/lit/ - Literature

t b h just the wiki and then shitpost here.

>>14599500
Lots of people read the manifesto. I tried one of his books because a wellspoken anon on here made a case for it, but it was simply taking too long to get to the point and the point was some idea of a practical method of getting civilization to annihilate itself which I was extremely skeptical about in the first place.

>>14599500
He’s right. Destroying technology is dumb and infeasible, though. We could save ourselves with population control and genetic engineering, and later consciously limiting our technology use, realigning our lifestyles with our natural needs, but this will likely never happen, at least not for a long time. It’s very depressing. I suggest converting to Christianity.

>>14599500
Read Anti-Tech. Makes a pretty convincing argument that nothing short of the total abolition of the technological system can alter the course we're on, so he shits a lot of cosmopolitan environmentalists who want "clean technology": no such thing sweety. Yeah he's pretty good wish he'd killed more acad*mics though

>>14599532
This.

>>14599500
He’s ultimate forbidden knowledge. His books are must reads. But either people find them too disturbing and revert back to denial: “arrhhh! Crazy bomber man!” Or they kinda have nervous brakedowns. There was an academic who was convinced by the arguments and he basically had a crisis and gave up his career to travel the world trying to live with primitive people. I think Dylan Evans is the name.

>>14599500
He terminated idealism. Gospel.

>>14599532
>Yeah he's pretty good wish he'd killed more acad*mics though
th*s

>>14599500
no who is this person i have never heard of him or seen his crazy looking face and beard

>>14599532
What is his argument *against* technology? Enslavement of the species, death of the "soul", disenchantment, that sort of talk?

>>14599731
In the near term: destruction, enslavement

Long term: total destruction. Like actual physical destruction of everything.

>>14599720
Theodore John Kaczynski

>>14599731
He thinks humans have an evolved need to fulfill a psychological process he calls the Power Process or something like that, and that industrial civilization robs us of the opportunity to do so, making us miserable.

>>14599754
Thank you. W.r.t the destruction argument, why does he not agree with "environmentally-friendly" tech people? Assuming their goal is to solve the climate change/destruction problem with technology (solar panels etc), couldn't that work? Is he claiming No it would not work, or maybe You're missing the point entirely.

>>14599774
That is one of the points he makes.

>>14599780
He argues it is impossible to work, and that it was never even possible to begin with.

>>14599794
Should I keep playing devil's advocate here or go get a beer and get off 4chan for the night?

>>14599782
Is that not the central reason he has for thinking industrial civilization is bad?

>>14599731
Those are not arguments, but feelings, psychological states. TK terminated every kind of idealism. He is quick to differentiate between rational arguments and his personal opinions. For example, he states that he wishes for civilization to disappear completely but he realizes that this task is impossible - therefore efforts should be spent towards the most realistic goal possible instead of trying to alleviate your own psychological imbalance. That's praxis but this time it's solved and not some idealistic marxist deadend.- and that's why TK makes everybody seethes: He destroys academics, political philosophy. He brings rationalization to its rational conclusion and materialism to meet its worldly fate. Destroy industrial society

>>14599806
No.

I've read Industrial Society and it's Future as a pdf. Bought a hard copy and I'm gonna read it again.
I might read his other works at some point but I'd have to get them shipped from the US and it'd be pricey.

>>14599824
>No
Are you going to say what it is then? Because in his manifesto that is the main thing he talks about

>>14599806
No. He does insist that it is a serious problem though. But it is by no means the “central” argument.

>>14599802
lol. Go get a beer. It’s Friday night!

>>14599841
The manifesto is arguing that technology is autonomous (not subject to rational control). Rather, it is subject to the same autonomous forces as competition and natural selection in biological systems.

This has a lot of negative implications for continued technological growth.

Deprivation of the power process is one problem, but so is destruction of the biosphere, mass surveillance and control by large organizations, manipulation of human genetics and loss of freedom and dignity and purpose for the individual etc.

>>14599640
I-I-IS THAT A BOOK AGAINST TECHNOLOGY ?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOO MY MIND IS BREAKING APART !!!!!! I'M GOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAANE!!!!!

Find God, everyone. Go to a Catholic mass, read some Alan Watts / Seraphim Rose, something of that sort.

>>14599895
> Go to Catholic Mass
> Read Alan Watts
Sounds like the path to incoherent and contradictory Life of Pi religiosity.

>>14599894
No, you're clearly confused. That's a squid.

>>14600127
kek

>>14599500
Boring metaphysics

>>14599500
if im gonna slog through his manifesto i want a decent counter argument to his thesis as well, are there any? Because google is useless

>>14600299

>>14600327
His manifesto is basically a 30 page academic paper. Unless you have a room temperature IQ it's not a slog at all. Just read the damn thing and decide what you think is weak in his argument.

>>14600327
Good question on counter arguments. The honest truth is the arguments in the manifesto have been ignored. So I don't know of any counter arguments aside from people saying a collapse is "unthinkable" and then glossing over any ideas that imply that it is nevertheless required and/or inevitable.

So, rather than counter arguments, there are polar-opposite perspectives. If you want these, then I would suggest Steven Pinker's "Enlightenment Now" or Hans Rosling's "Factfulness"

>>14600385
this.

>>14600385
every time I try to decide something for myself about literature, I'm always tormented by visions of /lit/ posters laughing and calling me a gigantic pseud

>>14600441
>He cares about the opinions of a bunch of faggots on a mongolian throat singing enthusiast forum

>>14599507
Thanks for being honest.

>>14599500
Of course I've read him. Technological Slavery and Anti-Tech Revolution are must reads

>>14601578
this

>>14599500
Read Ted. Read the dragon naturally speaking software dude ray k. Read Nick land. Learn about biophysics but most importantly understand eroi. Ted is unfortunately right on the money. It's a sad state of affairs and Ted is a brave man.

>>14602338
>dragon naturally speaking software dude ray k
What's this?

>>14599500
Ted was like 90% correct about everything. People always ask for proof, but forget to just look outside their window.

>>14599500
I only read the manifesto. My conclusion was that he's a boring person, which is precisely why he doesn't really understand why nobody really cares about the lifestyle he prefers anymore (people left that lifestyle behind because they got bored of it, and you have to not be boring yourself to eventually reach that point)

>>14603196
people are more bored today than the native Americans were. Just go to /adv/, you’ll probably find someone complaining about boredom

>>14599731
it's not sustainable even in the short term (hundreds-thousands of years) and laws of efficient self propagating systems prevent any long term rational balance based approach as they will simply be outcompeted.

The best part about the book is it makes a solid case that after the collapse there will never be another technological society.

>>14603220
Their physical needs have been met and they lack the capacity to manifest ambition once that's done, even though there's still plenty to manifest it for. It's not a problem with technology or society but a problem with the people.

>>14603256
Humans aren’t meant to manifest abstract ambitions when their physical needs are already met. It’s significantly less meaningful than living a natural life. Even running your own farm is much better than the typical modern lifestyle

>>14603266
>Humans aren’t meant to manifest abstract ambitions when their physical needs are already met.
Speak for yourself. We'd have no philosophy, math, science, religion, art, or basically anything intellectual at all if that were really the case. There's also plenty to do today that's still related to helping others have their physical needs met: helping the homeless, the elderly, the sick, etc.

>>14603274
Religion assists with spiritual needs, and yes, math and philosophy can assist with mental needs, but all these things can be done with a more primitive society, while also lacking stress associated with mental endeavors

>>14603290
But the more primitive society's intellectual work is what laid the foundation for new ambitions which lead to the creation of advanced society. "All these things can be done with a more primitive society" is true, but what can't be done is keep primitive society as primitive when these things exist, because humans actually ARE meant to manifest abstract ambitions, and once they have a taste for them, they have no interest in stopping at any point.

>>14603322
most people have no ambition, and the ones that do have ambition for meaningless things. There are only a few people in this world who are chasing something somewhat meaningful or stimulating. If you’re not wealthy or hyper-intelligent or exceptionally athletic then it becomes much harder to have this type of ambition, so you have to skirt by with your abstract goals of paperwork and other bullshit that don’t really mean anything to you

>>14603352
If you have no intellectual goals, no family goals, and helping the needy doesn't interest you, then maybe it's time you changed yourself. You sound pretty insufferable then.

>>14603418
all that can be done without smartphones and cars

>>14603426
What's your gripe with smartphones and cars, exactly? Are you a 70 year old or something?

>>14603451
humans can have ambition and meaning without being enslaved by technology that does more harm than good. Just because we figure out what electricity is doesn’t mean we have to capitalize on it and make every possible invention we can think of and let it run free in the market

>>14603463
Didn't we just go over this? >>14603322

>"All these things can be done with a more primitive society" is true, but what can't be done is keep primitive society as primitive when these things exist, because humans actually ARE meant to manifest abstract ambitions, and once they have a taste for them, they have no interest in stopping at any point.

Also,
>enslaved by technology

Who's enslaved by smartphones and cars? Just people who didn't grow up with these things, who have no insight as to how they can be used and who have no command over them. You can say the exact same thing about hammers and screwdrivers and spears and shields, or any kind of tech whatsoever.

Smartphones and cars let us do a whole lot that we couldn't do before. People from a distance can now assemble together at a single location for the purpose of common goals. Teams of hundreds, even thousands, can now work together, on extremely abstract work, ambitions which can't simply be built from the population of a single small town / village. People can communicate with each other from afar, from anywhere, with video, sound, data files, and all kinds of media.

>>14599518
A plough and language are also technology... he was an idiot anon.

>>14603505
ploughs don’t take away your autonomy

I wouldn't adopt his beliefs, but he made a few good points. The tl;dr if you haven't read it is this:
>Industrialization has reformed the social framework of society.
>The rise of technology has made interpersonal relationships increasingly difficult.
>Environment is getting its ass kicked as result of above.
>The educated liberal society in the university system are promoting this cultural shift.
>Correction of all of this cannot be adopted by the "typical liberals" and will require a new culture to emerge in favor of primitivism.

>>14602942
Singularity is near. I know because my uncle had patents held at Microsoft for speech recognition.

>>14599532
>total abolition
>can alter the course we're on
>If we ban something, it will go away
Yet another proof that americans cant into philosophy.

>>14603577
kek, not outright wrong but extremely low iq summary.

>cultural shift
technology, industrial society is fundamentally opposed to culture, or any type of human-driven behavior for that matter. it can't be a 'cultural shift' if a symptom of industrialisation is 'destruction of culture'.
>new culture to emerge in favor of primitivism
primitivism has NOTHING to do with anti-tech, TK, Ellul etc... It's another idealistic stance just like communism or enlightened liberalism or what have you. Was pre-industrial society primitive? ..?

>>14603607
read TK because you're just addressing the poor semantics of the OP, not the actual arguments, who have not been refuted (and never will). In fact, TK wrote an entire book about how we CANNOT alter the course we're on (historical materialism but this time it's solved and stripped of marxist idealism) the opposite of what you implied from OPs post.

>>14603625
>about how we CANNOT alter the course we're on
Now that's more correct. But then it's just sad fatalism.

>>14603648
sad fatalism is idealism, subjective to personal interpretation but anti-tech thought is not idealistic, therefore it's not sad fatalism. You cannot alter the course of society or historical trends WITHIN their own limits; what you can do is get rid of society or these trends entirely, meaning you have to dismantle the foundations, the fundamental elements of said society in order to destroy it - which is the entire work of TK - built upon the works of Ellul 'L'autopsie de la Revolution'.

>>14603702
>sad fatalism is idealism, subjective to personal interpretation but anti-tech thought is not idealistic, therefore it's not sad fatalism.
Sorry, doesnt make sense. It is fatalism if you just predict fate and accept it, it´s not fatalism if you predict trend and posit a plan how to defy it.

>You cannot alter the course of society or historical trends WITHIN their own limits; what you can do is get rid of society or these trends entirely, meaning you have to dismantle the foundations, the fundamental elements of said society in order to destroy it
So...what exactely is the "foundation" and how to "dismantle" it? Is it euphemism for eradication of inteligent life?

>>14603625
>Marxist idealism
Please shut the fuck up and read a good book by someone with discernible talent once in your life

>>14603609
>using low IQ as an alternate to "stupid" or "dumb"
1/10
It is a cultural shift, just in (what he believed) a negative or self destructive direction.
Sorry, maybe "Ludditism" would have been a better term for describing the attitude Ted K had. I'm open to calling something Primitive, or "more" Primitive to be precise. It's not a bad thing, and maybe it carries negative connotations, but by indices like infrastructure, technological development, GNP, etc, there can be some degree of measurement for HDI. Communism has little to nothing to do with it. Liberalism itself is a fairly different concept, and is very much focused on human development, often through promotion of human rights and equality.

>>14603864
LMAO, seethe more idealist. I guarantee you I've read about 10x the material you went over in your entire life, hence my ability to link Kaczynski's works to other philosophers, and see the glaring incoherences in marxist thought. Historical materialism claims to be stripped of idealism yet communist teleology is pure idealism. Marxism is idealist, TK is an actual materialist.

Wonder why every honest marxists like Camatte and Ellul aren't communists but hold an anti-tech stance? Please read a good book by someone with discernible talent once in your life

>>14603804
Yes? Then TK is not sad fatalism since he predicts trends and posits a plan to defy it, literally. He does it better than anyone else too. That's the entire point of his works. He solved the false theory/praxis dichotomy.

>what exactely is the "foundation"
'Industrial society'. The system is inherently technologic, technology is the system.
>how to "dismantle" it
therefore if you ACTUALLY wish to dismantle it you MUST destroy the foundation of the system, which is technology. Anything else is not revolutionnary, but systemic reappropriation of the revolutionnary spirit (récupération) and what TK does is actual détournement, not the idealistic framework situationists use (which is why they end up alcoholics and not destroying the system)

>>14604308
It is not a cultural shift. It cannot be, by the very nature of both culture and technology; culture and technology are two opposites points on a line. They cannot ever meet, you either go towards culture and away from technology or towards technology and away from culture. Are you familiar with Land? Capitalism comes from the Outside, therefore it cannot be cultural since it is outside the phenomenal world - alien to us.

>Liberalism itself is a fairly different concept, and is very much focused on human development, often through promotion of human rights and equality.
For the moment, the second liberal values hamper the advancement of technological means, it will be discarded. If not consciously by us, then non-liberal technological states like China, for example, will steamroll the primitive liberal model. Technology wins everytime, humans lose everytime. You can come up with dozens of different scenarios and contexts, the fatality of the technological system remains a constant.

>>14604314
>therefore if you ACTUALLY wish to dismantle it you MUST destroy the foundation of the system, which is technology.
That's not saying anything. What qualifies as "destruction of technology"? How does one achieve that? How does one prevent re-emergence?

>which is why they end up alcoholics and not destroying the system
Same as Kaczynski, except that they got some fun out of it.

>>14604392
How about you do your homework and read anti-tech revolution faggot

>>14604354
>culture and technology are two opposites points on a line
No, they aren't. See also: meme culture, the space race, or design engineering.
>Capitalism comes from the Outside, therefore it cannot be cultural since it is outside the phenomenal world
Oh look, someone took the cultural Marxist pill.
>For the moment, the second liberal values hamper the advancement of technological means, it will be discarded. If not consciously by us, then non-liberal technological states like China, for example, will steamroll the primitive liberal model. Technology wins everytime, humans lose everytime. You can come up with dozens of different scenarios and contexts, the fatality of the technological system remains a constant.
First off, tinfoil what-ifs aren't going to define my philosophy. Second off, take some time to learn and understand what "technology" is. It's not like the Borg are coming in and gracing the world with magical devices that let you shitpost on /lit/. Finally, I didn't state that Liberal values hinder technological development. In fact, true Liberalism promote it as it benefits economic reformation, health sciences, and uses empirical data to make decisions.

>>14604418
Point of these threads is to spark interest of people that haven't read this obscure pamphlets by presenting and defending their main points. Judging by your inability to defend it, it's clear that the book is worthless trash, confirming my prejudice that mutt philosophy is midwit-tier at best.

>>14604454
>make the book's whole argument in one post
>haha cant do it? guess its not worth reading heh
pseuds are really unbelievable sometimes

>>14604454
>mutt philosophy
kek, I'm literally the poster who started the anti-anglo crusade on /lit/. I fail to see how anti-tech, anti-industrial author Ted Kaczynski is in any shape or form related to them. By the way, I'm in every TK thread, taking time to explain concepts to faggots like you, but if you expect me to talk about every single thing he wrote down you can shove ISaiF up your ass lazy bugman. Maybe try a summary video, or 'TK explained through 4chan chad memes" kid's version of his works, it'll be more up your alley.

>>14603418
Give me some goals, Im literally hopeless.

>>14604544
Then how about you answer the questions instead of pointless rants? I'm trying to show you that the prescriptions of TK are wrong, largely due to his muttness in fact.

>>14604544
>anti-anglo poster is also ted-tard
kek, you can't make this shit up.

>>14604544
are you Quebecois

>>14604418
and like clockwork he runs away

>>14604550
A beautiful wife and 2+ kids while you're still young.

>>14604570
>I'm trying to show you that the prescriptions of TK are wrong,
Where? all you did was formulate vague questions, you never once produced an argument to show me that the 'prescriptions of TK are wrong' lol. You obviously haven't read his works outside his manifesto lol.

Zoomers are fucking brain dead lol, but what did I expect from someone posting chad memes.

>>14604637
>but what did I expect from someone posting chad memes.
> calls him le zoomer meme.
not gonna lie, I think you are the one putting a lot of people off of ted in these threads. You formulate your arguments so poorly and fall into so many fallacies. I'm even beggining to think that you do this on purpose to discourage people from reading his works, for whatever twisted reason you might have.

>>14604606
>anglo is in favor of technology
kek, you can't make this shit up.

>>14604621
what do you mean run away? I click on every TK thread to explain his works and have done so for 3 years. You're mistaking me for someone else. At some point I want to discuss his ideas, not give 3 second summaries to fried-brain zoomers who will forget about it the instant they click on 'New Tab'.

>>14604609
I'm french but vive le Quebec libre and fuck anglos.

>>14604637
>Where?
I'm trying to, anon, using dialectic method, but your cowardice makes my job much harder.

As a self-proclaimed expert on him, you should be able to answer the three question to precisely formulate his position so that you cant accuse me of misunderstanding.

>>14604656
>I click on every TK thread to explain his works and have done so for 3 years.
If you care that much about him then would it really bother you to write out a bit about his works. Hell you must know the books off by heart now if you beat your dick over them this much.

>>14604656
>I'm french but vive le Quebec libre and fuck anglos.

Based frog

>>14604656
>Frenchie wants to destroy civilisation (again) as a cope because he can't into spirituality and lives an empty life.
Oh no no no

>>14604656
>I'm french
lol

A complete schizo /pol/tard brainlet.

>>14603492
>You can say the exact same thing about hammers and screwdrivers and spears and shields, or any kind of tech whatsoever.

No you cannot. If you read the manifesto, Ted explains there's a difference between the technologies of the small scale versus large. Large scale techs, like cars and smartphones require the continued dependence of the individual that uses them on organizations that they have no control over. For one, the cars that you use to get around come from the harvesting of materials from around the world, none easily accessible to a small community -- the oil from refineries, the cars from factories, and their respective materials harvested from around the world. To continue to use a car, you rely upon a steady supply of fuel that you can't get your hands on yourself. Not to mention, there's a large amount of rules of regulations that you must follow in order to use them. And also, before cars, you didn't need actually need one to get around. The introduction of cars made it so that places were restructured to accommodate them, and over time, it became a disadvantage to not have or use one.

With the smartphone, you are reliant upon the services of a corporation for access to all those perks. You require access to the cell towers (given by a corporation) to communicate with your employers. For internet access, it must also be given by a corporation, otherwise you wouldn't be able to access your social media (also given by a corporation). It's bad enough now that socializing is partly dependent on these smartphones, otherwise you will come across as odd to people if revealed to have no presence on these corporate platforms. So, fitting in is now a game of whether you're willing to give information about yourself and your habits to these large scale companies. Furthermore, having a phone around now makes it extremely easy for these big companies to form dossiers about you. They can collect your habits and control the information you are exposed. All the freedoms we gain from technology come at a cost. It's like a making a deal with the devil. You don't have to be pro anarchoprivitism or some shit to see Ted had good points. Read Technological Slavery.

>>14604849
You had to physically train your body every day to be able to use spears and shields as efficiently as the Greek military. How is that not "enslavement" to those technologies in the same fashion as smartphones and cars? If the Romans had thought the way you did, they would have never achieved the success that they did.

>>14599720
Nykola Thesla, famous Canadian inventor

read his manifesto "ISAIF" its actually makes sense

>>14604606
anglos let us become slaves under capitalism, of course you wouldn't mind if we became slaves under technology

>>14605363
You have to read my post again, and better yet read the manifesto, because I'm not going to waste anymore time when every thought here has been addressed by other people far more articulate and smarter than either of us. I'm also not the same individual you were replying to so I'm not going to go over what he or you initially meant be "enslavement" compared to what I assumed you meant. By "enslavement", I think of the unhealthy and excessive dependence we now have on something exterior to ourselves to get what we need. Enslavement is really an emotional and vague word to use, overall, though. Anyways...

>Large scale techs, like cars and smartphones require the continued dependence of the individual that uses them on organizations that they have no control over.

>require the continued dependence of the individual that uses them on organizations that they have no control over.

>dependence of the individual that uses them on organizations that they have no control over.

As already said, these are not the same because the scale of the respective technology is different. With respect to the scale required to operate and construct, a spear that you could have made for yourself, or came from some smiths in your village, is not the same as a car.

>If the Romans had thought the way you did, they would have never achieved the success that they did.
I'm not sure I've even revealed what I really think about anything. I'm not an anarcho-primi whatever, or an anti-technology whatever. I'm just very skeptical of technology. Would love to have lived with the Huns, though. There were Romans that ditched their way of life to ride among them. It's real.