that other shit like polio too

>>11340346
Yes. It's absolutely essential. It goes far, far beyond the manifesto, especially in its research into primitive life compared to modern life.

>>11340820
There have never been any primitives diagnosed with polio. There is research to show that polio is directly related to DDT chemicals in the environment. There's also an alternative hypothesis suggesting that lifestyle differences b/t hunter-gatherers and civilized people play a large role in their response to pathogens. Like I said, primitives have a high infant-mortality rate which takes out weak and sickly genes from the gene pool early when they would otherwise grow up to succumb to diseases early in life. There are also major nutritional benefits to hunter-gatherer living.

>>11340820
Much of epidemics and diseases have been created by the crowding of populations, literally manmade.

>>11340864
good thing DDT is banned and we came up with a vaccination for polio anyway I guess

>>11340891
After a lot of unnecessary suffering...

>>11340820
>YEAH N SHIT N KACZYNSKI DUMB SHIT SHIT FUCK
How about you learn to write properly and control yourself?

I'll gladly take more replies like yours, if only to show everyone lurking these threads that nobody has addressed any counter arguments to the manifesto. We've had two ted threads in the last few days, about 80% of them were filled with personal attacks on Kazcynski, and general idiocy (the one that can't be cured). Thank you for stopping by

>>11340899
That's really a matter of perspective isn't it.

Though I bet when your autism causes you to have screeching headaches from airplane noises could skew you to a particular direction

>>11340907
>How about you learn to write properly and control yourself?

ironic

>>11340923
The constant ad hominems don’t help your position.

>>11340065

>>11340907
>l-l-look how cool and logical we are
pathetic
can't wait until the machines devour you

>>11341187
that wasn't an ad hom, do your research...

>>11341327
If things continue as they are, they'll devour you too

>>11340036
Do you think I'm unhappy with all the freedoms I have thanks to modern society?

If yes, then why do you want to impose on me what I consider hell on earth?

>>11341691
>then why do you want to impose on me what I consider hell on earth?
read the fucking manifesto. It's not about imposing anything over anyone. It's about making life a little bit better before humanity gets used as fuel in the Super AI mega-furnace.
And if you did read it, don't bother replying you weak excuse of a human being. You admit to being a pampered and infantilized urban decadent We don't need another coward who is scared of his own existence (oh no mommy! I could get sick! I could die!) Transhumanists aren't even a problem at this point, because they would all probably die of a heart attack at the sight of anything that threatens their fragile existence.

>>11341751
you literally want to turn yourself into a troglodyte, don't dare call anyone else decadent you scared gay nigger

ooooohhhhh nooo the earth could dieeee maaaaaaaaaaan boooooo hoooooooooooo electricity makes me scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaared duuuuude deeeep ecologyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

I can't wait until we GRIND all the loser fucking indians and abbos and africans into NUTRIENT SLUDGE to feed the machine operators. I would rather mankind die in a GLOBAL NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST than leave a bunch of faggot loser cave people running around, because at least if an alien ship passes by my corpse won't have to suffer the shame of being associated with lifeforms who genuinely think trees contain ghosts

I'm gonna go tie a fucking CURRENT TO MY BALLSACK in praise of technology

>>11341790
>Implying the techno jew won't use him as fuel too

>>11341751
Look at all that bottled anger lmao. It's incredible how clearly an ideology can expose incels, rejects, weirdos, etc as much as primitivism.

>And if you did read it, don't bother replying you weak excuse of a human being
Did read it, pathetic drivel of a pathetic deranged man who couldn't find his place in society.

>You admit to being a pampered and infantilized urban decadent
I don't, and aren't. You project that on me, on the other hand.

>We don't need another coward who is scared of his own existence

I started with the Greeks when I first visited 4chan. Again, stop projecting.

>Transhumanists aren't even a problem at this point, because they would all probably die of a heart attack at the sight of anything that threatens their fragile existence.
Your ideology is literally trying to crash society over fears of an unlikely threat to society via technology. Beyond pathetic, it's actually sad. I even know what you look like IRL.

>>11341790
I don't advocate for a return to pre agricultural society. Neither does Kazcynski. It's only a side effect. The goal is to get rid of technology before it kills us all.

by the way, you're a stemfag lab technician who thinks the universe is newtonian. gosh. lowest of the lows

>>11341847
Better get rid of me before I fucking kill your gay ass circlejerk lmaooooooooooooooooo
here's what you can do when I have destroyed your surrogate activity here: go suck your dads dick, i'm sure even supermax allows visitors

>come home from work I love
>take shit of the gods
>go to fridge, get some incredibly tasty and healthy food
>have gf over
>we cuddle on my comfy as fuck sofa while watching netflix

From now on I'll remember there are incels running around on /lit/ of all places that are so angry they want to genocide the world and picked an ideology based on that, yet they're too beta to do anything about it, and that'll make me even happier than I already am.

>>11341857
noooooooooo technology will kill us you are only pretending to enjoy not eating roots and diseased squirrels you weren't evolved for this *masturbates limply since my low testosterone has left me unable to do so furiously*

>>11341846
This is going to be funny: I have 150iq, a literal rising actress as a girlfriend, I live in an haussmannian appartement in the center of Paris.

I'm leaving this here because it's honestly funny as fuck. I mean, why the fuck would an incel, rject, weirdo NOT want transhumanism? It's their only hope. If anything, primitivism outs those who subconciously know they wouldn't fare a day in a pre-agricultural setting. by the way, I'm not even primitivist. I don't care about the planet or robots or the super AI. I just hate how liberticidal our society has gotten, and will get, as a side effect of industrialisation.

>>11341864
>This is going to be funny: I have 150iq, a literal rising actress as a girlfriend, I live in an haussmannian appartement in the center of Paris.
>average primie incel delusion

> primitivism outs those who subconciously know they wouldn't fare a day in a pre-agricultural setting
or simply non retarded, homicidal, etc weirdos that don't want to significantly lower their quality of life because they're not angry at society

>by the way, I'm not even primitivist
lmao just leave, for your dignity's sake

>>11341864
>I just hate how liberticidal our society has gotten
that's because you are a bona fide certified grade A Weak Faggot who wants other people to make him free, get it?

well... this threat degenerated quickly.

>>11341878
"thread"

>>11341873
faut vraiment les finir à la pelle ces anglos putain.

bisous du 4ème

>>11341864
I'm a frogman too but boasting this much on the internet isn't really helping the case.

t. autistic frogposter

>>11341906
cringe overload my dude, please stop

>>11334557
mao

>>11341939

>>11325649
Ted K is old news. This is now a Goonan thread.

>>11342091
lol

>>11341847
>I don't advocate for a return to pre agricultural society.
>It's only a side effect.
So you admit that your goals being fulfilled will still result in what you claim you don't advocate. Sounds like semantics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB077vhBvLs
>I Tried Living With A 'Dumb' Phone
This is the kind of stupid shit propaganda you guys need to fight if you want to convince the rest of the human race.

>>11343185
the only reason why it's hard to live without a phone is other people's expectations. I would love to go back to the phone booth era where you could disappear for a few days without friends/family panicking and thinking you offed yourself.

>>11341864
>haussmannian
ugh, broad streets suck ass. and so does that monolithic Parisian style. Shame they had to ruin the medieval buildings and alleys that were there before. Probably looked like pic related

The two faggots fighting each other ruined the thread

>>11343226
I think the answer is discipline. That it not be used in the sense of taking a drink like everyone else but to poison the well. Have one or not but if you do use it as a tool against. I've found I don't have that discipline and given it up.

>>11344264
it's just a phone you spastic

jesus christ the state of luddites

>>11343185
Nah man getting direct access to my email throughout the day is handy

Hey TED fans have a bump!

>>11344275
A part of it is a phone.

>>11343763
That sums up a great deal of thread derailments on this board.

>>11344275
It's okay to be a luddite

>>11343226
You can by becoming that guy that sometimes doesn't respond for a few days. You don't need to go phoneless for that, just a bit of character.

Read ISaiF because of the last thread and I really liked it, what else should I read?

>>11325649
Hello, is this the edgy limp beta thread for pretentious losers?

>>11348666
ha ha! he says the internet words! funny man!

>>11348673
Shouldn't you be living inna woods hunting possums or planning the collapse of society or some shit?

>>11348679
I'm not a primitivist. I just liked a book and agreed with some of its conclusions. I know that is hard for you to grasp, small man that you are.

>>11348661
The book "Technological Slavery" (2010) and then "Anti-Tech revolution" (2016)

>>11348679
No. the idea is that the technological system is expanding to control the whole world so that living in the wild will soon be impossible. This is a process that has been going on for hundreds of years. Already, buying quality wild land with enough wild animals or good soil for micro-farming costs far beyond what most people can afford. And again, such a move would only be temporary. Some people want to work to halt the progress of the system so that not only they, but future generations aren't enslaved.

>>11348661
This

>>11348730
wait he doesn't get money for it, who does?

>>11348743
probably the publisher. who knows.

>>11348747
damn i bought this recently and that makes me kind of sad. i want him to be happy

/lit/ is a Linkola board

>>11348833
god bless you my child

>>11340113
what a shmuck

>>11348743
It's not like if the earned some money on it he could ever spend it sooooo...

Is there a version of this without all the typos? My autism is getting triggered hard.

>>11349031
>he doesn't know what canteen is in prison
>he's never been to jail
you are a faggot

>>11349089
what sort of FAG hasn't been to prison? what a loser

>>11349082
In the book "Technological Slavery" or else on Amazon as "Industrial Society and Its Future"

wait....

also here:

http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/howard/Anarchism/Unabom/manifesto.html

>tfw you read ted's work

Friendly reminder you need mentats to effectively convince normal people to replace their computers.

>>11325912
While I have not read this manifesto, based on what you have stated I can get the gist of what this is about.
You have a very quaint solution do this urbanization and industrialization problem and I appreciate that. That method could work simply due to the fact that the only way to change the masses is through molding their upbringing of future generations. But the attention span of the average human now is incredibly small. No one would have the patience to digest and reflect on a new way of being. Sure there will always be those that do listen and understand on the initial interaction, but they are few and far between. But I guess messages like this are not always meant to be fully understood. The idea will linger in the recesses of the mind, waiting to reveal itself once the time is right. I believe Humanity is in it's most hollow, but maelable state. Due to the the rise in technological reliance we have essentially passified ourselves for the generations to come . The students marching off onto the streets due to lack of gun control. Was that an act of genuine concern and a need to rise against, or were they simply moving along with what they saw on their group page? Maybe a future rebel led the cause or maybe it was just a mindless following. Either way, they were easily swayed to a side. Getting your ideas known can only be done through technology. Have it be spread like a virus. Humanity is simply moving too fast to be swayed by one on one interactions. It's either all of them, or none.
I don't know how much validity this holds. But it is a perspective

>>11325649
>tfw your thread becomes a unabomber general

A-am I on a list now, anons?

>>11351543
If you go on 4chan chances are you've been on one for a long time bud

>>11351671
fugg, now I know why i cant get a visa

>>11329948
check yourself into a mental hospital.

bump

>On 1984 Apple makes a commercial opposing the Big Brother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
>On 2017 Apple makes a commercial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQB2NjhJHvY
>Wuts a gumbuter?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5p0gqCIEa8
This is what your children will be raised with!

>>11328742
>Godel did

Yep, don't become reliant on your mom/wife's tenedies.

His brain got fried with acid during MK Ultra, move along

>>11325649
all i got from the book (or atleast all i'm going to do about the problem) is that i should start recycling, set up a tomato flat, and start planting trees in the forest where there are trails

>>11353714
lol. sure. tell yourself that so you don't have to face up to a seriously uncomfortable set of ideas.

>>11353702
>tenedies
what are those?

>>11352686
great argument luddoid

It's time to let the thread die and try several days later again with a new thread

>>11354770
>bumping for the thread to die
>mfw

What are the reasonable ways to put his theories into practice? Or can it only be done through "unreasonable" ways, i,e through force/violence?

Interesting new general thread!

>>11355509
I've been warning teddists (can we call them like that or do you guys prefer to be called primitivists?) the only way to avoid a "buttlerian jihad" or use of violence is to promote alternatives to technology.

I am serious when I say computers can be replaced by people with enhanced mental faculties, be it by education, or even better, by genetic engineering. I also provided references as how these two can be achieved.

Those are my 2 cents.

>>11356514
>we need to avoid violence
Yes, I agree
>even better, by genetic engineering
shoot every transhumanist on sight

>>11356685
;_;

>>11356685
this

>>11355509
why is violence "unreasonable" or to be avoided?

>>11356685
>shoot
Uhh, nah. That's technology, and it mediates the experience of murder. You need to use your fists for the most hands on unmediated killing experience. You could also use a rock, but of course, the murder is then mediated through a tool, although a democratic easily accessible tool.

>>11356685
>shoot every transhumanist on sight
better hurry up faggot, while you still got the chance

>>11356514
2 cents or 2 chromosomes?

>>11353567
Seriously, what is it?

>>11340074

>>11356879
weird, lol

OK, well, someone has to get this threat back on track and I'll give it a try.

Here's a letter Kaczynski recently sent to some journalists reminding everyone that journalists are hack scum more interested in promoting a narrative. They've been successful in crafting a false narrative of Kaczynski as some sicko, but everyone is now realizing what the media actually do...and reading Kaczynski...and seeing the world evolve exactly as he predicted...that that the narrative is collapsing. lol

>>11357159
Want some real real action done? e are in /lit/, get some of these anons to write letters and publications about Ted's works and views and make it flow.

I am not saying a magazine (although that would be cool) but how about some fliers you can post around your campuses? Something easy to print, something cheap.

>>11357185
That's a good idea. I'm on board.

But shouldn't we first have a more closed forum away from brainlets? Like a subreddit or our own fourm?

>>11357212
Just keep the second forum should be a support place or you'll risk to become insulated. You want this to gain traction, not to be forgotten into oblivion.

Maybe even start contributions mediated with pastebins, publish them in next OP, make this easy. Then expand. Many zines started in 4chan this way, they grew into their own thing, but eventually.

>>11357225
Totally agree. But we should have an online "base" if only for "support." What do you recommend for this?

>>11357246
IRC, Discord, Reddit. Pick your poison.

>>11357159
Retarded question:
There's a way that I can send an email/letter to Mr.Kaczynski ?
I would like to talk with him.
I am not from U.S.

>>11357411
That's not a retarded question. that's actually a very good question. You can just google his address. It is:

Theodore John Kaczynski
04475-046
U.S. Penitentiary Max
P.O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226-8500
USA


But you should read his two books before you write him, and you should only ask very specific questions about specific ideas in his books or about anti-tech theory. Otherwise he likely won't respond. He gets thousands of letters and he has very little time to write to people.

why did he do more than one bomb if he was called the unabomber? surely he was at least a dos or tres bomber.

>>11357754

>>11357731
I meant, I really can do it?
Do I need a kind of special permission to send a letter to an inmate?
I thought that only relatives and lawyers of inmates has the right to send them letters.

>he has very little time to write to people.

He is lock down. I bet he has a lot free time on his hands as to answer to a weirdo like me.

>>11356514
>>11355509
It will happen naturally soon enough. Humanity is just entering a phase where if we don't develop AI within the next few decades before overpopulation, dysgenics, and social collapse overtake us then we never will, since there will no longer be enough people with the requisite skills. From the looks of quantum computing, and the paper tiger of machine learning, seems like it's p much not going to happen, and therefore collapse will.

>>11357761
>asking for AI overlords

>>11357769
i trust this friend computer guy, he speaks to me.

>>11357769
I'm rooting against them for sure, I'd much rather have collapse, just stating possibilities

>>11357760
Nope. You don't need any permission.
Nope, he's extremely busy. He's written three books and is working on a fourth, and has enormous amount of research and writing plus he is always involved in many legal issues with the prison system. He has almost no free time.

>>11357848
>Nope. You don't need any permission.

So I just need to write and send to him the letter? just that?
Can I send him be an e-mail?

>Nope, he's extremely busy. He's written three books and is working on a fourth, and has enormous amount of research and writing plus he is always involved in many legal issues with the prison system. He has almost no free time.

How the fuck do you know all that?
What Are You, President of His Fan Club?

>>11349391
maybe you can become the computer instead

>>11357865
Yep. You just write him a letter. no e-mail possible. But you need to wait many weeks. International mail takes a long long time to and from the US prison system.

>How the fuck do you know all that?
What Are You, President of His Fan Club?

I studied his work as part of my history major thesis on revolutions in college.

I learned all this because I visited his archives, which are stored at the University of Michigan's Joseph A. Labadie Special Collection. He has more than 90 BOXES of research, writing, and correspondence that are stored there. One thing you see right away when you research his work is that he's always reminding people that he's overloaded with work and he frequently admits or tells people that he can't respond.

You might be able to request photocopies of certain material to be e-mailed you from the archives. You should visit the University of Michigan's website and make a request. they can help you on how to do this if you're interested.

>>11357760
That's not a hamster.

>>11357887
Have you talk to him(letters)?

>>11357890
It's a punk one.

>>11357761
>>11357769
>>11357776

Well, however it collapses, via revolution or via natural internal conflicts, I hope it does sooner rather than later so that there is actually a world left worth living on for humans in the next few hundred thousand years.

I'd rather live here. >Pic

>>11357903
than here >Pic

>>11357893
Yes. Twice. But I didn't get a response. That was several years ago though. But I know someone personally who did in fact got a response (In college) and I spoke to one of the librarians about writing him at the University of Michigan archive.

>>11357916
What was the title of your history major thesis? I would like to read it

>>11357933
This was more than ten years ago. I honestly don't remember the title. But it should be stored at my school in some library somewhere I think. I focused on the corruption of revolutionary movements. My central point was that all social movements become corrupt once the original revolutionaries gain power because their revolutionary goals are usually not clear enough to keep them accountable to the public. Those that didn't become corrupt had simple, specific goals: like for U.S. to separate from England. That was basically it if I remember correctly.

Do I should to read "Technological Slavery"?

I am asking because Kaczynski itself declare(on note's author on the second edition of that book) that this book is a piece of shit.

>>11357947
>hey guys, I wrote a fucking book!
>I honestly don't remember the title

>>11357968
Yes, you absolutely should. It's amazing.

He declares that he is "deeply dissatisfied" with the book, which is not the same as declaring that the book is bad. Even though he was not happy with it, I'm sure he would agree that it is still better than 99% of social theory or history that is published. So it's still an amazing book.

He probably only said that he was "dissatisfied" because he has extremely high standards.

In his second book, "Anti-Tech Revolution" he does not say this, for example.

>>11357978
I never wrote a book. It was a college thesis paper. One essay among hundreds.

>>11357968
That picture makes me genuinely angry.

>>11358009
Yep. It's totally Orwellian. Big Brother.

All bets are off when it comes to anti-tech ideas. The first amendment goes out the window when people in government, the courts, or even individual lawyers --who are needed to defend speech rights--find out that seriously "dangerous" ideas are being written by a genuine genius.

Defense attorneys would rather wait in line to defend Black Lives Matter, or Evergreen State College than assist a seriously subversive person.

>>11358009
why?

>>11358030
"...round up and confiscate the original and every copy of everything I have ever written..."

-um, have you read 1984?

>>11358037
Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clement's.

>>11358026
World sucks, we got to do something, this can't be all that is, I want to imagine the future different not some orwellian nightmare. Maybe not through violence, but somethings gotta give.

>>11358030
>>11358042
How is the pay, nigger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-yaDbqH2k

>>11358054
If you've got nothing to hide,
you've got nothing to fear

>>11358068

>>11358068
said every coward or conformist living in an unfree society since the dawn of civilization.

>>11358076
this

>>11358042
cool

>>11358068
t. totalitarian and perv

>>11358096
nicely done. I'm keeping that one.

when I hear people say thing like that, In my mind I always hear them say it with a German accent

lol

>>11358009
yeah, I can't believe they haven't killed him yet

>>11357968
That pic was referenced not to Technological Slavery but Road to Revolution. They made that book a clusterfuck and Technological Slavery is the fixed second edition version.

>>11357978
is this a porn?

>>11358493
Actually, that's not true. Road to Revolution was published in 2008, while Technological Slavery was published in 2010. As you can see by Kaczynski's date at the end of the page in the photo, December 2009, it came after Road to Revolution but in time for inclusion in Technological Slavery.

Also, notice the typeset design. Only Technological Slavery has this font. Road to Revolution is a very different look.

>>11328715
Math is literally applied logic retard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQujxmg9gg
>giving computers the ability to argue

What to read after him?

>>11358742
Is there a book that kills you?

>>11358742
Anthropology, starting with "The Hunting Peoples" by Carlton S. Coon

"The Harmless People" by Elizabeth Marshal Thomas

and

"The Forest People" by Colin Turnbull

>>11358770
lol. it is the final stop.

>>11358742
His two other books. Start with Anti-tech revolution: Why and How

Let this thread die. I am compiling ressources on the technological question, ranging from anarchist literature, fringe marxism to religious texts. I will create a kazcynski/antitech general in a few days. Let's not saturate the board with too much ted threads until then.

>>11358861
amen

>>11358861
I'll be there to ruin your thread

>>11358508
Alex Harper

>>11358861
Can we hear some of music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfJ9D0pcXeY

>>11325649
Is anyone else blown away that the most important work of literature ever written on the subject of the negative effects of technology was written by a mass murderer?

>>11359547
I'd be more surprised if it had been written by a normal, well-adjusted citizen.

>>11359583
Not really. There are some "suppressed" works on various subjects of political corruption that were written by the most boring people imaginable.

I think his diagnosis is correct for the most parts.

However his proposed remedy doesnt solve the problem in the long run either. The main problem is that shunning technological progress has never worked in anyones favour and is by its nature a very fragile and unstable state of society.

I say let the human race burn itself out, instead of existing in a stagnant state forerver.

>>11359547
it's not important though, just the rantings of a loon

>>11359836
>It's not important
For you.

>>11359841
yeah, cus I have a brain

I feel like every time people talk about technology there's a massive appeal to nature, and it's completely fallacious.

What's even the line between natural and technological in something very simple, like food? Is bread natural? - it doesn't grow on trees. Are carrots picked up by a machine natural? Why is genetically modified food not natural?

We keep shifting the goal post to basically "back in my day we didn't have this and that, so it's bad". Sewing with a thread and needle, then using a sewing machine, then using computer aided manufacturing - our tools are evolving, who gets to decide when it stops being natural and becomes too technological (negative connotation)?

Humans are part of the evolutionary process too, remember that. Talking about it does fuck all.

>>11359845
Whatever you say partner.

>>11359845
No you don't.

>>11359862
Go to bed technoshill. Let your robotwaifu tuck you in also. Praise based AI am I right brothers? I for one love our new ruling machines!

>>11359876
I deserve a better response than this. I read TUM when I was in school and it had a huge effect one me. If I could get everyone in the world to read one book it would be this. But what I don't like is the arbitrary definition of technology depending on what suits the person making the point.

>>11359876
Not an argument tbhfam.

>>11359896
I am one of those who see a midground of technological progress and technological minimalism. A more than usual moral progressism that is not married to compromise but is willing to make commitment for the betterment, not the regress, of the human species.

>>11325651
>>11325912
Also: it's more than just industrialized society. It's also political liberalism as well.

>>11357761
>From the looks of quantum computing, and the paper tiger of machine learning, seems like it's p much not going to happen
Please elaborate. Last time I read about it, computers were learning by themselves

>>11359896
>I deserve a better response than this.

>>11359987
Someone types out a non-meme response with an actual argument and they get this garbage. The state of this board.

>>11359876
>hur dur dur we're free

>>11360058
>Hur dur dur everything is determined already so why even bother?

>>11359862
First, there is something as wilderness and there is something as the balance of nature.

It is claimed by some wilderness deniers that because humans have always modified their environment to some extent, there is nothing different with letting technological society modify the environment as much as it wants. But this is a colossal non-sequitor, because there is a vast difference between the magnitude of the collective and intensive management over the environment practiced by technological society, and the comparatively extremely minimal affects on the environment by hunter gatherers. A substantial line was crossed with agriculture, but was especially aggravated by the industrial revolution, because at that point society at large began to radically alter the environment that individual man was adapted to to over the course of millions of years without individual man's consent or control, with disastrous consequences for individual freedom, autonomy, and happiness, and the biodiversity of the planet.

At any rate, it's still irrelevant to try to argue that because there's no definitive "line" to be crossed, but rather a scale or continual progression from primitive humans to modern techno-industrial society in the power of technology and the impact on the environment, that therefore increasingly powerful and impactful technology is not bad or no worse than more primitive technology. The analogy here is that of abortion: Both abortion advocates and anti-abortion people agree that there is no arbitrary "line" to be crossed when, from the moment of conception, it is ok to abort a fetus if at all. But they both agree that the more developed the fetus becomes, the worse and worse the moral situation of abortion becomes. Neither the abortion proponents or the anti-abortion people would dare to say: "because the unborn child started out without consciousness, and we don't now exactly when it becomes conscious, it's therefore arbitrary and wrong to prevent abortions at any time in the pregnancy.

Lastly, you ask: "who gets to decide when it stops being natural and becomes too technological."

No one does, not because no one has the right, no one does because it is not possible to set an optimal level of technology. And this is the main point of anti-tech arguments: the process of technological growth by civilization is autonomous--it is beyond rational control and its effects cannot be predicted or managed to any substantial degree over the long term. A logical corollary to this is that continued technological growth necessarily results in disaster. Humans were launched on this trajectory hundreds if not thousands of years ago, so in a sense our current predicament was inevitable. The difference now is that we are entering a window of opportunity in which it may be possible to end technological growth and collapse back to a state where the biosphere can begin to return to pre-industrial conditions.

New general thread soon?

>>11360208
Appreciate the response.

>>11360208
>Neither the abortion proponents or the anti-abortion people would dare to say: "because the unborn child started out without consciousness, and we don't now exactly when it becomes conscious, it's therefore arbitrary and wrong to prevent abortions at any time in the pregnancy.

Hang on, both pro-choice and pro-life crowds are pretty categorical about their position - they do in fact claim that abortion is right/wrong, and that's that. The law that prohibits abortions after a certain time is just there to keep both parties moderately happy. If we legalise abortion fully, the pro-life people would start rioting; if we prohibit it at all stages, the pro-choice would compare our government to draconian middle eastern governments. There are very few people who affirm "abortion is immortal, unless it's before 6 weeks!"

What I've explained is the usual tendency for a binary opposition to be created. There's never a middle ground. Now when it comes to technology, this binary opposition usually boils down to A) "technology has gone too far, the last generation had it right" vs. B) "we should continue developing technology and see where we can go". I think the first group has just been scared by the advancements in their lifetimes, while the latter group is looking at Mars and shit.

>tfw I don't know enough to ask questions or think critically about anything Ted says
>tfw I can only take in what the book tells me, not question or analyze it
>tfw at the end I'm no better than leftists he describes, with reading as surrogate activity
wojakcrying.png

>>11360502
I used to see myself the same way, like a dumb tabula rasa. I was even afraid to keep using 4chan due to the constant redpills. Expose yourself to new ideas and you will see that some things ressonate with you and some don't, some things are easy to believe and some are not.
It's not the best answer but that's how I go about it

>>11360502
I used to be like you as well. But as you read more, you go from taking in all information as fact, to always being in critical thinking mode, just by virtue of having heard the opposition. Thinking critically is a skill, and while some are more talented than others at it, you can learn it. Read political stuff from the whole spectrum, and read history, so you have some facts with which to back up your arguments, then learn what a good argument sounds like, how it is structured, how its logic and reasoning is laid out. Then practice this when reading anything.

>>11360502
>tfw alt-right doesn't even care about reading
You are doing better than many.

>>11360502
don't worry, his entire project is a giant surrogate activity