/lit/ - Literature

Bonjour

there is no going back.

What can we do then?

>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.

Agriculture took over 100,000 years to appear. Civilization is the aberration in human history not the norm.

>>13269259
Nukes going off is like our only chance of survival vs global warming though.

>>13269259
>rationalwiki.org

TECHNOLOGY IS NOT THE CENTER OF OUR PROBLEMS, NOR CAPITALISM, BUT HUMAN SIN IN ALL ITS FORMS

>>13269562
did you leave your tripcode off tripfag?

>>13269562
What are the sins and what causes humans to commit them?

>>13269553
This.
lit doesn't read books but they'll take rationalwiki seriously.

>>13269259
epic win

>>13269259
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization.
Good.
>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.
t. your brain on neoliberalism.

>>13269259
Ted was based but blue-pilled. His prognosis of society was pretty spot-on, his proposed cure: not so much.

>>13269259
Source might be shit, but those two paragraphs are absolutely correct

>>13269798
>non-primitives are totalitarian
>therefore primitives bad
Imagine thinking this is a good argument.

>>13269703
So what's the cure?

>>13269562
True, but technology is a manifestation of sin. Technology seeks to conform the material to man's will, whereas religion seeks to conform the spiritual to God's will.

>>13269823
the Singularity

>>13269829
The question is, can man reduce his sin without the grace of God? Is it possible to create a society of humans who are sinless, whether through changing their nature, nurture, or both? If a human must have God’s grace, then could we engineer a society to move the wills of humans to seek God perfectly, and therefore be relatively sinless? Would this be such a bad thing, from a Christian perspective?

>>13269823
There is no cure

>>13269823
Hare Krishna

>>13269562
>Combining all of our problems under an abstract subjective label which reveals no potential solution
Anon, it's not exactly that you're incorrect, but can you see how that contribution isn't helpful for understanding the problem?

>>13269259
mom i posted it again

>>13269562
This. Purge the heretics.

>>13269259
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization.
IIRC this is a demonstrably inaccurate statement? I remember Ted mostly being cheerful about this eventuality.

>>13269465

you can have warfare with hunter gatherer tribes. Just look at the injuns

>>13270385
They're misrepresenting him as if he didn't see this as a necessary part of the solution. The 'rational' or 'skeptic' community does this all the time. They take any conclusion which might be outside the overton window and frame it as if the author never saw it coming, they can do this because people don't/won't/can't believe that someone could desire a conclusion other than supermaterial neoliberalism.

>>13269259
You can't BTFO someone by lying about what they said tho.
>>13269798
They're not tho, they literally have nothing to do with what he's saying

>>13270385
True, the "rugged individualism" part is also a misrepresentation, I already posted the same quote from Technological Slavery in a previous Ted thread, but fuckit.
>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.
Basically this entire thing is either a misrepresentation, or misreading, I've looked hard but it's hard to actually find any good criticism of the guy, anything that tries to broadly disprove his arguments always ends up involving lying about what he said.

>>13269465
>post pretty pictures and repeat your now-debunked point
Must be fun to be a blissfully ignorant anprim. LMK when you decide to play the game.

>>13269259
>I am btfo'in Uncle Ted without actually adressing his points.
wew
> 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.

Sure, because this Globalised Market - nuclear family destroyer, Think Tank / Advertisement henchmen promoting - transexual post human identity supporters is not a form of Tyranny.

A sentimental wank.
All those two paragraphs are.

>>13269459
Just enjoy the ride

>>13269562
This is why we need a flood (nuclear war) like in the bible to restart.

>>13269459
There's nothing any individual can do to change the inevitable course of our planet.

The most you could do as an individual is insulate yourself from the outside world as best as you can by living simply and self-sufficiently so that if and when the inevitable collapse happens, you will be far removed from it all.

Cleave to the Earth while you still can, and cherish every minuscule treasure that you can find, for eventually it will all become just another distant, hazy memory.

>>13270898
This.
Becoming a hermit in this hyperconnected world is the best antidote to all the shit happening.

>>13270898
I think this is accurate. But from my cave I will shitpost has hard as I can to provoke the nuclear hell storm.

>>13269259
Wasn't all of this covered in ATR?

>>13269553
This. Rationalwiki is anything but. Honestly depressing.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s1cT7WxtGzjC

>>13271485
based brit bong. Afterall, you don't have a license for your own opinions, do you!?

But there is still no academic consensus on how agriculture took-off. How can they write this?

>>13271530
Ah yes, because there's no academic consensus on the origins of agriculture, we should just let the theories of far right terrorists be disseminated without criticism across social media and nobody should bother trying to provide alternative perspectives of his work to those offered by Alt Right propagandists.

>>13270898
>when the inevitable collapse happens
yeah and you'll look like an idiot until that happens if it happens at all and will be out of touch with everything and nobody will find you interesting

why doesn't anyone make a latest interview of him?
he's not even dead

>>13271633
>far right terrorists
Ted was an angry hippie

>>13269259
>rational wiki
wew
Seems like they haven't read him.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

>some soft headed college student who fancies themself an intellectual thinks they can refute ted with an online post.
Disgusting.

>>13269831
ThE sInGuLaRiTy

>>13272046
who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks of you? the surest road to mediocrity is ensuring that you conform to everyone around you.

i can't think of a single good reason why anyone should feel superior or have higher authority than someone else by willingly suppressing their individualism and choosing instead to follow the herd like a blind, dumb animal.

>>13269259
Would anarcho primitives be against stem cells regrowing limbs, a cure for cancer, and genetic engineering? Imho in an ideal world the only technology that should be allowed would be those that better humanity and not those that isolate and make for cheap labor.

>>13272670
yes, Because every one of those technologies will have unintended consequences, just as penicilin did, just as all of modern medicine did, and just like the green revolution did, all of these are technologies that were unequivocally meant to "better humanity", but their consequences were simply not worth it.

>>13269259
he addresses this in one of his points i believe

>>13272687
Can you name the consequence of someone losing a limb and regrowing it with stem cells? What about parents genetically engineering their children so they turn out strong and without any risk of inherited diseases? How is that a negative?

>>13272744
some people wont be able to afford to genetically engineer their children and it will further the divide between the upper/bourgousie classes and the lower classes, creating an artificially enhanced superhuman class and a slave class. he talks about this if you read his manifesto. as for the stem cells, the effects of artificially preserving your body's health should be self evident, but other than those one effect i prophesy is the proliferation of jobs with high mortality/injury rates

>>13269259
>rationalwiki
LMAO. Are you gonna cite Hitler on communism next!

>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.
And this is bad... why?

>>13272803
>as for the stem cells, the effects of artificially preserving your body's health should be self evident

Not sure what you mean by this. Sometimes people get hurt and either lose a limb, get blind or paralyzed. I'm not sure when, but one day stem cells would have the ability to fix these problems. The rest of your argument regarding the divide of classes I can understand, but stem cell therapy and a cure for cancer can cure countless in the future.

I actually agree with a lot of anarcho primitism. I believe that industrialization further isolated man. Reverting back to hunter gatherer mode can remedy many modern day problems from unemployment to even incels. But the problem is not many are going to be on board with lower health standards. I think that's one of the reasons technology advances in the first place. If a meteor hit tomorrow and we all had to start from scratch, I don't see any reason we wouldn't industrialize in a couple hundred years again.

>>13272886
What I meant by that part is that our bodies have always been a limitation. If we can act without the fear of losing a body part that limitation will be lifted and change our society in radically different ways. For example it would change our concept of justice if every injury could be healed, change how we wage war or ease regulation on dangerous jobs. Another point would be the similarity in causation between injury and death and so on

>>13271485
Based vocarooposter

>>13272916
Sure. What about my second paragraph regarding man kind's tendency to gravitate toward civilization with the knowledge and technological means?

>>13272886
Watched Last of the Mohicans last night
>tfw you will never hunt in virgin forests with your adopted father and brother

>>13272933
I’m not an anarcho primitivist, I’m different from the guy you responded too who talked about penicillin. I would argue however that if we were set back to a preindustrial era it would be impossible to industrialize again due to the fact that we have exhausted all our surface level iron and coal deposits. As for the lower health standards, people tend to value their own caprice before that stuff

>>13269259
The first point is just retarded: “it’s wrong to prefer hunter gatherer society because it was eventually replaced by agricultural society.” I mean, if it hadn’t been replaced, there would be no point to having this conversation. Humans and humanoids lived as nomadic hunter gatherers for millions of years. We’ve been farming for ~12,000? Empire was hardly inevitable.

The second point is stronger, but you shouldn’t be forbidden from criticizing industrial society just because a transition away from would at this point look pretty ugly. You can still say something sucks even if it’s too late to change it.

>>13269259
Ted wrote a very passionate "appeal to nature" fallacy.

He doesn't realize that there is nothing but nature.

>>13270898
wrong, it will be a individual who will save it, or it will not be saved. Theory of great man, ever heard of it.

entire article is a straw man as ted is about conserving the infrastructure of life also known as the inhabitable planet we call earth.
if technology is not stopped, it will destroy the planet more likely than saving it from destroying it. Industrial revolution will bring more problems in the long term than it has solved.
Renewable energies are not solving the problem, singularity will never happen as imagined, even if it would happen, it would not be used unambiguously. The history of mankind shows that the direction of mankind is not easily controlled in one direction. One party will do XY, the other party will do another thing and so on.

To think that once we have something like singularity the human society will become rational about things is fundamentally ignoring the fact that humans never acted rational as a mass entity.
There is always the problem of every system trying to survive, short term > long term. This is seem nowadays,
Humankind should have never become the niggers with missles that they are now, we are destroying ourselves due to our inability to be non power hungry. It has always been like that but technologoy gave us the tool to fuck up everything on a global scale.
One can only hope for a nwo like conspiracy who will eradicate most humans from the planet. Sad but true.

>>13273438
This is the dumbest thing and I keep hearing it from every pseud who probably hasn't even read it. If your definition of nature is so inclusive that it basically means "all that exists" then your definition is meaningless and useless, Ted, and other people like him, clearly aren't using your definition, so you're talking to the air when you're using it.
also.
>implying that appeal to nature isn't a perfectly reasonable heuristic, when you're actually using a meaningful definition of the word

>>13269586
>>13271456
then refute the argument you fixed fucking faggots

>>13273676
the rest of the thread already tore it open a new asshole. so they don't need to.

>>13269465
the anthropologist that lived with one of the last primitive tribes in the Amazon said that the entire society and that of the neighboring tribes was constantly on edge of being ambushed by another tribe. they were on eggshells all the time and this resulted in a fairly complex system of protocols for dealing with sharing local resources i.e. it was a constant cold war with intermittent bloody ambushes.
he said that his colleagues in Australia observed the same thing.
man is a bastard, civilization or no.

on the upside, there was not a lot of work to do. four hours of labor was a busy day.

>>13272593
you still do need some people around though

>>13271485
after multiple days of practicing my loud reading on mic i also feel like putting all my thoughts in audio files. Do other anons also do this?

>>13270441
Bang on