/lit/ - Literature

>>19035600
alright

No, I absolutely believe it. I just also realize that I’m both addicted and enslaved so o probably can’t escape no matter how hard I try.

>>19035600
This isnt your virtual diary faggot

I agree with you about the good technology, but what about the bad technology? I think we should have more good technology and less bad technology, personally.

they should just let the AI be racist

>>19035600
Dga. Enjoy eating the bugs and living in the pod.

>>19035624
Agreed!

>>19035600
Technology does help in a lot of human avenues but to act like it's been a savior of humanity with no cost is ludicrous. It's arguable that from our current level of technology, any further improvements outside of medicine and agriculture could do more harm than good to the human race, as much of new technology is a matter of giving man more power for power's sake, not actually improving his mental or physical wellbeing.

>>19035600
Technology if utilized to its full potential can liberate us from nature's handicaps. It will allow us to achieve the possibilities of human advancement that were previously impossible. Tech is a tool created by humans to better our lives and make things easier. It is a net positive and an integral part of the human experience. It is what separates us from the animals and allowed us to conquer the Earth. Technology isn't evil, it is what allows us to achieve our full potential. We must make the best use of tech for the betterment of humankind and find ways to make it accessible to as many people worldwide as possible

Humans have made the Earth a different place than it should naturally be. tech has enabled humans to escape our natural limitations but at great costs. the earth cannot handle the changes we have made and the natural balance is out of order, which is resulting in events like climate change, depletion of species, and a certain death of the natural environment. In order to save our planet from our own exploitation we have to restrain technology and allow the ecosystem to re-establish itself with minimized human intervention.

Technological development goes hand in hand with exploitation of natural resources and wildlife. We are clearing the forests and replacing them with industry. Human beings aren't meant to be Gods over nature.

>>19035924
take of a simpleton. this is such a child's understanding of technology.

>>19035600
The Luddites were simply people who believed destroying technology (i.e. fixed capital) was a valid means of advancing their political aims. Refusing to destroy inanimate objects that impair your political movement when you have no other recourse is dumb mysticism. It's not like they wanted to expunge mechanical looms from existence, they just broke enough to force concessions from employers.
Luddism is perfectly reasonable my friend

>>19035600
You might be engaging with a strawman. Technology is clearly an inherent human trait that we couldn't expunge if we tried. The point is that if technology is unlimited then it could lead to a logical conclusion where humanity is not recognizable as such as we know it.

>>19035624
That goes without saying.

>>19035600
okay

>>19035624
Absolutely groundbreaking thought.

>>19035600
>t. never set foot in nature

Without technology we'd still be shitting in the woods

>>19036113
How is he wrong then retard?

>>19035600

There's a difference between technology that we can passively accept and introduce into our lives which results in measurable improvements to health, happiness, and prosperity and technology that becomes all consuming that binds society and draws its inhabitants into a shallow and worthless life full of distraction and never seeing any potential that might be.

>>19036783
eco-fetishism

>>19036886
How is he wrong then retard?

>>19036896
eco-fetishism

>>19035924
we are nature. there are no inherent laws for respecting that which already exists. you created that idea; man created that idea. value of "nature" is only assigned as it is relative to us. does it make us feel bad? will it kill us?

>>19036899
So you have no explanation? Alright, I accept your concession.

>>19036914
I just didn't want to put any effort into responding to a dumbass. But I'm doing it anyway, so I guess you win regardless of what I say.
But basically what he said >>19036906
There's no sickly Gaia-mother shaking her head and shedding tears like the Injun in the commercial at the transgressions of her children. 'Nature' is simply a series of systems, that Man (wrongly) chooses to impose values on. It is not a watchful, vengeful entity that seeks to punish our supposed hubris. In other words his framework is wrong. This does not preclude the notion of seeking to adjust our behaviour in the service of our own self-interest. But it is purely self-interest.

>>19036964
You said yourself that nature is a series of systems, I think it's abundantly obvious that mankind has and continues to abuse and pervert these systems. You don't have to believe the earth is a conscious creature to recognize the environmental issues. I don't think my house is a living thing, but I'll still fix up a leak, it's pragmatism.

>>19037085
This was addressed in the last two sentences of my post though.
The issue is that the flaws of a fetishistic framework will compound over time. Even though it's still capable of proposing a correct course of action.
A small example.
>Technological development goes hand in hand with exploitation of natural resources and wildlife. We are clearing the forests and replacing them with industry
Forest coverage has doubled in England over the last century. Not in spite of, but because of, technological development.
Phrases like 'pervert[ing] these systems' replicate this misunderstanding.
If you pick up a pebble and throw it into the distance you haven't 'perverted' it, only altered it. I'm sure you see the difference.

luddites arent anti tech. theyre anti capitalism and the way tech is used

>>19037163
I don't think the Luddites weren't really anti-capitalist. But you are correct to point out that they were engaging in collective bargaining by riot, i.e., acting rationally in response to the conditions they faced. As opposed to the primitivist caricature fostered by generations of people, running the gamut from factory lords to environmental activists.

People who need to abstract away nature in order to argue that we can destroy it to our hearts' content have to be some of the most soulless, despicable fucks walking the earth.
>Ummm sweatie technically there's no metaphysical difference at all between virgin forest and a parking lot because we're nature too lol why do you think one is better than the other lol
It's a lack so fundamental that I just immediately discard any of your opinions on any subject. If you said this shit to me in person I honestly don't think I'd be able to hold back from spitting on you.

>>19035600
What are you going to replace oil with?

>>19038175
Fuck you too, you fucking pretentious prick. You disgust me.

>>19038227
Don't care. I have around the same level of contempt for you as I would for somebody who told me they fuck dogs. Any respect is gone in an instant.

>>19038175
agreed, they have been so far psychologically abused they’re beyond repair. They are the furthest thing than what lies within gods grace

>>19035600
I am also very pro technology, but it’s either going to be gay luxurious automated space communism or hell in the future
And at the moment, hell seems to be winning

I think you are an irrational ideologue who ignores reality.

>>19035600
Technology is neither good nor bad. There is good technology and there is bad technology. The people you think are LARPing as Luddites don't hate technology. They hate technology that annihilates culture and alienates people. That's bad technology and I don't know why you'd think they're pretending.

>>19035624
get this man elected right away

>>19035624

>>19039345
Commies gave too much ground to neoliberalism

>>19035600
What have you read to reach those conclusions? /lit/ threads?

>>19040086
aww you think that saying "/lit/ threads" in a cunty sarcastic tone means you're intellectually above the shit you read in them, don't you faggot? you're not

>>19040156
Do I care about signaling anything? Why are you so butt hurt about it? If you weren't clueless about what this website is about, you would know that you just gave me what I wanted.

>>19035600
>I think society should be designed around the advancement of technology, from the education system to our economy.
That's called supporting the status quo. You must be happy with the way things are right now.

>>19036964
>'Nature' is simply a series of systems,
All systems which are not maintained in careful equilibrium will forcefully revert to the opposite side when unbalanced. Nature is not vengeful, she is simply systematic and harmonized. Anything we take from her will be paid back in kind. This is the simple transactional reality of systemic equilibriums.
>that Man (wrongly) chooses to impose values on
Is it wrong for a person to value their parents? What about that which provides without reluctance for their very existence and enjoyment?
>>19036906
>we are nature.
>there are no inherent laws for respecting that which already exists. you [nature] created that idea; man [nature] created that idea.
You just said "we are nature." Ergo it is a law of nature which compels us to respect that which already exists. There is no difference between the laws of men and the laws of nature, you said it yourself.

>>19036964
I could also make the argument that the human brain is "just a series of systems" which has no actual feeling or consciousness, and therefore humans are never vengeful, we are just systems acting by systemic necessity in the same vein as nature. It's wise to refrain from making statements about things you haven't properly thought through.

>>19037156
Your mother is a low cost prostitute and pleasures me frequently.

>>19040193
The issue is your notion of balance. 'Nature' is not always 'balanced' (or its balance is unaffected by human actions, I suppose you could see it either way) and 'balance' is not ipso facto desirable. The point is that the very notion of desirability is rooted entirely in our own vantage point.
The truthful elements of your statement only suffer from this mysticism. So why indulge in it?
Equivocating between value and values is sloppy thinking. You may value nature without imparting values onto it. This is obvious, and doesn't escape the horizon of our own self-interest.

>>19040218
The human brain is a series of systems. But not 'just' a series of systems in the way that nature is. The difference lies in the specific transformation of quantity into quality that human consciousness entails. And that the network of natural systems we see around us does not. This doesn't exactly strike me as controversial.

>>19040293
2/10 too formal
Seethe

It's retarded to be "pro" or "against" something as broad as "technology", you have to be more specific. I personally hate the information age, and industrial society in general. Even then, my feelings are mostly directed at the impact of technology on society rather than the concept of "technology" itself.

>>19036756
Wiping your ass with wet moss is nice and everything since has been a decline.

>>19040316
> 'Nature' is not always 'balanced'
I never stated otherwise. In fact I explicitly stated that man can unbalance it, among others.
>and 'balance' is not ipso facto desirable
Balance is always desirable from a higher, intellectually disciplined perspective; no one ever strives for disbalance and disharmony, except when they are intellectually handicapped and value short term gain and pleasure over the long term consequences of their actions. This is the exact reason humanity is in the situation it is, with a collapsing ecosystem, a polluted-to-hell atmosphere which is still degrading at the same rate, overpopulation, etc. It lacks any real intellectual, see: philosophical, leadership.
>. But not 'just' a series of systems in the way that nature is.
How do you know? You have no means of objective differentiation apart from subjective feeling. How do you know that anyone else is conscious? It's the same "problem" of solipsism. You have no objective means to assert that nature is not conscious, but any other human is. It all comes down to your feeling of what constitutes a telos. The two acceptable views are either that everything is potentially possesses telos (consciousness, goal-directedness), or that nothing potentially possesses it. Anything in between is based on practical assumption (belief) which cannot be brought to the level of real truth. By all means proceed to show me the objective demonstration of what consciousness is and why only humans possess it.

>I think all of you who pretend to be luddites and anti-tech reactionaries are larpers who don't believe a single word of what you say.
That's nice but, oh no, the brain scanning sensors have detected a bad thought in your head, you will now be shut down remotely by the nanobots in your heart. Don't worry though, the next reengineered clone to replace you was designed better and their vat is opening right now.

>>19040397
I'm still struggling with your notion of balance and harmony. Is the Earth more or less balanced that it was 100 years ago for example? Is, say, Venus (or Mars etc etc) an example of balance and harmony, or the opposite? As far I can see, it all just is. Why does clearing a forest to build a car park - as the anon above described - 'unbalance' anything, as opposed to simply altering it? Such a thing may be desirable or undesirable for us of course. Again none of the above precludes our altering our behaviour out of self-interest. You seem to agree. But you bounce between referring to nature as a system and as a bountiful parent we mustn't disturb?? And when challenged claim well we can't truly know anything? Despite appearing to fire off plenty of value-judgements at me re higher perspectives and such.
The implied value-system, even if half-hearted, is what bothers me.
>Balance
I.e. desirable from a human perspective? Then it seems like we barely disagree. Except that again your language is more fetishised.
>Knowledge
No, I can only be reasonably certain based on what I've experienced and what I/others can reason out for ourselves. These practical assumptions that you claim cannot be compared to truths in any way whatsoever are what we rely on every second of our existence. You don't 'know' if I'm even real, but you're still talking to me. It is what it is. Anyway like I said I think debating the nature of truth distracts from the original discussion.

>>19035600
I don't want a return to the past, I want a reconciliation with man's need to be connected with nature, culture and spirituality with the advancements of technology and culture in modern times.

>>19035600
>I am very pro-technology.

>>19040537
>Why does clearing a forest to build a car park - as the anon above described - 'unbalance' anything, as opposed to simply altering it?
Systems enter stable feedback loops where they are able to maintain equilibrium (see: balance/harmony), then they are eventually destabilized (or stabilized, considering laws of entropy) by factors which are extraneous. One learns about this in basic environmental biology lessons. This is however to use sterile scientific terminology, which unfortunately does not provide the entire picture in its full significance. Thinking of nature in the Descartian manner of mechanism is simply a flawed way of understanding it, just as understanding a human or plant organism is flawed if one attempts to understand it purely in terms of cause-and-effect (it is actually quite literally impossible to understand conscious human intentionality purely in terms of efficient causes). Mechanical cause-and-effect may be an underlying feature of nature, but it is by no means the only one, and if anything it presupposes a more fundamental rule which might actually seem contra to the argument given here: disbalance and disharmony. If there is an effect, there must be a cause, and if these two features exist then there must be a progression in time. If there is a progression in time, that means something is not in balance because otherwise there would be no progression, there would be simple unity. An effect was caused, and the results must flow until that cause is grounded in its "circle of life" and it comes back into itself.
>And when challenged claim well we can't truly know anything?
I've already made it amply clear what is true with respect to nature and telos. I simply don't wish to force the issue because it will result in you simply refusing to acknowledge it because it is "too absurd." Most people who are not used to free thought, who are constrained to scientific theories and hypotheses, become hostile toward anything which damages this preconception of scientific "truth." As Plato says, the light of Being is blinding. Most people return to the cave because the dim light of the shadows does not sting their eyes.
>I.e. desirable from a human perspective?
You're still making the mistake of fetishizing the human perspective. Human beings are not unique with respect to nature. If you're going to call me a nature fetishist, then I'm going to call you a man-fetishist. A homosexual, if you will.
>No, I can only be reasonably certain based on what I've experienced and what I/others can reason out for ourselves
If you're ready to admit that you know nothing, then this discussion is already over. I'm not interested in your beliefs on what is or isn't conscious. The only thing that matters is truth, even if that truth can only be established formally.

>>19035624
bad technology bros we got too cocky

>>19040805
That all sounds fine and good enough when you pull it all back to the foundations (with the intention of rebuilding everything back reclarified of course). I'm not opposed to more useful descriptors where necessary. My issue is still how easy it is to read an erroneous value-system into terminology like 'harmony' and 'balance'. As many people simply repeat the terminology til it's chinese-whispered into its opposite.
Also, I only alleged your language to be fetishistic. It's not like most people seriously defend the thing I'm criticising. I don't think. It's just a habit that's easy to fall into that can have adverse consequences.
I don't think I'm so much a 'man-fetishist' as I am a nature de-fetishist, i.e., I reject any claim that our relation to it is not necessarily filtered through ourselves.
I agree that I'd rather not duel epistemologies however. Though I would point out that with absolute certainty being as rare as it is, accepting a threshold for the likelihood or reasonableness of a belief + justification being acceptable, whatever framework you root it in, as a 'truth' in at least some sense is something we can't really avoid. If you refuse this I may think you hypocritical, as we all partake in this game daily, but I won't take your time any further either.
Take care man

>>19035600
What are you doing to advance technology? do you donate to any open source projects? are you a programmer?

>>19035624
This.
This... is the greatest take on [TOPIC] i've ever witnessed in my life.
You should probably apply for President of the Universe.

>>19040817

>>19038175
Less emotionally, we evolved to find comfort in the patterns of nature and forests. Living away from nature has objectively measurable negative effects on happiness. Just being among trees is biologically wired to make us feel better.

>>19041309
So what if we were genetically engineered so that dingy apartments and urban concrete gave us the same feeling?

>>19035600
>I think society should be designed around the advancement of technology
so the USSR?

>>19041388
I personally wouldn't like that because I value the preservation of nature, and dislike tampering with the natural state of man, as first principles. But so long as we're operating in a morally subjective society, which I must admit we are, there's no rational argument against your idea.
More concretely, I think it would be much easier and cause fewer problems to preserve and expand nature than it would to genetically engineer humans to enjoy the opposite with no negative side effects.

>>19041444
>I think it would be much easier and cause fewer problems to preserve and expand nature
I would think that too if I weren't aware of how deep the roots of our present civilization have already extended downwards.

>>19035624
Never thought about it that way before.

>>19036964
>sickly Gaia-mother
More appropriately Medea. Don't humor the idiots

>>19038175
>"[strawman]"
>"Hooray!" the lemming shout!

>>19040193
This a stupid, over spiritualistic understanding of nature.

>>19041723
>anything I don't like is stupid