/lit/ - Literature

>>21696859
If I wanted to read the ramblings of disenfranchised schizophrenic trannies, I’d go to /lgbt/

>>21696880
kind of like a tripcode?

>emphasizes the fact that technological progress can never be reversed yet still insists that an abandonment of technology is even remotely viable
This isn’t a paradox, he means that we can’t just roll back the clock on technology to a point that won’t enslave us completely (like perhaps a Amish existence with automation for less desirable jobs and the internet for its entertainment/information etc.). It will fundamentally escalate itself if it is not complete destroyed.
A complete end to Industrial society tech and beyond. He specifically addresses this in his later books in more detail.

>>21696903
The tripcode is there to make you seethe, freak.

>>21696921
wanna know how to make a tripfag seethe?

It sounds like you are dumb, not kaczynski. I suggest you read anti-tech revolution which addresses your points and some errors and shortcomings of the manifesto. The works of kaczynski are constantly evolving as he keeps working in prison and is open to communication and new evidence. If you see a glaring error in the manifesto then write him a letter.

>>21696916
You wrote
>This isn’t a paradox
and then typed a lot of other words as if they in any way justified this statement.

>>21696969
Kaczynski means that I.S. cannot be scaled back. It is possible to destroy it. If the system gets to the point that it can no longer upkeep critical infrastructure, then it will completely collapse. Because most surface deposits of oil and coal are used up and highly specialized equipment is required to extract the deep resources that were essential for starting the first industrial revolution, it is highly unlikely that industrialism will be able to start again.
A lot of your observations aren't even sensical: he doesn't want abandonment of technology and explains why this isn't possible. Technology that dependa on industrial infrastructure (like satellites and fracking equipment) is clearly dependent on a highly organized system. Pipe bombs and other crap may or may not be easy to produce in a small village, and if so, they aren't really a 'bad' technology.

>>21696951
Wow, didn't realize he was still alive. Maybe I'll write him something.

>>21697025
No, don’t. If you can’t understand >>21696916
Then you are just going to irritate him.

It is not paradoxical because what he means by unable to reverse it is that we can’t regress to a point in the technological timeline that is an ok compromise and keep it under control.
But it is possible to end it completely by destroying our fundamental dependence on electricity, machinery etc.
You try to conflate reverse and end as the same and therefore call it paradoxical; it is not.
You are not smart. You have not thought about this more than a literal genius.

>>21696859
>>casually dismisses the potential for another industrial revolution, which logic would suggest is completely inevitable, as occuring so far in the future that who cares lmao XD
Can any Tedfags answer this one? Seems the most damaging counterargument.

>>21697078
Do you think officers in WW1 were planning their strategies for WW2? What a ridiculous point.
Yes, history has a chance of repeating itself, but what is the alternative analysis-paralysis and apathy?
You tackle the problem at hand. Things like this are what Ted was talking about with Leftists. You are perpetual defeatists and dead-weight when it comes to anything.

>>21697131
It's not a ridiculous point at all to ask whether a proposed solution is not merely kicking the can down the road. Becoming a domestic terrorist and potentially sacrificing your life and that of millions of others to cause a minuscule hiccup in the inevitable course of history would simply not be worth the sacrifice.

You're kind of like those people who think separating their trash, using paper straws or buying an electric car makes a difference and then get angry when reminded of the futility of these gestures, likely because you get some type of psychological fulfilment out of the larp.

>>21697017
What you and Ted refer to as "destruction" seems more like sabotage or hampering. Like sticking your foot out and tripping I.S., only for it to get up, dust itself off, and keep marching forward. I like that you wrote "highly unlikely," an extremely noncommittal statement. Had you expressed any true certainty, I could've just called you a retard.
Ted's essay often mentions those dastardly "technophiles" who "will fight stubbornly at every step." Here's the reality of your revolution.
Those technophiles will be temporarily embarrassed as the infrastructure they rely on collapses. But, while you laugh at their misfortune to distract from your own and meander fulfilling your "real" goals, the technophiles will adapt and improve. Even if they are a tiny minority- a disadvantaged minority- their unprejudiced embrace of technology and progress will, probably very quickly, allow them to rebuild, and along the way maybe even set up systems to make sure humanity can never fall into another dark age. Even if you are very old when the revolution occurs, you will likely live to see your efforts dissolve around you as a new and utterly unopposable techno elite rises to dominate the planet.
Should this order treat your cause with sympathy, they will leave you alone, perhaps occasionally using you as a tourist attraction. Should they treat you with benevolence, you will find yourself enslaved once more and die with the knowledge that your children and their children will all live under I.S.

>>21697071
see>>21697071

>>21697160
>to cause a minuscule hiccup in the inevitable course of history
This is your mind on Hegelian/Marxist crap. WTF are you talking about? We can act or not act.
The chances of permanent success are not 100%, you’re right. But never making the attempt for fear of a reoccurrence puts it straight down to 0%.
You talk as if we should wait until we can have compete certainty that the Industrial Society can never return, while the state of technological progress is getting closer than ever to stopping any attempt at all.
It’s just an irrelevant ‘what if’ in the face of the problem.

>>21697131
The point is that continued opposition to I.S. will be like pissing in the wind. Sure, you might be able to shoot pretty far forward for a while, but if you stand there doing it for too long, you're gonna find yourself with issues that pissing can't solve.

>>21697180
It isn't a problem if industrial society rebuilds. If a communist revolution creates their little utopia for a few hundred years and then collapses, was it all for nothing? If communists take over your liberal democratic system, was all the work the west did "for nothing"? Just because the effects of your actions will not be permanent doesn't mean that you shouldn't take any actions.
If I.S. does collapse it is extremely likely that it literally won't be able to recover for millions of years. Without petrochemicals, it would be impossible to create renewable energy sources (oil is used in the manufacture of parts used in solar, water, and wind power) and impossible to maintain fracking equipment for oil drilling. There will be almost no conceivable way to restart I.S.
Can it start again? Yes. But that's like having shit on your ass and not worrying about it because you'll just have to shit again.
Is it improbable that revolutionaries will be able to trigger a global collapse of infrastructure? Yes. But most revolutions fail. Just because you don't have good odds doesn't mean you should roll over and get assfucked. Don't worry about it if you don't like the odds.

>>21697237
According to who? You’re speculating and taking it as fact.
The whole thrust of TJK argument in Technolgical Slavery is that we can’t control where things are actually going with an attack on IS but we at least try to put an end to what would be inevitable if we did nothing otherwise.
There is no end-goal in TJK work, no utopia. Read his other stuff and go away.
I really am sick of this ignorance now.
My last (you)

>>21697211
>This is your mind on Hegelian/Marxist crap. WTF are you talking about? We can act or not act.
No Marx or Hegel required.

Consider for example agriculture. Anprims would want to go back to a hunter-gatherer life, and in a way they have decent arguments for wanting this, but they have a problem: How would a bunch of hunter-gatherers globally prevent agriculture from arising again? Not only would it be impossible to be enforced, agriculture has such obvious benefits that the incentive to start it will always be there and therefore you can say with almost 100% certainty that agriculture will arise again. So it makes no sense to go down the this path since your chances of success are almost zero. You might as well try and fight against the use of the axe or the wheel.

The same can be said for industrialisation. Let's say the Luddites manage to organise sufficiently and outwit all the powers that be and have a global anti-tech revolution that destroys industrial society (this is already an extreme pipe dream, but for the sake of argument). The benefits of industrial society would still exist. Whenever the chance arises for a group to industrialise they would gain an obvious advantage. So where possible this will happen and then the industrialised group will dominate the non-industrialised ones and take over the world just like the last time.

There is no teleology required here, just common sense and game theory.

>>21697258
So with the mask off all the pinetree bros are just nihilists seeking destruction for its own sake?

>>21697255
I just wanted to highlight an element of the absurdity of the ideology. Ted's estimate of 500-1000 years for recovery is extremely, extremely, extremely optimistic for his cause. But it's anyone's guess how long it'll take to recover. The takeaway is that I.S. will not and cannot be "completely destroyed" or "end."

>>21697180
>>21697255
https://aeon.co/essays/could-we-reboot-a-modern-civilisation-without-fossil-fuels

This article goes through some of what I talked about, but not in a scientifically rigorous way. I am on a phone so I decided it would be better to use an article for that purpose to get the point across.
What is interesting is that the writer seems unaware that all alternative energy solutions require plastics to manufacture and there are no alternatives that can be found in renewable resources. He also doesn't mention the fact that Brazil requires the importation of a lot of products of industrialism and petrochemicals.
It's something to think about. You may be able to find a more rigorous article, or perhaps something arguing against it. Hope this helps tho.

>>21697258
>You’re speculating and taking it as fact.
Oh, am I? Wow, I didn't even realize. As someone familiar with Ted's work it's no wonder you've got such a good eye for that sort of thing.

>>21697315
Not really. If the industrial system really collapses it won't be a matter of when people can turn all the gear back on, it will be a matter of waiting for petrochemicals and coal to reform. (millions of years)
A small collapse is nothing and happens all the time. That's not really what Ted is going for.

By the way, why are you so concerned about permanently ending something? Problems always come back. Defeating commies one time doesn't permanently end the problem. Defeating the Ottoman Empire wasn't a permanent end to Islam encroaching on the west. Etc etc. Even if I.S. comes back after a hundred years, it would still be better to downsize it for a while or simply slow its progress.

>>21697333
The oversocialised leftist reveals himself

>>21697371
Not everything is partisan, direction-brain

>>21697377
Go read Technological Slavery and Anti-Tech Revolution. Humble yourself and come back when you understand it

>>21697377
If you look through the archives you may be able to find a few of my old effortposts about tech and leftism.
I may write another more concise explanation for this, but for the basics, technology manages enables a lot of anti-hierarchical and egalitarian socities to form. Women are capable of performing in many ways because of the devaluation of physical strength, globalism and mass immigration is enabled by supply line, direct democracy over very large territories is possible through telecommunications, the surplus of resources enabled by industrial agriculture allows the formation of a welfare state, etc.

>>21697071
>kaczinsky
>genius
Touch grass you incel retard

>>21697403

I'm fairly convinced that industrial society could never truly reboot if it falters now. The blackpill is that everything up to the Napoleonic era was possible without fossil fuels, including the French revolution and liberal bourgeois bureaucratic society as we know it. All the oppressive factors of modernity can be present well before the mass implementation of the steam engine.

>>21697349
You're such a fucking disingenuous faggot. I didn't bring up an end to I.S., it's the backbone of Ted's call to arms.
>"...while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom."

The stated goal of his revolution is not to halt or hamper or hinder I.S., it's to stop it permanently. But by his own logic and admission in his text, this is not possible, so his revolution is inherently futile.

>>21697403
>Can’t argue against any points made in the thread
>better just use the same old incel schtick
This is why I called you an oversocialised leftist. It’s plain as day.
Go read the other books bitch

>>21697388
>dude just read even more of my dull propaganda lmao
why are they like this

>>21697417
Destroying it is both possible and good, but it is better to slow or halt development than nothing at all.
>I am being le assraped
>I could halt it...
>But I le won't!
Brain yourself...

>>21697388
>Humble yourself
You've clearly never enjoyed the irony of hearing someone say this with smug intent, or else you wouldn't have defaulted to
>Do what I say and I win the argument!
In the same vein, you're looking for arguments where there aren't any probably due to being online so often

>>21697160
Larping about how something is inevitable confirms that will it come about. Don't be a fucking retard.

>>21697371
The irrationality of Ted's thinking is a clear symptom of under-socialization. It's no wonder his drivel resonates with today's isolated male youth.

How did OP get btfo'd so quickly? How are Kaczynskifags online 24/7? Why does it seem like they have prepared responses to every question?

I'm thinking OP is a kaczynskifag that was just baiting to get a thread started.

>>21697417
If we compromise with it meaning regressing back to a different point in our technological timeline, like getting rid of the internet or something.
Again, you are conflating his terms.
We must out a stop to THIS industrial system that exists. Not put an end to the complete possibility of Industrial
society, because it is impossible to have that kind of control.
You seem to constantly confuse the actual with the potential. It is not the same thing you soft theory-brain-fried faggot.

>>21697445
Put a stop*

>>21696859
>wrote all of this while he lived alone in the woods and taught himself how to build bombs out of scraps, suggesting that even a single dissident could undermine everything he proposes by means of previously developed technology
You know... He did buy the materials from industrial society. He probably wouldn't have been able to make blastcaps and stainless steel in his shack...

>>21697438
>How are Kaczynskifags online 24/7?
gee, i wonder
see>>21697434

>>21697407
His IQ was 136
>children's IQ tests
>mattering

>>21697325
>(come fucking link)
>This article...
Stopped reading there. I read your ideology's opus and it was stupid as hell, I'm not bothering with more. If you want to make your case use your own fucking words

>>21697407
>high IQ = genius
based high IQ retard

>>21697466
Okay, drown yourself in ignorance. You don't have to become a le based revolutionary if you don't want to. It's not even relevant. We're just answering your questions.

There it is. The hate poking through the thin veil. The bad faith arguments didn’t work so here come the insults and dismissals.
This is why Ted didn’t want you involved in the first place.

Industrialized society won't collapse but a shift to warlord states is incredibly likely once industry becomes easier to monopolize in its entirety. The big three superpowers of the World already does it.

>>21697325
This article makes a pretty convincing case that's somewhere in the middle of the positions in this thread: Industrial society will likely rise again, but on a limited scale hardcapped by the amount of available land for agriculture and woodlands for charcoal production and probably only in certain sweet spots. Those might become relatively rich and advanced hubs (think Georgian era) with the rest of the world living more of a subsistence existence medieval style.

The difference with last time around is that the industrial hubs can't expand beyond a certain point and ravage the globe.

>>21697445
You moved the goalpost.

The ultimate issue with Ted's ideology is the same as all the others. It's based firstly on the whims of his subconscious and secondly on fact and reason. Rather than collecting facts and coming to a conclusion based on them, Ted has already come to his conclusion, so he magnifies the facts that support his conclusion, minimizes those that don't, and either fails to address or completely ignores the irrational emotional motivations that drove him to his conclusion. For instance, his deconstruction of the "modern leftist" reeks of textbook projection.

>>21697506
Ted even admits this
>"True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken."
What he dismisses as merely "conceivable" is an absolute inevitability.

>>21697475
Then why didn't you answer my main question?
>Couldn't his entire quest to spread his ideology be interpreted as a surrogate activity, one that arose despite his adherence to "real" (survival) goals?
Don't imply you're some fucking angel, you've done nothing but cherry-pick the parts of my opposition you have the confidence to debate.

>>21697526
Luddite domestic terrorism would be the dream of the authoritarian surveillance state desu, jihadists can't compete. Angry local white men who want to take away everything you like to force you to live in a moist shack toiling under patriarchy forever for reasons that require reading big boring books to even begin to see with some sympathy.

The vast majority of people would give up any semblance of privacy and freedom if they were to think this was a plausible threat.

>>21697537
>Couldn't his entire quest to spread his ideology be interpreted as a surrogate activity, one that arose despite his adherence to "real" (survival) goals?
Did you fully read his chapter on surrogate activities? A surrogate activity is not necessarily something that is related to survival, but something that is merely done because an individual feels as though they have nothing better to do (paragraph 39 of ISAIF). Fighting against a threat or building a better future is not necesssrily a surrogate activity, but funko-pop collecting almost certainly is; do you think marvel basedboys would collect that crap if they had a fulfilling life?
That said, surrogate activities are not necessarily bad, Kaczynski just uses them to explain some of the behavior found in I.S. He doesn't hinge his view on surrogate activities.

I'm not avoiding your questionsn I've answered them directly. Why are you so confrontational and upset?

Another big blunder by Ted
>What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.
>It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.
In other words, the primitive man felt like he was in control, even though he wasn't in control of a lot of things, simply because the things outside his control weren't in any human's control.
How did he come to this conclusion? How did he gain this intricate and comprehensive insight into primitive man's psychology? Experimentation? Surely he didn't project a personal mental fixation onto vast droves of people he's never met...

>>21697569
>39. [...] Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person’s pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity.
Do you know of anything you would still enjoy doing if you had important matters to attend to? If your life direly depends on working a lot of hours, and you still make time for yourself (by doing without some material comforts, maybe less food or security) to read poetry, then poetry is not a surrogate for you. But if you would forget poetry if you had other things to worry about or if your material conditions were threatened, it's just an activity to occupy your time.

>>21697575
everything written there is self evident, primitive man's ability to antagonize other primitive men was extremely limited and circumscribed; other than that, it was the will of the "gods" in a way or the other, nature, the totem, whatever
it's not intricate at all unless you are severely mentally handicapped

>>21697575
I would vastly prefer to have no control over whether it rains, or whether there is a drought, or whether a volcano vaporizes me, but to have all of my problems be direct threats that can be dealt with in a direct manner.
Here's a jewtube by a confirmed tedfag that is on the down low. He word for word quotes Kaczynski with minor alterations, though he's a peaceful type.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAMqqSiRwY
In the first ten minutes he talks about some of the reasons primitive life is more fulfilling, although he is NOT as extreme as a hard Kaczynski fan. I recommend you watch it just because it's interesting, because it will allow you to re-read Tech. Slavery or ISAIF in a new light.

>>21697547
Ignore this post, Ted and his contagious ideology are most certainly not the direct results of mind control experiments

>>21697598
What's not self-evident is the implication that those forces outside his control not made by man caused him less or even a negligible amounts of psychological discomfort.

>>21697608
he says primitive man CAN be stoic about it because he truly accepts(and really he is forced to by contingency) that he can't do shit about it other than prepare for measures of mitigation, whereas when it's other men you could say it's a form of teasing that is dangled in man's face, your brain tells you you should be able to do something about it, yet you can't
as far as psychological comfort, I think the point is that primitive man also has a relatively good idea of the forces of nature that may put him out of his comfort zone, he is psychologically prepared to deal with it because he knows in advantage more or less what's going to happen, even if he is powerless about it, it's all part of a "plan" a "design" if you will

>>21697575
Why didn't he stoically accept the risks of man-made things just like the primitive man accepts the risks of disease? Man is as much part of the nature of things as a virus or a thunderstorm. Humanity as a species, as a natural phenomenon, no more has anyone in charge than a termite colony and is in a sense equally blameless. Man as an individual is also merely a part of causality and the greater whole.

If you dissolve this flawed dualism between nature and humanity, wouldn't the psychological problem disappear?

>>21697627
Absolutely none of your post is based on fact or reason, it's all just assumptions based on personal conviction.

>>21697608
>>21697627
Yeah. Nuclear vaporization, whether fascists/communists get elected, or whether corpos dump millions of tons of xenoestrogen in your water supply is something that should be preventable, and in fact the individual has a sort of extremely minor but technically real influence on the system so that the threats are always present, always effecting him, but essentially inescapable, but unlike natural issues, these problems are things that can be prevented.

>>21697648
>can be prevented
>unlike natural issues

>>21697647
your post is based entirely on your own personal mental limitations, that's fine with me, we don't have to interact

>>21697657
Like a volcano exploding? Whether your country deploys nuclear warheads is effected by the people and it is under direct human influence. It is a problem that you have a social obligation to confront. Natural issues are either issues that can be directly confronted or ones that also effect industrial society. I feel bad for you bro. Don't go into something with such intense emotional baggage if you might be wrong.

>>21697663
>I'm not wrong you're just too stupid to comprehend the brilliance of my propaganda
classic under-socialized

>>21697665
affect humans in industrial society*

>>21697604
tedfags fear this post

>>21697670
>today I will join le resistance
>oh wait! the elites want us to resist!
>i guess i will be le slave forever never fight back xD
brain death tier

>>21697665
>Like a volcano exploding?
Yes. Rapid evacuation is possible with I.S. but not without.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that you have an obligation to help fix societal issues and not natural issues. In reality, you are not obligated to do either, but you could choose to do both.

>>21697666
damn I just called you braindead and you reply with a compliment, you must be new to this

>>21697685
You'll call under-socialized a compliment and then complain about your romance problems

>>21697683
You are brain dead. If you want to think about it that way, industrial society has nothing over primitive society- whether you get vaporized by a volcano, nuclear warheads, or crushed by an industrial accident or earthquake doesn't matter. You have the IQ of a 3rd world midwit, you don't even understand the problem.
What an embarrassment.

>>21697701
yikes here comes phase 2: projection
go on a good porn site and touch your wiener for a while, you'll get these genital related thoughts out of your sight before replying to me again

>>21697677
>this action will do nothing to help my cause and will greatly benefit my enemies
>let's indulge in it as a spectacle anyway because it's technically "fighting back"

Tedfags that are dumb enough to be enticed into dilettante terrorism will do about as much for the Luddite cause as the New Zealand mosque shooter did for white nationalism or Elliot Rodger did for incels.

>>21697677
controlled opposition tier

Pol Pot was right

>>21697713
>claims projection
>does it

>>21697644
his points revolve around the baseline reaction to it: man has hundreds of thousands of years of selection to deal with non man-made things while also dealing with man-made things easily: get the lads, smash skull of enemy or die trying
whereas only extremely recently he's faced with something that for his ape brain should be easy to deal with in theory: get the lads, find the troublemaker, smash skull; yet he can't; ape brain goes: men are causing this, yet the solution is always out of reach

>>21697729
Makes sense desu. But isn't this admitting that an anti-tech revolution is impossible since smashing skulls no longer works as a solution in the face of such a vast and complex society?

>>21697729
What you posted doesn't answer the question
>If you dissolve this flawed dualism between nature and humanity, wouldn't the psychological problem disappear?
Honestly, this issue sounds like it's the ape-man's problem, not mine

>>21697742
No, of course not, it means you should e-mail bombs to the president in minecraft, just smash those heads bro lmao

>>21697742
I replied the first part. As for the second, again, he's really talking about sort of basal human reactions, man deep down sees man differently than non-man because he's a social animal not a solitary one, he's impelled by his subconscious to not react to other men as if he were dealing with a tree.
I would agree though the entire point of any serious religious path would be among others to attempt to come to terms with the cosmos as a whole, including society. But as far as those who set themselves to manage society, it would maybe be the best interest not to sweep these basal human modes of being under the rug but try to integrate them as positively as possible.

>>21697769
shit meant for >>21697744

>>21697742
uhm no but it means it should be carried out in a smart way, this is argued all the time e.g an anti-tech revolutionary should NOT abandon tech but rather get familiar with it in order to act at the appropriate time, when the system for instance is weak
serious anti-tech people won't tell you the solution is smash the skull of the first nerd with glasses you see on the street

>>21697744
You have a reasonable response, dude. If you don't care there's nothing wrong with that.

>>21697575
Ignorance is bliss.
>UGGG, GRUG CROAKED IN CAVE AFTER EATING BERRY, SKYFATHER MUST BE ANGRY FOR EATING HIS FROOTS.

>>21697644
>>21697729
>>21697744
>yfw overcoming dualism is the only answer to all problems and the rest is just a distraction

/thread

>>21697729
The only solution is more industrial society.

>>21697835
Maybe not just more but more betterer?

>>21697849
Harder, faster, stronger, greatererer!

>>21697872
work it

>>21697872
uncle ted's arch nemesis desu. exposes ted for the vulgar humanist he is.

>>21696859
Ted was too philosophically immature to understand that complete technological abandonment outside the complete death of our species is not only an impossibility but also the inferior way of dealing with things. He should rather have angled it differently. How can man control technics without being subsumed by it? There have been great figures in modern history that have proposed suggestions to deal with the rapid advancement of technology. Let me give you a hint: restorative myth + eugenics.

Myth will purpose man and enable a structure which can perform eugenics that continuously transform man's base into greater, more advanced heights. As forefathers, our transformed progeny will be the ones that will keep up with technological progress and repurpose it as a means of and end to human destiny.

>>21698146
>I have a solution to deal with the rapid advancement of science and technology: let us allow science and technology to dictate the composition of our genes
great plan there boss

>>21698181
Adapting humanity to tech isn't necessarily less valid than rewinding tech until a cavemen no longer gets nervous by it.

>>21698190
He says that gene editing will allow humans to live in peace with the system but he believes, idealistically, that that would be reducing humans to engineered products and highly degrading. (Paragraphs 2 and 122)

>>21698181
Your argument is as strong as
>let nature dictate the right to your existence
In other words, this was not an argument. Only in the case I presented are we given the opportunity to overcome our lower barriers and transcend to heights humanity today can only dream of. The other option would be to let AGI make a holocaust of us and turn us into proverbial paperclips.

>>21698208
>he doesn't know man and technics
pathetic

>>21698211
I can't listen to Spengler because he betrayed the Favstian spirit.

>>21698190
The long-term issue with eugenics is that genetic diversity is extremely beneficial to a species' chances of survival given there's no way to predict what genetic traits will be useful down the line. Imagine an absurd but non-zero possibility occurrence where all the black people get wiped out by eugenics but then the earth is invaded by a powerful race of aliens that massacres every living creature on the planet with insufficient melanin.
Obviously, there's also the short-term issue that eugenics is abhorrently immoral, but you already knew that, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for it.

>>21698248
Compared to the tedfag goal of making 8 billion people die from starvation so that a handful survivors don't have to live near a highway I think almost any alternative is humane in comparison.

>>21698248
see>>21698208

>>21698248
Also you can do eugenics with diversity, it doesn't have to be the nazi cartoon version.

>>21698254
One leads to temporary suffering, the other leads to millions of years of guaranteed suffering or the reduction of the human race to a tool engineered by technique.

>>21698256
>you can do eugenics with diversity
Uh, no, you can't. Eugenic removes genes, thus decreasing diversity.

>>21698257
It's our one chance at potentially solving suffering altogether.

>>21698257
bro if you want to end your suffering then you know how to fucking do it. don't pretend like the rest of us have to do it with you for it to work.

Most people are in favour of industrialised society, who are Ted and friends to just take it away from them against their will just so that their little niche group can have their way?

Seems like cartoon villain behaviour.

>>21698248
Your first argument consists of a highly improbable fairy tale, so I will jump over it and address your second point instead
>Obviously, there's also the short-term issue that eugenics is abhorrently immoral
There's positive eugenics, where desired traits are encouraged to be reproduced. This can be done via measures of meritocracy and promoting elitistic tutelage of the talented based on aptitude measures early on and promoting a favorable condition and ambience in which talented people are encouraged to breed. Abolishing the ideas of egalitarianism and democracy would be a good start.

Ted just doesn't understand Dialectical Materialism and has a petty-bourgeois nonsensical conception of "freedom".

it's just schizo shit & everyone who agrees with primitivism could never hunt for their own food and go more than a week without electricity

>>21698274
>highly improbable
non-committal language is utilized because it's an entirely possible occurrence and the argument is avoided because the "fairy tale" was only used to illustrate a less easily refuted point.
And anyway, the big picture is just that there's absolutely no way to confront the issue of what traits should be encouraged and which dissuaded without being highly subjective and without doing so blind to what could possibly face the species in the future.
Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

>>21698268
I don't like the idea of humans being reduced to products and tools for the techno-industrial complex for the rest of human history. It has nothing to do with me.

Ted is a great diagnostician but offers only pipe dreams (and pipe bombs hhhehe) as solutions. The real non-cope answer is that most of the bad things you can say about industrial society are in fact true but we’re completely locked into it and it will only end when it has burned itself out by lack of fuel. The only way out is through.

Better start consooming as much as possible and xlr8

>>21698288
He actually addresses that. He explicitly opposes the Marxian view of freedom. He does believe that a man that owns nothing and slaves away every moment of his life to hunt and not starve is more free than an office worker that gets to enjoy "leisure" and a vast array of products.
But you wouldn't understand, because you are the youtube philosopher type.

>>21696859
>founds his ideas on a lot of baseless assumptions about primitive man's psychology
Academics do this all the time.

>>21698313
and I don't like the idea of total human extinction. given the choice between the two being reduced to products and tools for the techno-industrial complex for the rest of human history doesn't seem as bad

>>21698321
No, I understand that's his conception of freedom, I'm saying that its nonsensical and derived from petty-bourgeois individualist nonsense.

>>21698302
>Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It seems we are ahead towards an authoritarian system one way or another (either by AGI, or by a leader) due to the unsustainable nature of democracy. Why not make the best of it and aim for the human side?

>>21698315
Then it makes no difference if revolutionaries drop minecraft TNT on federal servers. Just enjoy the ride and if some Tedfriends want to go out in a blaze of glory, enjoy the lulz.

>>21698325
Would you rather your daughter be amputated, lobotomized, and used as a sex toy by billionaires or mercy killed?
The degradation that humanity will go through is so extreme that extinction is preferable.

>>21698327
That's your own opinion, it has no relevance if the person you're criticizing doesn't share your values. Not saying you're "wrong" but individualists do not give a lick about that crap, and utopian dreams and collectivist proposals are not going to convince them otherwise.

>>21698257
No. Humans have agency. The higher consciousness they have and advanced they are, the more agency they will have. What you're thinking of is the result of a unbridled consumerist society bar none, an evolution of our current paradigm standing unchallenged. Human destiny lies in intergalactic wayfaring. We cannot stop human curiosity, but we can influence the direction it travels.

>>21697315
Global cataclysm of epic proportions. Geomagnetic event. Wipes out most of the Earth. Shifts continents, climate, land becomes submerged and water recedes in other areas, knocks out most or all electronics. People separated with no way of contacting each other. Tons of things could happen that would set humanity back.

>>21698331
Actually if anything theoretically they would only make industrial society last longer by momentary deceleration if they managed to succeed at sabotage to some degree. But in the big scheme of things it would be most likely have zero notable effect on the pace of it. It would only cause some extra suffering I guess, like other forms of futile terrorism.

>>21698335
It seems to me that the difference between non-existence as a species and transforming so much as a species that we become unrecognizable (something new and different) is negligible. Both constitute an end. At least one end could be something else's beginning.

>>21698346
That is not guaranteed. You have no idea whether consciousness will be useful to increasing the efficiency of the system's growth. I can easily imagine future BIGTHINKERS saying:
>Consciousness is a social construct... we have the capability to remove the genetic code responsible for conscious thought ... to do so would reduce suffering ... non-sentient humans demonstrate a 96% reduction in criminality and 34% increase in labor productivity ... 0% chance of suicide in 'traumatic employment' ...
The moment an unethical government employs any form of high-efficiency inhumane gene editing, it will be able to outcompete other systems that do not. This is how technological development is non-optional and unpredictable.

>>21697401
woman still underperform overall. it's not in woman's best interest nor their nature to try to out compete men. even non physical activities are dominated by men.

>>21698361
And there is where our values diverge. I am disgusted by what lies in wait of humanity. If you don't care, go masturbate or something. this doesn't affect you.

>>21697516
leftists eternally butthurt by someone diagnosing them, but they do the same shit to others all the time. leftists think they are 100% right and that any non leftist literature is ignorant and too simple. their arrogance is astounding.

>>21698335
How are you so confident that it will be horrible? What’s your prediction for the future of industrial civ and why?

>>21697547
Atheist leftists (the types who lose their minds over racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc) have the most to lose. History is full of examples that show that the social norms of the current year are the outliers. They also suffer from the hot hand fallacy. They think we'll keep progressing. It's far more likely that we regress from where we are at now.

>>21698366
>Consciousness is a social construct... we have the capability to remove the genetic code responsible for conscious thought ... to do so would reduce suffering ... non-sentient humans demonstrate a 96% reduction in criminality and 34% increase in labor producti
This assumes that a current governance employs utilitarian ethics, whereas what I posit here >>21698208 assumes a culture of enduring myth and spirituality that speaks to humans and abandoning enlightenment philosophy as an obsolete project. For this to happen there needs to be a great crisis that shakes the very foundation of society in which the psychology of the last men and the herd are predicated upon, and imbue the new men with raw vigor and a faith beyond reason.

>>21698376
I admit I don't care that much. Spending undue time stressing about things that you will ultimately have little influence over carries with it a lot of useless psychological discomfort. I prefer focusing my attention on that which I can shape with my hands and voice, only engaging with these lofty concepts as a form of mental exercise, entertainment, and time-passing

>>21698390
>It's okay when I do it because they do it

>>21698457
Never said that. I just find it funny when leftists get so butthurt and defensive, like they have the authority on certain subjects.

>>21696859
>imagine being this stupid

>>21698409
Humans are already degraded worse than I would like. The Leviathan will either find humans irrelevant or it will mold them into a new, perverted, disgusting form. We can see this happening with anti-depressants and psychiatrics to some degree, but bioengineering will be an unthinkable low.

I know I sound a bit unhinged, but my intelligence is not great enough to properly explain my thoughts. Have some selections from the rough draft of my 'work.'
What is most foundational to my belief is the idea of the self-propagating system. I first discovered it in 2015 and it radically altered my worldview.

On the surface, a self-propagating system(SPS) might be thought of as an organism (such as a human being) but it can also be something as abstract as a corporation or business. Businesses are organisms exactly analogous to human beings.[3] They are born, they grow, they think using individual cells, (human minds, electrical computation, AI), they reproduce, and they die. They also have memory: the collective knowledge of the humans within the business, and its internal policies, constitute the business' memory and allows it to maintain adaptations for the future; further, by storing memory in dedicated 'proteins' (books, digital devices) they can pass their learned experiences to succeeding "generations." Businesses compete with one another within their environment (Earth) or respective biomes (Governing Bodies). Each business grows and adapts with respect not only to its environment, but to each other. The process of mutual competition for resources and supremacy is exactly akin to the human one[4]: and just as this natural competition in humans results in a collective and functional business, so to do businesses result in a collective and functional economy. [5][b]
(This part is inserted for clarity, out of order)
Just as a biological organism might become afflicted with a disease (such as cancer), an SPS may also become afflicted. Some simple examples include a disgruntled worker sabotaging his employeer, a CEO embezzling funds, a corrupt politician betraying his State, an errant organization fighting against its Government, or a domestic terrorist. In all of these cases, the SPS will adapt and destroy the "cancer," or it will be destroyed by it. In former case, it will have new adaptations to increase its stability and the stability of succeeding generations, or in the latter case it will be destroyed, and it will make way for more efficient SPS's.
(end)

>>21698409
>>21698617
Many other organizations operate in a similar manner, and are similarly SPS's. A government is also an SPS: it can be thought of as a supra-organism consisting of many individual SPS's that function as organs, collectively forming a larger organism.[9] Governments use legislature to control the function of their "organs." Poorly functioning governments will be out-performed by more efficient ones and will be forced to adapt or fail. An example of this evolutionary competition was between Communist governments and Capitalist governments. (Whether communist governments would have been ultimately more efficient is of little concern: what matters is that they were an adaptation to environmental conditions, and they were attacked as competing organisms to the existing 'fauna')
(cut for brevity)

The final and most sophisticated of the self-propagating systems is Society. Society is the super-organism that consists of all smaller self-propagating systems. Society is an organism that contains the collective knowledge of the human race, of that which no human knows and is stored as potential information, and that which no single human can know. The end result of the growth of its individial organs is the growth of Society itself.
...

>>21698409
What is required of the growth of a self-propagating system is efficiency. Human needs, desires, and values are only proximate needs of the system: without some degree of catering to human material conditions, they would no longer function as efficiently.
As far as we are concerned, there is nothing to say that the most efficient system for the growth of a corporation, organization, government, or Leviathan will include the well-being of humans- perhaps not even their existence. If technological advancement brings human psychology to its breaking point, Leviathan will be in need of modifying human beings or eliminating its use for them; this could be through AI and robots, which may prove to be more versatile than humans, or it could be through the modification of humans such that they are leas taxing to the system. Perhaps it could be as trivial as increasing their nutritional efficiency, but it could also be as sinister as conversion into body slaves (à la Half-Life's Stalker entities).

Society is an organism, and it is evil.

>>21698409
>>21698617
>>21698623
>>21698663
We cannot avoid the 'growth' of these supra-organizational entities. The moment two systems interact, they form a super-system. Two human beings form their own 'society,' as in the case of a family. However, the degree of influence that the individual has in small societies is much greater and it is far less dehumanizing.

Finally, my thread has devolved into schizobabble

For those that want a practical means look to the Mexican group "Individuals to tend to the Wilderness"
They only focus on their region and dont believe in international solidarity, they have some translated material

>>21696859
>minimizes or ignores both the liberating aspects of industrial society and the oppressive aspects of primitive society
False, you haven't read enough of him, he does criticize both anarcho-primitivists for their utopian biases over primitive societies and life.

>>21697017
>Because most surface deposits of oil and coal are used up and highly specialized equipment is required to extract the deep resources that were essential for starting the first industrial revolution, it is highly unlikely that industrialism will be able to start again.
This. Also people ignore the imminent impact of pollution/climate on food production. We are heading to collapse and that's why it's possible to avert the course of it before the system unleashes geoengineering (see appendix 4 to ATRWH)

>>21696951
>I suggest you read anti-tech revolution which addresses your points and some errors and shortcomings of the manifesto. The works of kaczynski are constantly evolving as he keeps working in prison and is open to communication and new evidence. If you see a glaring error in the manifesto then write him a letter.
Thing is, the points of Kaczynski are very clear in ISaiF and ATRWH, the problem is that techie midwits have a terrible bias that doesn't allow them to see it.
Yes, the writing is all over the place and he wastes too much energy in redundant arguments, but once you've read, you can summarize it crystal clear.

>>21697071
>It is not paradoxical because what he means by unable to reverse it is that we can’t regress to a point in the technological timeline that is an ok compromise and keep it under control.
Recently I've been scrolling through Greta Thunberg's "The Climates Book" (cringe, I know, but bear with me). The difference between Kaczynski and these "environmentalists" is that the latter think we can build degrowth through political action as Ted K is utmost pessimist since he realized the system cannot be controlled by human action m, it will keep running business as usual (see ATRWH chapter 1)
In fact, you can see that the articles Greta selected are actually in line with TK's concerns (the problem of depending on things in which the dependency is "artificial" e.g. cars are only necessary because cities were built to accommodate cars, Greta recognizes Renewables is not the answer and unlike the climate mogul Bill Gates, she is pessimistic about geoengineering just like TK)
Since we can't direct the system to the path we wanna take, the only option is to destroy it.
>>21697325
>He also doesn't mention the fact that Brazil requires the importation of a lot of products of industrialism and petrochemicals.
Without modern fertilizers, the prosperous Brazilian agriculture will collapse. Without them, the only things that will be growing in the Cerrado region of Brazil (where most agriculture is) are guava trees and castor beans.

>>21698892

>>21699850
>Yes, the writing is all over the place and he wastes too much energy in redundant arguments, but once you've read, you can summarize it crystal clear.
Someone should create accessible secondary lit on ted and other anti-tech thinkers that is digestible by the average midwit, or better yet youtube vids or something

>>21699924
I'm working on it. It is still unfinished tho. 9 pages long, fully sourcing TK's texts.
(It's a docx file, I cannot upload the pdf rn since I'm not on my computer)

https://mega.nz/file/1jYCxSzT#9wI2Q6q-_HInNHxOpKBA0BkGEMi1YhoWGELomvrxitw

>>21700000
>>21699850
this retarded sign again lol

>>21699850
>>21700000
Based posts

>>21698699
Shut yer normiebabble