[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 220x156, ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13378396 No.13378396 [Reply] [Original]

>yfw you realize the One Ring in LotR represents not power, but technology
>everyone who says it's a tool and can be used for certain ends tries to wield it but they cannot and are instead corrupted by it
bravo tolkien

>> No.13378415

>>13378396
Ted just said what Tolkien could only allegorize.

>> No.13378421

>>13378396
unironically a cool concept, but has the technocratic elite been replaced at least once? how do you know that it corrupts, sweety? x

>> No.13378428

>>13378421
I think he means like technology in our lives. You know like how people are dependent on their smart phones and argue that it’s a very useful tool but also is a gigantic distraction

>> No.13378429

>technology
>literally how we commune with nature
>corrupting in any way
lol

>> No.13378436
File: 13 KB, 231x218, porn poetry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13378436

Do you feel that, that slight but definitely noticeable improvement in the quality of the board? I'll tell you what it is, and it'll blow your mind:
Butterfly hasn't posted anything today

>> No.13378450

>>13378421
>invent car for faster travel (faster travel is already a fetish for efficiency but disregard that)
>now you need gorillions of wagies to work on car production, maintenance, etc.
>have to build huge infrastructure so cars are more efficient
>entire cities and suburbs built around easier access for cars and harder access for people
cucked by a metal box on 4 wheels

>> No.13378453

>>13378421
>has the technocratic elite been replaced at least once? how do you know that it corrupts, sweety
I think Ted would say that it all feeds back into the same regulating, self-sustaining system of technology, so the elite doesn't need to be replaced in itself as it wouldn't make a difference. And technology itself is a corruption of the natural order and all that that corrupts everything because it needs to in order to sustain itself.

>> No.13378490

>>13378436
The mods did some temp bans on the all the christcuck posters. Probably the ones making the political threads too.
But no, I still don’t see much improvement. This thread for instance. It’s entirely your personal perspective. On your meds?
And I do work for a living, ya know.

>> No.13378501

>>13378450
Plus needing the technology and infrastructure to get resources to make and fuel the cars. Then, when everything is built to accommodate cars, it is impossible to get by without one.

>> No.13378513

>>13378501
Yep. I'd also say the invention of the clock is one of the worst technologies, if not the worst. The discovery of oil is up there too.

>> No.13378529

>>13378513
Oil and cars are pretty tied together, I still think cars and the related infrastructure are some of the worst inventions ever made that truly ruined everything. Plus I think everyone secretly hates them.

>> No.13378538

>>13378450
>>13378501
>>13378513
>implying the need for maintenance and social adjustment wasn't fully understood by the inventors and early adopters and the geniuses who ended up utilizing these new technologies to accomplish super-human achievements
>implying anyone of intelligence considers the risk and work involved in having to adjust several things outweighs the benefits of having cars and other more advanced technologies become more widespread in use
I'll bet you Tedfags think books are part of the ebil technology too, hence why you're obviously so fucking ill-read.

>> No.13378552

>>13378538
>>implying the need for maintenance and social adjustment wasn't fully understood by the inventors and early adopters and the geniuses who ended up utilizing these new technologies
Nobody implied that people, much less the inventors, didn't understand the need for maintenance and social adjustment. Maybe you should learn to fucking read. And cars have more setbacks than they do benefits.

>> No.13378571

>>13378552
>Nobody implied that people, much less the inventors, didn't understand the need for maintenance and social adjustment.
So then why act like nobody saw these outcomes, or that they are "biting us in the ass" so to speak, or that they are really problems at all (besides being part of the ongoing clean up process that is necessary in a civilization)?

>And cars have more setbacks than they do benefits.
Because you're a moron who doesn't even know what benefits they have.

>> No.13378586

>>13378571
>Because you're a moron who doesn't even know what benefits they have.
Oh, this will be good. Go on.

>> No.13378597

>>13378586
How about being able to get your pregnant wife to a facility that specializes in health care, full of professional health care providers (aka a hospital) in mere minutes for starters? Ignorant prick.

>> No.13378598

>>13378571
Everyone knows what benefits cars have, retard, the point remains that they have more setbacks overall than they do benefits.

As for the first bit, again, the inventors/adopters/promoters of cars and car-related infrastructure knew full well what they were doing, nobody could deny that and it wasn't denied itt, no idea why you keep trying to push that. As for the rest of the public, they are also aware of it but tend not to consciously think of it for the most part because 1) they have become a necessity and 2) most people don't think too deeply about most modern conveniences because of the convenience, cultural norm and aforementioned necessity to function. But even then, most people hate cars for the normal, obvious reasons (the amount of pollution and destruction necessary to create and maintain them, the stress, pollution, destruction, etc).

>> No.13378622

>>13378598
All the setbacks combined do not outweigh even a single benefit that is truly meaningful to you, like this one >>13378597 would be to a dedicated father and husband. And this goes for every single piece of technology out there. All the inventors, early adopters, and geniuses behind technologies agree with me. It is only when you are an idiot who doesn't have any use for the technologies that you see numerous setbacks that, according to you and your idiocy, outweigh those benefits.

>> No.13378634

>>13378622
>>13378597
I guess this ignores the possibility of that father or his wife or kid being killed or injured in a car accident, a statistically common event, or that they will inhale toxic chemicals from it and be forced to drive cars and pay to maintain the infrastructure for those cars that tend to benefit a small minority of people to the detriment of the planet and the masses of people on it.

>> No.13378650

>>13378634
>I guess this ignores the possibility of that father or his wife or kid being killed or injured in a car accident, a statistically common event
That event is not as common as the event of the baby or mother dying during childbirth used to be. And at any rate, the father who isn't retarded would never think, in a million years, that not having the car is preferable in that situation, simply because there is the chance that there could be a car accident.

>or that they will inhale toxic chemicals from it and be forced to drive cars and pay to maintain the infrastructure for those cars that tend to benefit a small minority of people to the detriment of the planet and the masses of people on it.
If all of this outweighs life itself to you, then you are a truly pointless person to talk to.

>> No.13378669

>>13378650
>Muh safety
Not an argument.

>> No.13378671

>>13378650
>Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
>An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
>More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
>Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
>Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.
If you want to find me statistics saying that more than 1.25 million women died from childbirth a year before the advent of cars go ahead, or that cars are necessary for survival of women and children. Women still die now in childbirth from easily preventable causes.

But tell me again how guaranteed environmental destruction that will affect someone's life (and obviously the lives of their children and descendants) is somehow "good" compared to the off chance that they need to rush to the hospital during child birth. Plus all the other associated ills with needing to build and maintain cars and the infrastructures they need.

>> No.13378772

>>13378671
I'm not very interested in getting into a numbers battle with you, because at the end of the day, numbers will not refute the sensible father's interest in having a car in that situation; someone with a goal can't be convinced that the technology that helps them achieve that goal is useless, as I said before. But:

>Going back to the 19th century and looking at countries that have the best health today we see that about 500 to 1,000 mothers died for every 100,000 births. Every 100th to 200th birth led to the mother’s death.
>Since women gave birth much more often than today the death of the mother was a tragic but not uncommon tragedy. This changed over the last century and today most rich countries have a maternal mortality ratio below 10 deaths per 100,000 births – the countries with the lowest maternal mortality reached a level of around 1% of the death rate in the 19th century. The countries that achieved the lowest maternal mortality ratio are Finland, Greece, Iceland, and Poland. For every 100,000 births, 3 mothers die.
>The global average fertility rate is just below 2.5 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved. And over the course of the modernization of societies the number of children per woman decreases very substantially. In the pre-modern era fertility rates of 4.5 to 7 children per woman were common. At that time the very high mortality at a young age kept population growth low.

So the rate of maternal death used to be 1 out of 100 mothers at its peak, during a time when women had about 80-180% more children in their lives, and now in civilized countries that have access to professional health care providers, it's down to 1 out of about 33,333 mothers. Quite a significant drop in maternal deaths every year.

>But tell me again how guaranteed environmental destruction that will affect someone's life (and obviously the lives of their children and descendants) is somehow "good" compared to the off chance that they need to rush to the hospital during child birth.
The "off chance"? No one in their right mind would not go to the hospital anymore, unless they couldn't. There are also plenty of ways to fix that environmental destruction, that don't involve eliminating cars from society, or the factories needed to manufacture them.

>> No.13378804

>>13378772
A "sensible" father should then be far more worried about the statistical likelihood of a car accident or the guarantee of environmental damage and negative lifestyle effects that cars will definitely have upon his children.

As per childbirth, again the numbers don't add up. Cars injure far more people than women dying of childbirth, and many deaths of childbirth weren't due to lack of cars, they were due to bad healthcare and issues of nutrition and sanitation and the like. Even ignoring all of those with proper care and nutrition a woman could easily give birth at home, at a birth center or at a hospital without the need to rush to the hospital (recall that a normal labor takes hours, ample time to get to a hospital if that is even necessary without a car). To suggest that a car is absolutely necessary to a family's life and well being simply goes against the very obvious, objective reality that cars and their related infrastructure are worse for them than better.