/lit/ - Literature

>let's just go back to living in trees

Umm, no.That's gonna be a hard yikes from me.

>>13237113
arguable the most important piece of literature of the 20th century

>>13237113
>Where was he wrong with his views?
Thinking that humanity would willingly give up modern life, even by revolution.

It's either a world ending event or nothing, 99% of humans have to die to make his world happen.

>>13237168
This. His literal autism caused him to fail to understand how most people feel about technology (unthinkingly positive).

>>13237168
>>13237180
And even if 99% of humans would die, someone would eventually reinvent everything, either from scratch or finding lost history/technology. It's a pipe dream, and it's yet more evidence that a high IQ doesn't equate with intelligence.

>>13237113
I think it created a movement of armchair pseuds and other variants of sloth who really just don't want to have to put the effort in to integrate with modern society, so they seek out ideologies that justify their laziness and stubbornness.

>>13237113
>Where was he wrong with his views?
His tragic autism which kept him from understanding human emotion and caused him physical pain from loud noises. The MKULTRA didn't help

>>13237113
While he is right that the commercialization of society is decaying but he has offered very little friable solutions. I'd say just live with the Amish.

>>13237348
The Amish are bigger degenerates than the trannies shitting up social media.

>>13237355
>Amish are bigger degenerates
?

>>13237113
>I know it's already known as based
lmao it's cringe as fuck. Only 14 year olds who hate their stepdads think this shit is based or deep.

>>13237523
source?

>>13237523
Care to share something you think is actually based anon?

>>13237530
I saw an article about an incel hanging himself the other day. Now THAT was based.

>>13237509
They're LARPing ingrates who still use technology when it's convenient, making them hypocrites on top of it. Plus they're wholly useless to the world.

>>13237523
You're probably 22 and you think you're very smart because you read 15 pages of Baudrillard once or you just saw the cover, read a review and saw The Matrix. Have sex or read some Freud.

>>13237582
touched a nerve, did I sweaty? Don't worry high school will be easier next year when you don't get bullied so much lmao

>Kaczynski's analysis of non-industrial and non-agricultural societies being superior to the modern world rests on a fundamental ignorance of human history. While he rightly criticized the idealized view of primitive hunter-gatherer societies as being communal utopias of equality, cooperation, and pacifism, he simultaneously indulged in the equally fallacious view that they were libertarian utopias where freedom and rugged individualism reigned. Even if one ignores questions over standards of living, child mortality, and disease, both viewpoints fly in the face of the actual history of ancient empires, which used brutal coercion to crush the nomadic hunter-gatherers and consolidate the power of their leaders. None of these early empires came out of nowhere; rather, they grew out of hunter-gatherer tribes who discovered some good land with food in enough abundance that it was worthwhile to settle down there permanently, start cultivating the land to maximize the food they were able to hunt and gather (inventing agriculture and animal husbandry in the process), and kick off any interlopers who tried to take "their" food and land (inventing armies and war in the process). A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty.

>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization. Earth's population is supported almost entirely by agriculture, even before the Green Revolution of the 20th century and its resultant population explosion. If industrial civilization were to collapse, billions of people would starve to death, but not before turning against each other for food and resources, potentially killing billions more. All this comes before the prospect of nuclear weapons, be they controlled by governments or in the hands of terrorists, enters the mix, with the potential to finish the job of humanity's self-destruction. Of course, for those of a hard green and/or Malthusian persuasion who believe that Earth is already overpopulated, the death of most of humanity would not necessarily be seen as a bad thing
Taken from: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unabomber#Ignorance_of_history

>>13237113
I think he was probably right up until he said a new society can't be planned, but wtf do I know Im a brainlet.

>>13237586
Go read Clues to Deceit: A Practical List by Joe Navarro

>>13237588
Why does everyone ignore the criticisms and just keep on pretending this fucking cowardly murderer had anything worthwhile to say? :3

>>13237643
>rational wiki
well, anon, I...

>>13237630
Go tell your mom you'll be camping in the backyard again tonight so she can have her friend Jamal over

>>13237649
touched a nerve, did I sweaty? Don't worry high school will be easier next year when you don't get bullied so much rofl

>>13237649
>Taking 4chan seriously
>Being offended

>>13237668
>>13237669

>>13237684

>>13237669
I'm sorry but if anyone of these bedwetting limpwristed incels on this board tries to get me to read a book I'm gonna fucking flip shit. I am not some autist cringelord who thinks reading is like so fucking cool, man! I am a manly man I like eating meat, fucking women in their tight pussies and watching the game.

>>13237702
Thx, I enjoyed the outing.

his point is that humanity will destroy the planet through industrialization, which already happened and will continue to happen. Besides strawmans and hurr durr autism eristic nothing is found in this thread, he offers a solution that is impracticable and will most likely never happen, but he tried, unless most faggots in this thread.
The arguments he presents in anti tech revolution are compelling and pretty strong, but the brainlets refuse to acknowledge it and would rather see the planet destroyed than to change their corrupted behaviour. The whole conspiracy depop-agenda is humanities and the planets last hope before it all turns to shit.

The only thing that bugged me when i was reading it was: how does he define technology

>>13237730
>The only thing that bugged me when i was reading it was: how does he define technology

I give the technology another 25 years to let them cars drive by itself. Take a look at what Tesla is doing. That would be just another confirmation of the contents presented in the book. All the matches are designed for this kind of advance. The whole development of mankind from 1995-2019 just confirms his statements, I think it's kinda obvious what the meant by technology.

I also like the Introduction of the generalized definition of the Leftists, it was very applicable in my opinion.

>>13237797
then state the obvious and define his technology?
Is a wheel already technology? Is a fire technology? Is building a boat technology? He does not draw a concrete line on what is technological and what is not.

>>13237829
I'm assuming anything that can be created by sticks and stones, or the products of sticks and stones is technology, so Fire, the Wheel, a spear, the LHC and a spaceship.

>>13237829

You asked the wrong question, I suppose. The question is what kind of technology plays a role in the context of limited freedom. What he meant was the development in the direction of inhuman conditions.
Medicine and psychotropic drugs play an important role in this, as well as genetic engineering and machines that influence working conditions.

>104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.
105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.
106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.
Pessimistic and wrong

>>13237829
Based on his primitivism, I assume that "technology" in the destructive sense for Kaczynski refers to anything from agrarian society onwards. Fire would not be technology. How we categorize wheels and boats will depend on hunter-gatherers' capacity for building them without food surpluses. Basically, if the technology requires specialization, then Uncle Ted doesn't like it.

>>13237877
He also said at one point that a technology is fine if you don’t need multiple manufacturers and resource locations, etc. A refrigerator is impossible to build using just the resources in a small village, but anyone can build a wheel, start a fire, make clothes, etc.

>>13237875
You can if it totalitarian though.

>>13237895
I think that Ted had totalitarians in mind when he wrote those principles. Authority, even formalized, is not foolproof against the crazy clockwork of industrial-technological feedback loops and the weirdness of human desires.

Any serious attempt at a sustainable society must either provide its citizens with the Kaczynskian power process or advance beyond humanity itself.

>>13237168
Wtf!? He said that the absolute majority of people would not reject the techno-industrial complex. He mentions the russian revolution many times. What he wants are terrorist cells dedicated to the system's destruction. That is it. Every argument against his works is a strawman even here on /lit/?

>>13237588
RationalWiki?
Absolute cringe hahaha

>>13237877
He is talking about goods that require a complex productive networks in order to be produced. He is rejecting international division of labour and other kinds of social division of labour. A considerable part of goods rely on large scale integrated production.
Once destroyed, it would take at least a hundred years to rebuild a set of rudimentary interlinked chains of production that would be able to be characterized as a industrial compound. Kaczynski is aware of the very real possibility of its reconstruction, he just thinks that its destruction is necessary in order for humanity to survive.

>>13237201
That's not guaranteed anon, we've already exhausted all the worlds easily accessible fossil fuels. How will you get a second industrial revolution without readily available coal and oil? Shit used to seep up through the ground, now you've gotta build offshore drilling platforms and fracking stations. After this run we're probably done making computers, solar panels, and nuclear power plants forever.

>>13239583
>we've already exhausted all the worlds easily accessible fossil fuels.
We are nowhere close to that.

>>13239583
This is actually a good point. Great even. The construction of a new industrial complex, even in a primitive/poorly optmized state would be affected in a negative manner by the relative scarcity of these goods. The fact that their extraction and processing is made through the complex and requires a significant degree of social division of labour(some even require international division of labour) is relevant.
We should also consider the acumulation of knowledge and its positive impact in the possible rebirth of the system. It would be easier to design the productive units in a rationaly planned system using the knowledge acumulated so far than it was for it the system to emerge by the forces of history and the particular desires of the innovators and capitalists.

>>13237588
They even admit shortly after that paragraph that they didn't even read it.

>>13239595
We are way past that point retard, I'm talking about fossil fuels that are easily accessible to early industrial technology, not modern.

>>13239615
Yeah I think the most important aspect of a resurgence is when it happens. Detailed technical information, especially digital as much of it is today, can be lost or degraded pretty quickly. If it takes 5 or 6 generations for society to stabilize after a collapse, all of that technical information and experience will likely be gone, and only the basic concepts behind modern tech will be available (such as how basic circuits work vs how a 4 core processor works).

>>13237588
>>13237643
>rationalwiki
>blithering retarded cascade of unsubstantiated opinion
this is why we need to burn leftists as the witches they are

they totally deny that the genetic machine is the substance of human life. They are so brainwashed they refuse to realize humanity is part of objective reality.

tl;dr death is just as important as birth

>>13239615
>requires a significant degree of social division of labour(some even require international division of labour)
>requires
WHY

if you're in the mood to tear up the book and write a new one, why do you hold yourself to the constraints of the old book

god damn you are fucking retarded

also petroleum products can be synthesized

you're all fucking retarded

>>13239835
synthesizing petroleum products is orders of magnitudes more resource intensive than pulling it out of the ground retard, how are you not getting the point? if there is a collapse, all the fancy tech goes away, most of the technical data to reproduce it goes away, all of the scientists and engineers go away. oh, im a dumb famer who's great grandfather survived a near extinction level event, let me go over here and synthesize some fucking petroleum products! kill yourself

>>13237113
>>
On the one hand a lot of the internet fandom surrounding it stems from the desire to be edgy: I can guarantee that if TK was just a run of the mill author and not the Unabomber there would be less interest in his ideas.

That being said, there are quite a few bits of his critique of technology that are relevant, but I don't think he developed them out as far as they need to go.

In addition, the reactionary politics of 'return' are always flawed and downright psychotic, whether they be primitive pseudo-nostalgia or otherwise.

>>13237201
>>13239583
>>13239595
>>13239615
>>13239753
The point that you are all missing, and kachinksy also misses, is that the old history of the world would not be erased. History of the old world will remain in many forms, even if we no longer have the resources to go back to how things were. Humanity will forever live in the shadow of what once was, people would be more miserable than they are now.

>>13239988
People forget easily, literally no one would care.
Also antitech cult will spawn like rabbits after the collapse and people will follow them to cope better

>>13240002
Bruh, we remember shit from 10k years ago now. With the amount of shit we created, there is no way people will forget.

>>13240011
We only "remember" shit about 10 000 years ago because in the last century we found some tablets...
In reality, we don't even "remember" what the world was like 200 years ago. Read Spengler

>>13240022
this nigga isn't even up to date on the latest flood myth to younger dryas correlations baka

>>13237575
>wholly useless to the world

lmao what does this mean, if you grow your own food you gotta still put in 8 hours at a starbucks for shlomo? fuck off

>>13240022
No shit faggot. Now imagine how much easier it would be find a city full of skyscrapers compared to a tablet.

>>13240051
skyscrapers would be gone very quickly. in 10k years all that would be left on earth is stuff like Mt Rushmore and the Great Pyramids, maybe pic related

>>13240002
so funny, I happen to have just started the sequel to A Canticle For Leibowitz today.

>>13240051
You're retarded. Skyscrapers aka piles of rubble don't encode the information of how to operate advanced civ. A few generations of significantly downtrending literacy is what would really wipe the slate clean even before the monuments have crumbled. Have you read Earth Abides? All it takes is the children of intelligent people going inadequately-educated, and it would be easy for the strains of post-collapse life to make education impossible.

>>13240039
So what value do they have to anyone not Amish?

>>13237113
Kaczynski's diagnosis is excellent, but his therapy kills the patient

>>13237113
He makes many important points about the dangers of technology. He is a very lucid and persuasive writer. The problems he talks about are real and you have every right to know about them. Those who criticize him based off of his character or a few mistakes here and there miss that much of the book is valid in its analysis. Sure, some of the problems can be read about elsewhere and in greater depth, but it's nice to have a clear lucid overview of often ignored problems.

>>13240373
So you're against the book? What is your book?

>>13237124
Let's go back to raping posters like this

>>13237113
have sex

>>13240408
I think you replied to the wrong post. I just said it was lucid

>>13240436
Sorry I'm drunk right now and I'm going to sleep now, gn8 everyone

>>13239966
>I can guarantee that if TK was just a run of the mill author and not the Unabomber there would be less interest in his ideas.
We are all aware of that. that was the point of the bombing. retard

It blows my mind how people think that instead of just executing shitty people who are responsible for all the bullshit (politicians, war profiteers, capitalists, the cucks who are propagandised to defend them, etc) that we should give up all of modernity and basically live in huts. If we removed the motive of increasing profits for rich assholes we could begin to fix things so we maybe have some form of future. Will it work? No. Will it allow a chance for something different? Yes. Will it be difficult and require radical change most won't like? Yes.

>>13237588
>While he rightly criticized the idealized view of primitive hunter-gatherer societies as being communal utopias of equality, cooperation, and pacifism, he simultaneously indulged in the equally fallacious view that they were libertarian utopias where freedom and rugged individualism reigned.
Where the fuck did he say this. He never did, in fact he states things contradictory to that in his critique of AnPrim (which the writer of the RatWiki article is probably pretending he's read)
>But I don't want to give the impression that all primitive peoples or all hunter-gatherers were radical individualists who never cooperated and never shared except under compulsion. The Siriono, in terms of their selfishness, callousness, and uncooperative ness, were an extreme case. Among most of the primitive peoples about whom I've read there seems to have been a reasonable balance between cooperation and competition, sharing and selfishness, individualism and community spirit.
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization.
Except he doesn't. He completely faces the fact the vast majority of people will die off in such a situation. He merely states that the alternative is worse. Which it is.

>>13241531
>Hey if I just kill a few people I don't like all of the deep rooted problems of modernity will magivally disappear. RIGHT. RIGHT!!!

>>13239595
this and we will bring more accessible fossils through technical progress.

>>13239966
>On the one hand a lot of the internet fandom surrounding it stems from the desire to be edgy: I can guarantee that if TK was just a run of the mill author and not the Unabomber there would be less interest in his ideas.

That's no secret, remember what he had to do to have his manifesto published. Otherwise it would not have come to the public that easily or years later. I am not a proponent of his actions, I'm just telling you how it is. It always has something to do with sacrifice when information has to leak. Do you remember Edward Snowden?
The development is going so fast that it is difficult to keep track unless you already know the important things that you should keep in mind and can think/form your own
logical conclusion for yourself.

>>13237887
I think in his interview with Skrbina, he specifically stated that he doesn't actually "like" these decentralized technologies, but that he simply believes they are inevitable. Unlike centralized ones which require th ew hole infrastructure of larger society to function properly.

>>13241571

That is exactly what I said. Definitely. Cuck.

>>13240282
None. and ther're not supposed to. Your comment is literally peak modernity.
What value does a bushman have to anyone non-bushman, what value does an aboriginal have to anyone non-aboriginal, what value should a european have to anyone non-european.
The only right answer is NONE. individual peoples should feel no need to "work for humanity". a concept that probably means nothing to them. they sustain and work for themselves. and that's completely fine.

>>13240373
>some of the problems can be read about elsewhere and in greater depth

Any book recommendations which would illuminate this topic in a different way?. Not specialized books of the individual subjects but another summary or something similar of the
total context would be great.

>>13241599

>>13241531

Apparently you are not aware that it is not so easy. Actually, it is obvious that it would be the same again, because these types of systems are anchored in us humans. This subject has also J.B.P explained in his book I think. I have to think of the archetypes of Carl Jung here. That's what the leftists do not understand. The principle of capitalism and its clock leaps in human behavior patterns. What do you think, how could it come in the first place?

On the wiki page is mentioned that Ted was a
nature-centered anarchist as well as neo-Luddist. I would like to know,
did he claim this himself or were those terms assigned to him? Because I don't think he was a anarchist but a rational thinker who found out about something, criticized the system and draw the logical conclusion about it.
Such terms seem to be misleading and have a veiling effect because you can easily classify it under a category and thats it, haha. But that's just how it is. At this point I don't even get what I'm talking about.

>>13241664
Hans Blumenberg

bump

I actually send him a letter a year ago asking genuine questions about his book Technological Slavery.

He responded via his publisher sending me an ad for his new book.

I dont know what to make for this since he actually responds to retards asking dumb questions about the unabomber case.

>>13241664
>Letter to LWOD
To LWOD [Live Wild or Die]: This is a message from FC Anarchist Terror Group. We are the people who have been blowing up computer scientists, biotech specialists, public relations experts and so forth. The FBI calls us “Unabom.”

[...]

In our previous letter to you we called ourselves anarchists. Since “anarchist” is a vague word that has been applied to a variety of attitudes, further explanation is needed. We call ourselves anarchists because we would like, ideally, to break down all society into very small, completely autonomous units. Regrettably, we don’t see any clear road to this goal, so we leave it to the indefinite future. Our more immediate goal, which we think may be attainable at some time during the next several decades, is the destruction of the worldwide industrial system. Through our bombings we hope to promote social instability in industrial society, propagate anti-industrial ideas and give encouragement to those who hate the industrial system.

The FBI has tried to portray these bombings as the work of an isolated nut. We won’t waste our time arguing about whether we are nuts, but we certainly are not isolated. For security reasons we won’t reveal the number of members of our group, but anyone who will read the anarchist and radical environmentalist journals will see that opposition to the industrial-technological system is widespread and growing.

>Letter to Warren Hoge (1993)
We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC. Notice that the postmark on this envelope precedes a newsworthy event that will happen about the time you receive this letter,

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-communiques-of-freedom-club-ted-kaczynski

>>13242517
thx

>>13242517

I would like to add the following wikipedia section.
>In custody Kaczynski writes and corresponds with about 400 people. His documents are kept in the Labadie Collection of the University of Michigan Library. The names of many letter partners will not be published until 2049.

>>13241600
>None. and ther're not supposed to.
Except they live under the roof of the US government. The same government that could wipe them out entirely in an hour flat because they have superior technology. They only live their way of life on the good graces of the government right now. If they aren't bringing any value to society, why continue extending such generosity to them?

Why was it necessary for him going full postal?

>>13237113
>Where was he wrong with his views?
The way he extrapolates to frame convenience, comfort and security as a bad thing reeks of internalized bootstrap mentality.

>>13237113
>I know it's already known as based

>>13243129

>>13242971
The big questions are uncomfortable and inconvenient. The majority of each generation cannot conceive of a life without the latest technologies. As with any other serious problem, techno-skepticism is neglected as something uncool or narrow-minded. Most people not only believe in progress, but worship it as something intrinsic to the passage of time. Think about those who believe that "it is the current year" is self-explanatory for the hottest issues, like their opinions during a sliver of human history are absolutely enlightened and the billions that came before just didn't get it.

Also, Kaczynski treats industrial-technological society as a self-preserving system (much like how anti-capitalist thinkers approach capitalism.) So what we have is a rigid mode of human organization that cannot tolerate Ted's techno-skeptical thought and a population that refuses to truly examine their lives under this system.

He had no choice if he was to make his warnings known. People died so that we could have luddite terrorist kino.

It's the most important political/philosophical writing of at least the last 50 years, and it will define this century.

No one has confronted leftism as simply and coherently as he has.

>>13237113
Worth a read, as is Anti-Tech Revolution. A lot of people on here will turn their nose up and say something gay like 'pfah you should just read Ellul, who I know about because I am very smart and Kaczynski is just an Ellul rip off.' However, he really is not an Ellul ripoff, though their thought is related. I do recommend reading The Technological Society, but in addition to and not in lieu of Mr Kaczynski's work.

Some people, like >>13237180 are retarded and make strange suppositions which are untrue. It is precisely because our society is completely uncritical of technology that Mr Kaczynski thinks some sort of drastic action is necessary. For my part, I do not read him for ideas on political praxis but rather because I think such critiques are important, the same reason I read Ellul, and will read Man and Technics.

>>13237113
haven't read it but industrial society will inevitably end when we run out of fossil fuels
there's nothing to worry about, just learn practical skills and settle down in a resourceful community so you'll be prepared for the decline

ted is right about leftism, at least. liberals are what happens when people are born into an industrial society without a proper education and experience in a world without such conveniences.

where he failed was to take the extremists route and believe that violence would solve the problem. the answer was always a reformed education system and it always will be. people cannot be allowed to be raised into such a hedonistic, nihilistic, narcissistic, convenient society without an extremely thorough teaching that puts themselves, and the entire earth, into perspective.

every day I deal with people who are dumber than a sack of rocks. it gets worse by the year. people are getting dumber, and they're raising dumb children to be even dumber. we're getting easier to control, easier to predict, and easier to deny. they have no idea what the future of technology holds, what human society is capable of doing, and how infinitely small we are in this universe, how easily we could be lost. i don't ask everyone to be a huge believer in futurism, or to be activists, or even to care that much. but it appalls me just how incredibly ugly human society has become due to all the convenience it is allowed these days. in that way, I can't help but agree with Kaczynski.