Uncle Ted BTFO

[Anonymous No.13134670]

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

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

[Anonymous No.13134676]

>rationalwiki
YIKESED and EDGEASS-pilled.

[Anonymous No.13134681]

>>13134670
A mass die-off is the end result of capitalism.

But that's okay because things.

[Anonymous No.13134696]

>rationalwiki

[Anonymous No.13134709]

>>13134670
>artificially inflated population güd!
Hopefully whoever wrote this dies first desu

[Anonymous No.13134716]

that site is garbage but they're right here.

[Anonymous No.13134720]

>>13134670
>these early oppressive empires arose from technological and societal progress, the exact thing that ted says is the downfall of humanity
>implying a mass die-off isn't the goal
>muh nukes
you can practically taste the mediocrity

[Anonymous No.13134739]

>>13134720
>>implying a mass die-off isn't the goal
Why the fuck would you want that?

[Anonymous No.13134740]

>>13134739
Why wouldn't you?

[Anonymous No.13134746]

>>13134740
>Why don't you want people to die?
Brainlet edgelord detected

[Anonymous No.13134751]

>>13134746
>all life is equal
>all "humans" are equal
>7 billion lifeless shells are better than <1 billion meaningful lives
I don't *want* people to die but I do want the people around to be able to enjoy life

[Anonymous No.13134752]

>>13134670
>rationalwiki
not even going to read a sentence of it, every time I've clicked on that website has been a mistake

[Anonymous No.13134766]

>>13134670
>Even if one ignores questions over standards of living, child mortality, and disease, both viewpoints fly in the face of the actual history of ancient empires, which used brutal coercion to crush the nomadic hunter-gatherers and consolidate the power of their leaders. None of these early empires came out of nowhere; rather, they grew out of hunter-gatherer tribes who discovered some good land with food in enough abundance that it was worthwhile to settle down there permanently, start cultivating the land to maximize the food they were able to hunt and gather (inventing agriculture and animal husbandry in the process), and kick off any interlopers who tried to take "their" food and land (inventing armies and war in the process). A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty.
Ha, that's wrong. Whoever wrote that should read up on recent discoveries and insights into the founding times of protostates.

Early agrarian states were tenuous bureaucracies that depended on stable weather conditions for the harvest of less than a dozen food crops. Hunter gatherers had a far easier time maintaining wealthier, if spread out, societies. (Early) Crop farming is also a more work intensive form of subsistence, with hunter gathering from several biomes being more reliable and crisis-proof, more evenly spread around the year and offering more variety to nutrition. Which is why people only turned to agrarian life in places highly favourable for it, Nile river, yellow river and Mesopotania for example and only after millennia of a slowly increasing population, forcing each other to stop being gatherers.
What agrarian states did offer was rich plunder for barbarians preying on their trade routes and settlements. While wheat, barley and similar have comparatively few calories per work hour, the harvest of several years can be stored and relatively easily transported away, or rather, plundered.
Agrarian states actually forced upon their subjects significantly worse living conditions than those of free roaming barbarians. We're pretty sure that slavery, war and forced resettlement were vital tools of the state to counteract a constant drain of people just moving away into the wilds.
In fact many barbarian invasions turned out to be boons for the people, who carried on prosperously, suddenly freed from the yoke of the taxman. It looks dark to us because such people have no care for painstakingly taken inventories written on clay tables.
So yeah, a return to a less technological way of life would mean more freedom for the people and a pretty decent living standard. True, we couldn't keep our parents alive long past the date of graceful expiry with the help of machines and ever more complex chemicals. But we'd have clean air, clean water, a life largely unburdened by stress, lots of outdoor activity.

[Anonymous No.13134767]

>>13134670
>rationalwiki
unironically cringier than conservapedia

[Anonymous No.13134774]

>>13134670
So many Uncle Teddy shills on here, am I fucking missing something?

[Anonymous No.13134785]

>>13134774
He scares people. At least the idea that people still think like he does scares them

[Anonymous No.13134796]

>>13134766
For a book on this, check out Against the Grain

[Anonymous No.13134805]

>>13134796
Thanks for sourcing my post. I ran out of space.

[Anonymous No.13134811]

> be me
> talking to Honduran weeb coworker
> tell him farmers in rural Turkmenistan live a less convoluted life than average Americans do
> a more natural meaningful life
> he says no we need to go teach them things
> they need to be educated so they won’t be poor
Western neoliberalism is literally the brown version of the White man’s burden with rainbow dildos and buttsex.

[Anonymous No.13134820]

>>13134739
Because existence is suffering

[Anonymous No.13134825]

>>13134811
Yep. Introduce them to the delights of carcinogens and mandatory wageslavery

[Anonymous No.13134832]

>>13134811
Why is is so distressing to normies that this desk monkey lifestyle really is shite when you examine it with any scrutiny

[Anonymous No.13134835]

>>13134832
>why do normies not like being confronted with the horror of the existence they’ve subjected themselves to
if they didn’t recoil in fear they wouldn’t be normies

[Anonymous No.13134848]

>>13134832
Normies always bury their head in the sand to avoid conflict. It’s a feminized response that results from low testosterone, a lack of physical activity, and oversocialization.

[Anonymous No.13134874]

>>13134746
Urbanite faggot detected.

[Anonymous No.13134882]

>>13134746
Thanos did nothing wrong nigga

[Anonymous No.13134889]

>>13134882
But he killed half the POC! I'd sacrifice every white if I could save those beautiful bronzed beauties!

[Anonymous No.13134890]

>>13134882
>kill half of everyone once
>destroy the gauntlet so you can’t do it again
>everything is right back to where it was in literally one generation
he did many things wrong desù

[Anonymous No.13134903]

>>13134890
maybe he just did it to keep things from getting out of hand and enjoys doing maintenance culls manually.

[Anonymous No.13134915]

>>13134890
you watch too much CinemaSins. Mass trauma from losing loved ones will deter many from breeding, not to mention all those husbands and wives who lost their mating partners, and if Thanos' little experiment works out people might not want to repopulate since they'll be living in a world of plenty

[Anonymous No.13134916]

>>13134670
A high child mortality rate was, along with execution of criminals, the only thing purging the genepool of deleterious mutations.

We don't have either now and the consequences are all around us.

[Anonymous No.13134919]

>>13134890
If I snapped my fingers multiple times, would I ever reach zero people, or would I eventually start removing half of one person's mass?

[Anonymous No.13134921]

>>13134915
>CinemaSins
never watch that shit
>abundant resources will make procreation less likely
doubt.png

[Anonymous No.13134928]

>>13134919
I dunno, he'd be cut in half pretty bad

[Anonymous No.13134946]

>>13134928
Yeah, and repeatedly. I imagine eventually it'd just be a single eye that gets cut in half, and in half, and in half all the way down to a quantum amount of matter. At that point, the snapping would probably begin cutting time in half, effectively reversing all previous snaps

[Anonymous No.13134950]

>>13134916
>tfw huge loser
>ugly and low T
>would never survive any era besides this one
>still want an anti-tech revolution
People like me should have been tossed off a cliff at birth

[Anonymous No.13134958]

>>13134950
This. Even from a categorical imperative standpoint, I can imagine everyone with everyone with as shitty of genes as I have being killed off. In fact, it'd be beneficial to the whole

[Anonymous No.13134998]

>>13134739
Because for every 1 million retards there's higher expenses to keep them alive that comes out of everyone else's pocket eventually.

[Anonymous No.13135004]

>>13134950
What the hell do you think scribes and monks were, genius?

[Anonymous No.13135005]

>>13134998
No one is retarded. They're just different from you.

[Anonymous No.13135010]

>>13135004
>the people who kept civilization alive
They should have been killed. Too bad the Vikings weren't more powerful

[Anonymous No.13135018]

>>13135005
>No one is retarded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc

[Anonymous No.13135022]

>>13134746
>being this spooked by muh humanity and humans

[Anonymous No.13135027]

>>13135018
Muh different is bad. Go back to /pol/, smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.13135034]

>>13135027
>different
there is literally millions of double IQ niggers

[Anonymous No.13135040]

>>13135034
Oh boy. He brings up IQ, everyone. Like clockwork

[Anonymous No.13135044]

>>13135027
>If you kill your enemies, they win.
Parasite ideology at its finest.

[Anonymous No.13135052]

>>13135044
>violence is good
Hey, the stone age called; they want their ideology back

[Anonymous No.13135059]

>>13135040
>he can't refute IQ even though he is on the side of reason and progress
hahahahahahahaha this is how i know you are a stinky nigger.

[Anonymous No.13135063]

>>13134950
>>13134958
Disability/retardation didn't mean death sentence in many cases. Remains of prehistoric humans often show signs of injuries/deformities that would cause someone to be not very useful for food gather/hunting, but the sufferers have signs of living well beyond the date of injury. A person's value thus seems to not just be tied to usefulness. As well, the most intensive sexual selective pressures only arose with the advent of agriculture, so you may have even had a better chance of reproducing than you do now.

Sources: https://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6429
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success

[Anonymous No.13135064]

>>13135052
There's a time and place for everything. Violence does get things done, but it might not be appropriate in our current situation.

[Anonymous No.13135071]

>>13135052
violence is life, everything is violence.
get used to it.

[Anonymous No.13135111]

>>13135064
Not that guy, but I think the time for violence is long past due. The longer "we" wait, the worse it will be in terms of lives lost. I.e. there are 7 billion "people" now, losing 6 billion is within reason. If we wait until the pop is 10 billion, losing 9 billion is also likely. And 9>6

[Anonymous No.13135120]

>>13134950
Low testosterone is usually one of the tradeoffs for more intelligence. At least you can correctly interpret reality (most deleterious mutations are to do with the brain) unlike this guy >>13135005

[Anonymous No.13135164]

>>13134916
>A high child mortality rate was, along with execution of criminals, the only thing purging the genepool of deleterious mutations.
don't forget mental asylums for the mentally ill
now with those gone countries like the US have been flooded with mass shooters

[Anonymous No.13135232]

Unironically what's the problem with people who write in rationalwiki? Every article is insufferable and feels like Reddit on steroids.

[Anonymous No.13135319]

>>13134670
The guy considers reinstating everyone's natural right to murder more important than antibiotics and chemical fertilizer. I think he's ok with the die-off.

Also human history is at least a hundred thousand years of hunter gathers screwing around on their before agriculture. So that's probably the time he wants to return to, not mound building tyranny.

[Anonymous No.13135327]

>>13134670
>All this comes before the prospect of nuclear weapons
This is the real problem desu
Once things start to collapse, risk of nuclear war increases more and more and, in any case, the nukes will still be there even if there isn't any industrial system, unless people deactivate them somehow.

[Anonymous No.13135334]

Be real with me lads what are the odds any country is ballsy enough to launch a nuke?

[Anonymous No.13135356]

>>13135327
>muh nuclear winter
Overstated globalism fear tactic used to quell national conflicts

[Anonymous No.13135368]

>>13135356
Maybe you're right, but even so, with the amount of nukes on Earth we would permanently fuck up very large areas.

[Anonymous No.13135380]

>>13135368
Nature will recover. People might not, but oh well.

[Anonymous No.13135387]

Stop ted-posting

[Anonymous No.13135391]

>>13135387
>stop scaring me
Blow it, pal

[Anonymous No.13135396]

>>13135052
/v/

[Anonymous No.13135410]

>>13135005
There are people who suffer mental illness so severe it makes their existence insufferable (personally, subjectively) while at the same time being a danger or burden on everyone around them. Don't be retarded

[Anonymous No.13135413]

Doesn't our genome show that the agricultural revolution became a genetic bottleneck?
People will never oppose technology once they realize that it means no alcohol.

[Anonymous No.13135420]

>>13134670
>rationalwiki

[Anonymous No.13135424]

>>13135413
>people
You mean NPCs, right? Because I can and do live without alcohol. And yes, I don't think Ted had any intention to proselytize to the unwashed masses. The anti-tech revolution is for people who care and doesn't involve those who don't

[Anonymous No.13135438]

>>13135387
Blow it out your ass

[Anonymous No.13135483]

>>13135356
"national conflicts" are a fucking meme. the nation state is a degenerate, decadent structure. conflict is inevitable, sure, but at least conflicts between tribes cause minimal collateral damage. nations drag everyone into their gay pissing matches

[Anonymous No.13135494]

>>13135483
Hey, if you want to bring tribes back, I'm with you all the way. But as things are now, I'd rather have national conflicts than no conflict at all

[Anonymous No.13135505]

I can't recommend "the metaphysics of technology" by skrbina enough.

[Anonymous No.13135575]

What does OoTW think of Teddy?

[Anonymous No.13135639]

>>13135063
this is really cool. thank you

[Anonymous No.13135675]

y'all are praising ted but no one's really countered the main point of the argument against him: if we went back to tribal times, then what's to stop a bunch of roving gangs of teenage thugs from killing your ass and raping your cave-wife?
like if you really wanna live in that kind of environment, why not move to the democratic republic of the congo?

[Anonymous No.13135711]

>>13134739
To rewild the Earth.

[Anonymous No.13135869]

>>13135675
No one actually wants to implement his 'solution'. Everyone just recognized he was right when diagnosing the world.

[Anonymous No.13135888]

>>13135675
There really is no going back, and in any case from what I understand of what I read he doesn't advocate just abolishing everything invented since the industrial revolution and he isn't against technology per se, he just opposes how we use and what technology we focus on cultivating as well as our society's relationship with the natural world.

[Anonymous No.13135907]

It is interesting that the peak culmination for science will be the production of life from technology, either directly in AI, or simply synthetic lifeforms.
Now, both have been fiction for centuries.

People make ill-advised choices when selecting the 'antagonist' for human life. Technology doesn't ruin lives, it improves them. However, sociological paradigms ruling over and dismantling architecture and art for the sake of more political and economic power, now that ruins lives.
Jews are, have always been, and will always be the enemies of mankind.
Without jews, we would have human history, human sentimentalities, human rules, human environments, ruling the world.

[Anonymous No.13135927]

>rationalwiki

[Anonymous No.13135954]

>>13135334
A country I think wouldn't but a terrorist group seems more likely. Probably nuking Tel Aviv to start Armageddon

[Anonymous No.13135955]

>>13135319
>everyone's natural right to murder
what do you think hunter gatherers did with murderers?

[Anonymous No.13135961]

>>13135955
get conquered by them?

[Anonymous No.13136045]

>>13134670
Wait, none of yall actually think Ted is right about the best course for humanity, right?

[Anonymous No.13136094]

>>13135955
Depends which side you were on. If you and your buddies just raided another tribe, murdered a few and raped some others, you're probably feeling pretty good about your fellow murders. If you're tribe just got raided, you're probably feeling kind of down about your dead murderer* brothers (and they were murderers, just not this time.)

>>13136045
I'm sure some do. I think his analysis of the harms is interesting, not so much his solutions.

[Anonymous No.13136097]

>>13136045
If he waved his magic wand and made it happen I wouldn't be surprised if the average person was happier. But I don't really want to live there. If I was a wageslave I might, I guess.

[Anonymous No.13136362]

>>13134670
bunch of strawmans misrepresenting ted's position and goals. typical rationalwiki whig historianism

>>13134739
because there are way too many humans to ensure long-term sustainability

[Anonymous No.13136407]

>>13135413
>leave banana to ferment in coconut

[Anonymous No.13136414]

>>13134820
t. s o y buddhist

[Anonymous No.13136502]

>>13134832
it has to be better than working hard in a field

[Anonymous No.13136530]

>>13134670

First of all bunch of people dying would obviously be a good thing in the long run and actually in the short run too
people don't seem to want to admit this but it's like a band-aid you know how it goes

Second of all trying to go back to a more primitive state wherever it may be is just kind of dumb
It won't work because eventually people are gonna get tired of it like they already have many times over and just start advancing again
I don't know how anyone can think that humanity is just going to somehow magically gain the ability to show self restraint and maintain a certain level of primitiveness
I guess the only hope is that by resetting enough times maybe we can get it right one of those times
It seems a bit inefficient to me but at the same time I do think it's always better to simplify a situation over complicating it and sometimes thoroughness is worth more than efficiency
Maybe it really is the right way to do it but people are never gonna go for it anyway for many obvious reasons

[Anonymous No.13136583]

>>13134739
Image being this bluepilled

[Anonymous No.13136591]

>>13136045
We just like that he bashes liberal halos

[Anonymous No.13136713]

>>13136530
All political and environmental issues would be gone over night even without going full caveman. We reached quantum physics at the beginning of the 20th century with around 1.5Bn people, but we maybe used around 500M of them, all the others were living in zero-tech non-countries. A 1Bn population could still sustain technology on the current level, it would be more expensive and less mass-produced stuff. Progress would be slower as well.

[Anonymous No.13136755]

To all the people in apparent disbelief of some people actually believong both Ted's diagnosis AND solutions: is it that hard to believe that some people want what he wants? Yes, people will die. Probably/hopefully me. Yes, technology will regress. Yes, life will be "harder." Even with all that, industrial society must fall

[Anonymous No.13136780]

>>13135005
An essentially bourgeois view, dismissed.

[Anonymous No.13137084]

>>13135505
It looks promising but I'm paying $50 for a 300 page book. Anywhere you can get it for free? I tried the usual libgen and shit

[Anonymous No.13137086]

>>13137084
I'm *not*
Sorry

[Anonymous No.13137140]

>>13136045
I'm pretty sure his publisher is on here shilling his books, retard frogposter.

[Anonymous No.13137145]

>>13136530
>people don't seem to want to admit this
No, it's just a cop out lazy solution

[Anonymous No.13137161]

>>13135869
>No one actually wants to implement his 'solution'
lol

[Anonymous No.13137192]

>>13137145
So what is the active solution?

[Anonymous No.13137219]

stop ted-posting

[Anonymous No.13137237]

>>13137219
Lol triggered technocrat
Blow it out your ass

[Anonymous No.13137239]

>>13137219
blow it out your ass

[Anonymous No.13137254]

Hopefully the ted memesters don't kill any chance at momentum. Ted needs unreasonable zealots who will suicide the electrical grids. Ted needs the type of Incels who just run over normal fags in their car out of frustration.

[Anonymous No.13137268]

>>13137254
If your civilization was so great, there wouldn't be any incels.

[Anonymous No.13137270]

>>13134739

[Anonymous No.13137385]

>>13134766
>Ha, that's wrong
he listed multiple things.

[Anonymous No.13137392]

>>13137086
University library

[Anonymous No.13137420]

TFFE is a deeper and more balanced manifesto.

[Anonymous No.13137426]

>>13135494
>>13135483
What about kingdoms, or similarly sized polities of any denomination

[Anonymous No.13137546]

>>13137426
Well, kingdoms don't really exist anymore. I want familiar/communal tribes. That's about as small as it gets. Familiar feuds are peak aesthetic conflicts. But yes, I'd rather have kingdoms than modern countries and nations as well, but tribes more than anything else

[Anonymous No.13137603]

>>13135483
Tribal warfare killed far more people per capita.

[Anonymous No.13137750]

>>13135675
war was rare or never happend during primitive time because
1. Its resource intensive
2. You dont want your best hunters wounded or dead
3. primitive tribes dont have a surplus to take/raid.

To risky, to dangerouse for both parties to waste time on.

[Anonymous No.13137777]

i think ted´s argument was more about the dystopian environment we could live if technology increases in such a high speed rate,

[Anonymous No.13137831]

>>13137750
You could say the same thing about Chimpanzees and yet they are always at war.

[Anonymous No.13138251]

>>13137750
>>13137831
Or actual tribal humans. And they do have a valuable resource, women. Do we need to start talking about the pro-rape characteristics of the human penis again?

[Anonymous No.13138290]

>>13138251
>start talking about the pro-rape characteristics of the human penis again?

go on

[Anonymous No.13138343]

>>13138290
There is a book called "Sperm Wars" which more or less supports his idea.
>Initially, she can simply watch him in competition with other males. ... But finally, the only real test a woman can set is whether a man can negotiate and overcome her own defences. To test this, she has to resist first verbally, then physically. The stronger and more realistic her resistance, the better the test.

[Anonymous No.13138465]

>>13134820
Based and buddha pilled

[Anonymous No.13138517]

Isnt his point that techonology will fuck the planet to the point of no return in terms of uninhabitability?

tribal live is still better than no life so how the fuck is this not a strawman in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13138562]

>>13135575
Well it's pro-tech to the point where it supports sacrificing humanity to create cybernetic demigods, so it obviously doesn't agree with much of Ted's stance.

[Anonymous No.13138588]

>>13138517
Technology does not "fuck the planet" and tribal life does not save it. Using combustion technology at a magnitude that surpasses the Earths ability to maintain homeostasis is the true issue and that is best dealt with by carbon reduction and geoengineering.

[Anonymous No.13138604]

>>13138562
>cybernetic demigods
The goals of trans-humanism are not that modest. Many expect to become actual Gods with the power to resurrect the dead and create paradise throughout the universe.

[Anonymous No.13138617]

>>13135675

there isn't anything stopping that from happening to you right now, other than mutual belief in the illusion/social contract. just because we live in a society doesn't mean that you have to follow the rules

[Anonymous No.13138646]

>>13138617
>mutual belief in the illusion/social contract.
Those illusions are stronger than any steel and harder than any stone. They are more real and more enduring than any single man or even the human race as a whole.

[Anonymous No.13138655]

>>13138604
My response was about OotW specifically, which has also criticized transhumanists before.

[Anonymous No.13138662]

>>13138646
move out of your parents’ 96% white neighborhood and get back to us on that

[Anonymous No.13138668]

>>13138588
he argues that technology will bring total destruction of the planet. atleast in his tech revolution.
>technology does not destroy the planet, except when it does destroy the planet.
Impressive logic.

[Anonymous No.13138682]

>>13138668
Does Ted at any point in time recognize that technology is merely a tool, not something which has agency of its own? It's like the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." It's people who will destroy the planet eventually, but at the same time there will be survivors who will escape the planet before it happens.

[Anonymous No.13138693]

>>13138682
Eventually people lose agency to large organizations.

[Anonymous No.13138697]

>>13138588

>use selective breeding for something as simple as a type of tomato or corn
>biggest risk is a bad harvest, the risk is on you for not being able to eat that season
>have over a thousand years to get it right

>implement highly efficient and fast acting terraforming or other technological process
>fuck it up and potentially have less time to fix it than the time it took for you to fuck it up in the first place
>nearly everyone on the planet dies while the rich people in their space colony insulate themselves from the risk and fuck off somewhere else

transhumanists, gmo proponents, and sci fi terraforming speculators all belong to the same group of retard

>>13138646

rofl, as long as nobody is hungry

[Anonymous No.13138699]

>>13138662
You think that minorities are impervious to sociological constructs?

[Anonymous No.13138703]

>>13138693
People, sure. Not everyone is "people" though.

[Anonymous No.13138716]

>>13138668
>>technology does not destroy the planet, except when it does destroy the planet.
A single type of technology will disrupt the planets ecosystem if we continue to misuse it.

[Anonymous No.13138729]

>>13138697
I think you have failed to comprehend those topics.

[Anonymous No.13138775]

>>13135164
>now with those gone
what do you mean gone, and why? are there not psychiatric hospitals or whatever they are called, special places to keep crazy people in the US?

[Anonymous No.13138782]

>>13138716
10/10 would scotman again.
>>13138588
we need more technology to fight technology. You do not detect a flaw here?
>>13138682
Stop believing sci-fi fairy tales. We can not even live on this planet, how will we live on another??
oh wait, the solution is technology again. The tech-messiah will come and bring salvation for all the problems that the tech-devil has created. You are a useful idiot for the transhumanist cause.

[Anonymous No.13138787]

>>13138782
>We can not even live on this planet, how will we live on another??
By doing the same thing that we did to this one, grasped for as much power as we possibly could, indefinitely and to the destruction of everything weaker than ourselves. What kind of a stupid question is that?

[Anonymous No.13138795]

>>13138782
If we can't become immortal Gods then the planet might as well die anyway.

[Anonymous No.13138797]

>>13138290
The shape of the head of the penis is moderately evolved (some other species more so) to scrape semen out of the vagina. This does not argue so much for rape on its own but high promiscuity or gang-rape. (Humans moderate testicle size compared to chimps, is a mark against promiscuity)
The length of the human penis is also quite extraordinary for primates. A 200kg gorilla has a penis length of less than 4 cm. Now humans aren't like ducks (the rapey-ist vetebrates) with a penis 100% the length of their body, but even your most effeminate penis is still making the gorilla look small.

[Anonymous No.13138832]

>>13138729

instead of being dismissive, I was hoping for some kind of explanation as to why rampant technological abuse won't result in the great suffering of everyone that doesn't live in a little enclave. i know I won't get it though lol

[Anonymous No.13138847]

>failing to understand that "technology" is the "technological phenomenon" described by Ellul, not fucking technologies per se
what a board of useless teenage edgelords is this geez

[Anonymous No.13138862]

>>13138797
this was told by a guy on Joe Rogan podcast. he wasn't a nutjob but he didn't have lots of credibility either

[Anonymous No.13138904]

>>13138797
>The shape of the head of the penis is moderately evolved (some other species more so) to scrape semen out of the vagina.
Does this really matter if you're uncut?

[Anonymous No.13138933]

>>13138832
>rampant technological abuse
What abuse of technology exists comes from people failing to properly regulate and incentivize capitalism but those problems will soon be a mere memory as automation will be the death of that economic system. We are either marching towards utopia or hell and the road we take depends on putting technology in service to man.

[Anonymous No.13138956]

>>13138646
>They are more real and more enduring than any single man or even the human race as a whole.
>human race still around
>historical culture not still around
>culture changes over the life of every single man
>every culture has people ignoring its rules
stop saying retarded bullshit that's blatantly wrong because you want to feel poetic

[Anonymous No.13138985]

>>13134670
>irrationalwiki
I vehemently disagree with Tedfags but citing irrationalwiki is just embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.13138995]

>>13138956
>blatantly wrong
If every human on the planet dies tomorrow and another species takes our place they will rediscover the same societal structures we did because those things exist apart from us.

[Anonymous No.13139010]

>>13134670
>rationalwiki.org
You're not serious are you

[Anonymous No.13139074]

>>13138995
>those things exist apart from us
prove it.

[Anonymous No.13139139]

>>13139074
I'd say that the truths discovered by game theory are a good example of what I mean. The post I originally responded to claimed that "mutual belief in the illusion/social contract" was the only thing stopping terrible things from happening to >>13135675. My entire point is that those "illusions" are more substantial than he may realize.

[Anonymous No.13139159]

>>13139139
The illusion is as substantial as a full stomach makes it substantial. You people are deluded.

[Anonymous No.13139198]

>>13139159
I did not say we know the dimensions of the social contract or that we have fully correct ideas about it but what you describe is absolutely part of that system. Besides you might as well say an engine can only run so long as it has fuel. There is nothing profound in pointing out that a car without gas will cease to move.

[Anonymous No.13139199]

>>13139139
Game theory isn't about determining what rules anything that exists would have to live by. It's about determining individual courses of action inside a system with defined rules. Maybe physics dictates some rules any sentient life would have to live by but not nearly enough to dictate it's in everyone's best interest to band together, divide labor, and not kill each other. Do you even know anything about math?

>those "illusions" are more substantial than he may realize
No they're not. People break them all the time. When enough people are unhappy enough they collapse entirely. They depend on the value functions (psychology) of the players which has varied throughout history.

[Anonymous No.13139221]

>>13139199
>Game theory isn't about determining what rules anything that exists would have to live by.
I never mentioned ethics. I said the truths discovered by game theory are like the truths of social order I say are more than illusions.
>People break them all the time.
The privilege of breaking the rules is part and parcel of hierarchical society.

[Anonymous No.13139225]

>>13139198
That's the point. Why put so much faith in something so conditional? Born alone, die alone, nigga

[Anonymous No.13139250]

>>13139225
>Why put so much faith in something so conditional?
Because we get value out of it.
>Born alone
We are not alone. Everyone who lives today is the heir of the accumulated work of the human race.
>die alone
You will live your life for all eternity.
>nigga
Disgusting.

[Anonymous No.13139251]

>>13139221
>I never mentioned ethics.
No one mentioned ethics. You said game theory gave truths about rules. It does not, it describes optimal self interested behavior inside very simplified systems of rules. These systems of rules include person value functions, which are the metric by which individuals are deciding their actions.

Unless you're locked up or under surveillance every person in our society has the privilege of breaking rules.

[Anonymous No.13139293]

>>13139251
Do you not believe that there are objective truths to be discovered about complex societies? Things that might go by different names but which would appear on any number of planets?
>Unless you're locked up or under surveillance every person in our society has the privilege of breaking rules.
Only to a degree and that degree being less than living in a hunter gatherer Luddite paradise.

[Anonymous No.13139380]

>>13139293
There are patterns of behavior that will arise from similar conditions. That does not suggest the absolutely retarded claim that any sapient species will develop a similar society to humanity.

>Only to a degree and that degree being less than living in a hunter gatherer Luddite paradise.
Hunter gatherer luddites have fewer guns and inferior forensic methods and it is thus less risky for them to sneak around the caves of people they know they are physically superior to. That's the real reason fewer people going around clubbing each other for their wives, not because the social contract is "harder than any stone".

[Anonymous No.13139476]

>>13139380
>There are patterns of behavior that will arise from similar conditions.
>That does not suggest the absolutely retarded claim that any sapient species will develop a similar society to humanity.
Actually it does support it. There is no reason to believe that convergent evolution would not apply to societies.
>not because the social contract is "harder than any stone".
That was a reference to mining.
>That's the real reason fewer people going around clubbing each other for their wives
So how did the Mexica people maintain social order without guns and forensic methods to rely on? Do you honestly think living in an advanced society brings no benefits?

[Anonymous No.13139486]

>>13134751
Why don't you neck yourself then, anon

[Anonymous No.13139526]

>>13139476
There is no reason to believe species on other planets will be human-like enough to develop the same societies. If intelligent life everywhere is humans with star trek prosthetics and similar evolved psychologies then they might get close and even then humans societies didn't all develop the same.

I was being flippant. The circumstances of life in more advanced societies reduces the cost-benefit estimation of cave clubbing (until it doesn't). Not some kind of mystic inviolability of the rules.

[Anonymous No.13139549]

>>13138862
Yeah it's still a bit speculative, as researching human nature as fundamentally rape prone might be.

>>13138904
Dear jew/american, the foreskin retracts on an erect penis, they look rather the same at that point.

[Anonymous No.13139567]

>>13139526
>inviolability of the rules.
I never made this claim.
>more advanced societies reduces the cost-benefit estimation of cave clubbing
This is more or less what I believe to be true.
>human-like enough
They don't have to be human like at all to developed similar societies.

>>13138617
Once again my entire point is that "the illusion/social contract." is not at its core some arbitrary thing we made up but is discovered and even in our flawed society has great power.

[Anonymous No.13139606]

>>13137385
So did I.

>standards of living, child mortality and disease
Hunter gatherers are leading healthy lives for the most part. Granted, not as good as well-off members of modern society, but still decent. Ignoring child mortality, their life expectancy is propably as high as some working class slobs.
>ancient empires, which used brutal coercion to crush the nomadic hunter-gatherers and consolidate the power of their leaders.
Ancient empires used force to crush other agrarian states. They couldn't really touch the nomadic hunter gatherers for the most part. More than penal expeditions wasn't possible.
> [Empires] grew out of hunter-gatherer tribes who discovered some good land with food in enough abundance that it was worthwhile to settle down there permanently
The hunter gatherers already lived on the great land. Their lifestyle is entirely possible with permanent residency in an area.
>start cultivating the land to maximize the food they were able to hunt and gather (inventing agriculture and animal husbandry in the process)
Agrarian subsistence farming is worse than hunting and gathering. One has to expend more calories to feed oneself farming than doing pretty much anything else.
Also, animal husbandry and agriculture are prerequisites for settling down. So no way they were developed once ancient people stumbled upon the Nile delta.
>and kick off any interlopers who tried to take "their" food and land (inventing armies and war in the process)
Fine, except the inventing part. Nomadic tribes, semi-nomadic ones and settled ones waged war even before the early agrarian states appeared.
>A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty.
Debatable. Historically, the fall of agrarian states often meant more personal freedom for the workers and farmers, who carried on in small communities as if nothing happened.

[Anonymous No.13139652]

>>13139567
>I never made this claim.
Then stop writing like a faggot when describing how strong and inviolable the social contract is at keeping people from clubbing you and taking your wife.

>They don't have to be human like at all to developed similar societies.
Yes they do. They have to be a sexually reproducing, individually intelligent, psychologically willing to band together, capable of language, intelligent enough to invent advanced tools, not intelligent enough to invent anything revolutionary we haven't come up with, empathetic but not too empathetic, short lived, etc. They probably need to be in a similar environment with domesticable plants and animals, have similar senses, have a similar perception of the world.

You seem not to have thought about this at all and to be under the illusion that any intelligent life is just going to be human brains stuck into a different sack meat.

[Anonymous No.13139713]

>>13139652
>strong and inviolable the social contract is at keeping people from clubbing you and taking your wife.
It is strong and inviolable in comparison with having nothing but I am not the person who originally made this point.
>You seem not to have thought about this at all
>They have to be a sexually reproducing
Why would Asexual aliens not have laws against murder?
>individually intelligent
I think this falls flat right away as humans are definitely a distributed intelligence.
>psychologically willing to band together
This would probably be necessary for them to advance in the first place.
>capable of language
Why not an alien society based around pheromones?

Listen we obviously have very different ideas about what society even is. Do you think the shape society takes is created or discovered?

[Anonymous No.13139819]

>>13139713
>no the societies would be similar because this one thing could be the same
No alien will develop human society without being sexual because human evolution and society was built around sex.

>humans are definitely a distributed intelligence.
Each human is individually intelligent. You could conversely have colonies of organisms that were only intelligent together but were individual in some way the cells of earth animals are not.

>social behavior would probably be necessary for them to advance in the first place.
You are basing this generalization off your knowledge of exactly one intelligent species that evolved in the environment of one planet.

>pheromones
That would be a type of language.

Most of your objections are you either you deciding to interpret phrases uncharitably or making unrecognized assumptions about the form life and intelligence has to take. Either think carefully about what you mean by intelligence and life before making claims about them or read a science fiction book.

[Anonymous No.13139889]

>>13139819
>No alien will develop human society without being sexual because human evolution and society was built around sex.
Human society was built around survival.
>Each human is individually intelligent.
Each human is only individually intelligent because of the knowledge he gains from others.
>colonies of organisms that were only intelligent together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UesdPi28VY
Reminds me of this.
>You are basing this generalization off your knowledge of exactly one intelligent species that evolved in the environment of one planet.
We see convergence of several species on earth and we see convergence in computer simulations.
>That would be a type of language.
And they might use that language to "write" laws, resembling ones humans might write.

>unrecognized assumptions about the form life and intelligence has to take
Negative. I am stating plainly that I believe in universal truths that every possible society would encounter and deal with in recognizable ways. I believe in convergence.

[Anonymous No.13139916]

>>13139889
>Human society was built around survival.
Then men would spend less time getting into violent conflict over the distribution of wives.

>Each human is only individually intelligent because of the knowledge he gains from others.
Fine. Crows invent shit individually. When I talk about intelligent life from now on assume I mean crows.

We see convergence of sexually reproducing species in the same environment sharing most of their sexual reproduction material.

>And they might use that language to "write" laws
And they might not.

>I believe in convergence.
Unfounded belief in the context of alien worlds.

[Anonymous No.13140031]

>>13139916
>Then men would spend less time getting into violent conflict over the distribution of wives.
The relationship of wives to survival is an obvious one.
>Fine. Crows invent shit individually.
They also learn from each other by observation.
>We see convergence of sexually reproducing species
That species sexually reproduce is itself an example of convergence.
>sharing most of their sexual reproduction material.
What?
>And they might not.
They may have a "linguistic" tradition or they may be intelligent enough to cooperate without laws.
>Unfounded belief in the context of alien worlds.
That's why I brought up computer simulation.

I don't actually know that "roaming teenagers" would be less likely to rape that guys cave wife in modern society and I am very biased in favor of technology but it seems obvious that such a gang would present a greater danger to isolated individuals than some organized community.

[Anonymous No.13140057]

>>13135391
>>13135438
>>13137237
>>13137239

Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.13140149]

>>13140031
>The relationship of wives to survival is an obvious one.
So you mean the survival of your genetic information in perpetuity. Via sex.

>They also learn from each other by observation.
And they also invent shit independently. Your argument how human intelligence could be considered "collective" if you want to define "individual intelligence" in a way unrelated to the contrary example I gave isn't actually important.

>may
>I'm going to argue that alien species probably have similar culture to us by pointing out it's not impossible they have similar culture to us

>That's why I brought up computer simulation.
I'm not even clear on what you're arguing.

You think genetic programming based on a paradigm similar to how evolution occurred on earth is evidence that alien worlds evolved the same way? Do you think we're running computer simulations of primordial ooze to see if life could have developed differently?

>I don't actually know that "roaming teenagers" would be less likely to rape that guys cave wife in modern society
I don't care that much. You're wrong about aliens.

[Anonymous No.13140287]

>>13140057
rude

[Anonymous No.13140860]

>>13134766
This. Modern conveniences are comfortable and that's cool and all but what's the point of it?

[Anonymous No.13140899]

>>13139486
Wow, it probably took a bachelor's degree and a few internships to come up with that one, right?

[Anonymous No.13141160]

>>13134670
>>13134670
>>13134670
REMINDER: Ted Kacz was an MKULTRA tool dosed with LSD to control his M.I.N.D.

[Anonymous No.13141170]

>>13137239
this

[Anonymous No.13141179]

>>13141160
riiight.

"nobody look at his arguments! look over here!! over here!! at his personality! look at his personality! no, no no, no, there's nothing to see over there in the arguments, keep your eyes on all this speculation and rumor about whether or not he was mentally damaged or not!!!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.13141183]

>>13134670
lol. That site and that text is such a joke. It's totally off point and totally straw manning.

[Anonymous No.13141195]

I imagine that Tedfags are incredibly fucking boring people to spend time with. Like, they either just work on menial tasks around the house all day or they get drunk at sports bars hardly saying a word. Maybe occasionally they play an instrument.

[Anonymous No.13141199]

>>13141179
You have to be a shill for the CIA to unironically believe Teddy Kazinskee was doing the right thing.

Next thing you'll tell me is that the glow frens are on our side, right?

[Anonymous No.13141225]

>>13141195
Boring people are human. "fun" and "interesting" people are NPCs. They are defined by their job titles, "hobbies and interests" or novel anecdotes, rather than the personal depth of their spiritual, emotional and mental character. Interesting people are shallow.

[Anonymous No.13141234]

>>13141225
this

[Anonymous No.13141235]

>>13134739
Because any person born adds up to this insane process of hyper reality that is harming the concept of human and his virtue

[Anonymous No.13141236]

>>13141199
you are actually so blue-pilled but you think you are red-pilled. It's kinda sad. there's a special word for you: purple-pilled!

[Anonymous No.13141244]

>>13141225
If I was a bitter as you I wouldn't do heroin. That's some good shit you got right there; cultivate it. Maybe your fantasy will come true eventually and you'll actually be content with the personality you were given.

[Anonymous No.13141249]

>>13134720
Yeah, bro, we have to go back to tribes and shit...*hits bong*...But we have to make super duper sure that no one discovers how to band together to form civilisation again!

[Anonymous No.13141251]

>>13141225
You didn't have to remind me of how warped Tedfags' thoughts about the world are, I'm fully aware