/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13724263]

Everyone knows he's right.

Even if they don't agree with his methods, everyone can admit on some level he was right. So why does no one listen? I think it has everything to do with comfort. The body's basic needs. Food, water, sex, socialising, warmth, shelter. Even the lowest of the low possess these in society. Their brain tells them "this isn't right" but their body is drunk with comfort and says "fuck off faggot, I can't be arsed with you right now". It's something like that but I can't pinpoint it better, anyone else wanna have a crack at it? At why you think nobody follows in his footsteps despite agreeing he's right?

[Anonymous No.13724290]

>>13724263
It is partially comfort. As long as 1st worlders can stuff their faces and watch TV, they really won't care about much at all. On top of that, there isn't a whole long one can do in this day and age of misinformation and propaganda.

[Anonymous No.13724305]

>>13724290
Well that's the thing. Unless you go looking for it, everyone just assumes society is the only option you have. So it's not unreasonable for people to think there's no alternative when its in the best interest of society to insist it's the only way of life there is. And depending where you live it's often true, I live in the UK and 70% of the land here is either farmland or built on. The remaining 30% is mostly mountainous inhospitable northern areas and the occasional small, highly maintained forest. The closest place to me that could be described as "wild" is 2 hours drive away and it's not even an unmanaged wood.

But there are places even now you can escape to, it's possible, just incredibly hard to get yourself to give up the comfort your body is happy with but that you know is wrong.

[Anonymous No.13724307]

>>13724263
Robin Hanson debunked his retarded collapse theory.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/01/kaczynskis-collapse-theory.html

[Anonymous No.13724310]

>>13724307
RENT FREE

[Anonymous No.13724323]

>>13724307
hurrr debunked

[Anonymous No.13724344]

>>13724263
Because there are thousands similar or slightly different theories and million of faggots proclaiming them as being "right" or "the right one" or "the answer" that it became difficult to take any of it seriously.

Today it's Ted, tomorrow you'll stumble upon another author that allows you to mark other people as blind and distance yourself from them.

[Anonymous No.13724469]

>>13724263
Actually Teds analysis of state of affairs is juvenile and one dimensional. You´d be more wise to read Douglas Rushkoff than to listen Ted.

[Anonymous No.13724471]

>>13724263
>So why does no one listen?
Because he really wasn't right. His understanding of the culture around him was an outsider's, which is why he came to label its principles and goals as superficial.

[Anonymous No.13724493]

>>13724263
He was just another entitled straight white dude throwing another stupid tantrum that got people kill. White men are the number one terror threat in america

[Anonymous No.13724503]

>>13724469
>Actually Teds analysis of state of affairs is juvenile and one dimensional
Why? What did he miss?

[Anonymous No.13724508]

>>13724263
Too hard to do. Like a fat person who wont stop eating. Even after a heart attack.

[Anonymous No.13724771]

>>13724503
the fact that not everybody is an autist like him

[Anonymous No.13724789]

>>13724493
Insightful thought, dude. We all know naggers and dindus are the most peaceful people in America and never, like, gang-bang shoot people or anything!

[Anonymous No.13724856]

>>13724493
>terrorism bad

[Anonymous No.13725043]

>>13724263
I have read everything Ted has written and I have even sent him a letter in prison. I agree that he is completely right about (nearly) everything he wrote about.
I think the main problem is that, like you say, there are many "protective" factors which prevent people from rising up. Family, friends, modern comforts, tragedy-of-the-commons thinking, ambition, etc. You really could go on. In essence, we currently have it too good. Perhaps obsessed intellectual autistics like Ted might be willing to give up their life for what is an accurate analysis of the world, but your average man? They are not concerned with such abstract ideas.
The time is not right for a revolution. When automation kicks in, then the common man will really see technology for what it is. We must wait until at least then.

[Anonymous No.13725064]

>>13724263
>So why does no one listen?
too late

[Anonymous No.13725092]

>>13725043
How many lists do you end up on if you write a letter to uncle ted?

[Anonymous No.13725096]

>>13725092
None. I am using an anonymous mail forwarding service and a pseudonym.

[Anonymous No.13725113]

>>13724263
He was partially right. Wrong use of technology is the problem, not technology in itself: that's just a tool and tools cannot be good or evil

[Anonymous No.13725156]

>>13725113
He actually says this himself - he doesn't believe it is bad in and of itself

[Anonymous No.13725733]

I went camping for the first time last weekend and I don't feel any different.

How long does it take for your brain to readjust to nature after 2 decades of being a technoindustrial comfort slave?

[Anonymous No.13725745]

>>13725733
camping were? in a city park? you have to go to an old forest, where there are animals and danger, maybe move near the forest even.

[Anonymous No.13725753]

>>13725745
It was a forest but it was only small and close to a large town, you couldn't go more than 20 minutes in any direction without hitting a road or footpath.

[Anonymous No.13726633]

>>13725096
Has he ever written back?

>>13725753
Did you live off the land?

[Anonymous No.13726666]

>>13724263
>Everyone knows he's right.
>uses internet
>vaccined
>uses industrial goods 24/7
>doesn't die of bacterial infection
>doesn't pillage your neighbohour village
>isn't a slave

[Anonymous No.13726766]

>>13725156
he literally said that as long tech exists suffering will always entail, we have to get rid of it and roleplay shounen in the woods

[Anonymous No.13726857]

>>13726766
To be fair though, he also said some elements of tech are "good" or nice to have around (like healthcare) but that since all technology is interconnected, you can't remove the bad from the good, so that overall, technology can't be "saved" only gotten rid of.

[Anonymous No.13726885]

he's just holden caulfield all grown up with a theoretical mathematics degree and a bigger personality disorder. The unaspammer needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.13726913]

>>13726885
Having a thread every so often isn't spamming. Also he's nothing like Holden, you must have never read either Catcher or any of Ted's writings.

[Anonymous No.13726918]

>>13726666
>Humans always lived in villages/civilisation was always a thing
Fucking read a book retard

[Anonymous No.13726979]

>>13726913
There are three ted threads at all times on here. His analysis is juvenile and for all of its scientific pretension is based entirely on an appeal to pathos. No evidence, no test cases for this theories, no method, because he was entirely mad- which should be evident from his actions.

[Anonymous No.13726991]

>>13726979
>NO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO JUST SPIT HOT TRUTHS YOU HAVE TO WASTE TIME PROVING IT TO SIMPLETONS WHO CAN'T PUT 2 + 2 TOGETHER REEEEEEEE THE ACADEMIC SYSTEM DEMANDS YOU ABIDE BY THEIR CODE REEEEEE YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THINGS REEEE

[Anonymous No.13727026]

>>13726979
There's only one up now.

[Anonymous No.13727072]

someone explain to me this: if he argues that primitive man lived more satisfying lives than modern-era man, why didn't humanity stick to primitive-era ways of living?

[Anonymous No.13727086]

>>13727072
>why didn't humanity stick to primitive-era ways of living?
No one knows for sure but there's theories like:

>Hunter gatherers get rekt by a massive flood or similar disaster
>Starving, attack another tribe for their food
>Attack a lot of tribes and get a LOT of food
>Now you have tons of food and cool shit and the other tribes want it
>Build yourself a fort to defend, put your tribe to work farming and in return you protect them from the other tribes who want your shit
>All the remaining hunter gatherers are forced to either adopt this new way of life or get rekt
>Nobody really wants to be doing this but situation demands it
>Everything goes back to normal but now people have forgotten any other way of life
>They just do what their parents did, continue the farming society

And on and on until you reach where we are today and if you go up to a random Londoner and say "walk into that wood over there and come back with an edible salad and a rabbit" they'll look at you like you asked them to build a spaceship. It's seriously fucked up that most of humanity would just fucking die if left to find their own food because society is all they've ever known. And it's clearly not a way of life anyone wants. Look at suicide rates, depression rates, unhappiness rates. They're all highest in FIRST world countries.

[Anonymous No.13727088]

>>13727072
>why didn't humanity stick to primitive-era ways of living?
No one knows for sure but there's theories like:

>Hunter gatherers get rekt by a massive flood or similar disaster
>Starving, attack another tribe for their food
>Attack a lot of tribes and get a LOT of food
>Now you have tons of food and cool shit and the other tribes want it
>Build yourself a fort to defend, put your tribe to work farming and in return you protect them from the other tribes who want your shit
>All the remaining hunter gatherers are forced to either adopt this new way of life or get rekt
>Nobody really wants to be doing this but situation demands it
>Everything goes back to normal but now people have forgotten any other way of life
>They just do what their parents did, continue the farming society

And on and on until you reach where we are today and if you go up to a random Londoner and say "walk into that wood over there and come back with an edible salad and a rabbit" they'll look at you like you asked them to build a spaceship. It's seriously fucked up that most of humanity would just fucking die if left to find their own food because society is all they've ever known. And it's clearly not a way of life anyone wants. Look at suicide rates, depression rates, unhappiness rates. They're all highest in FIRST world countries.

[Anonymous No.13727089]

>>13727072
He seems to take issue more with the industrial revolution and the advance of technology that happens afterwards. He seemed to personally like primitive/hunter-gatherer type lifestyles, but I don't necessarily think he was saying that's what everyone wanted or was necessarily the ideal, for example he also speaks positive of smaller villages/towns.

[Anonymous No.13727095]

>>13724263
>>13724263
He isn't right. The problem with his theory is that it's impossible to go back. Civilized man out competed tribal man because cities and industry are vastly more productive than tribal societies. If anywhere in the world ever attempted to revert to a tribal lifestyle their land would immediately be conquered by the nearest civilized state. Technology and civilization are here to stay and any suggestion we can go back is wishful thinking. Better to face it for what it is instead of wishing for the impossible.

[Anonymous No.13727101]

>>13727095
>conquered by the nearest civilized state
Which is why he says that it has to happen globally and that all references to technology must be destroyed. Also wishful thinking, to put it mildly.

There is the possibility that access to technology will die out so that the average person has little to no access to it and slowly reverts back to more primitive lifestyles (endless scenarios really), sort of how medieval peasants were living near the ruins of Rome and the aqueducts fell into disrepair. So essentially a slow decay caused by some outside force(s) disrupting societies and civilizations might happen.

[Anonymous No.13727121]

>>13727095
"Making the best of it" isn't possible on civilisation though. It will always be shit.

I'd rather do what he did and live a few great years in the wild then set fire to everything in civilisation I can get away with. Everybody thinks his grand plan was to bomb key figures to topple society, but he was just acting out in inconsolable rage at that point of his life. He finally finds sanctuary and civilisation creeps back in, putting a road slap bang through the middle of a beautiful piece of land untouched for tens of thousands of years.

[Anonymous No.13727125]

>>13727101
what prevents people from inventing technology again exactly?

[Anonymous No.13727131]

>>13727095
The problem with his theory is that techno-capitalism is 100% a natural occurrence and evolution from the very kind of primitive society that he glorified. If his theory was worth anything, he wouldn't have to come up with asinine rationalizations to try and mask this fact. As far as technology is concerned, it's all or none—you can't have fire without eventually the computer. And even further than this, as far as civilization is concerned, it's also all or none—you can't have the concept of family at all without also the eventual emergence of capitalism or government control.

[Anonymous No.13727134]

>>13727125
Do you mean as per Kaczynski or as per the slow decay thing? I don't know if he has an answer for that, but he didn't quite seem to in his manifesto (he has another book out, maybe someone who has read it can answer?). For the second part it might, though part of a lot of the "slow decay" ideas floating around out there is that the environment will be fucked so either it'll never happen and humans go extinct or it'll take thousands of years to show up again.

[Anonymous No.13727358]

>I want to fuck up all progress we have made to escape entropy and degenerate into a lower state of existing

What a fucking joke, absolute loser. Accept the reality that our purpose is to give birth to more advanced lifeforms, that will eventually create omniscience. Omniscience that allows you to exist, completely bad in all variations of /you/ as a mere thought. That is absolute victory against the universe.