Has this ever been refuted?

[Anonymous No.15561272]

>There is an attractive notion which would apparently resolve all technical problems: that it is not the technique that is wrong, but they use men make of it. Consequently, if the use is changed, there will no longer be any objection to the technique…
>Here is one of the elements of weakness of this point of view. It does not perceive technique’s rigorous autonomy with respect to morals; it does not see that the infusion of some more or less vague sentiment of human welfare cannot alter it. Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians.
>This attitude supposes further that technique evolves with some end in view and that this end is human good. Technique is totally irrelevant to this notion and pursues no end, professed or unprofessed. It evolves in a purely causal way: the combination of preceding elements furnishes the new technical elements. There is no purpose or plan that is being progressively realized. There is not even a tendency toward human ends. We are dealing with a phenomenon blind to the future, in a domain of integral causality. Hence, to pose arbitrarily some goal or other, to propose a direction for technique, is to deny technique and divest of its character and its strength.”

Has this ever been refuted?

[Anonymous No.15561294]

No because Ted is correct.

[Anonymous No.15561308]

>>15561272
>repeat ideas made by philosophers for hundred years.
How did he do it bros?

[Anonymous No.15561338]

>>15561308
So you agree then?

[Anonymous No.15561346]

>>15561338
With what?

[Anonymous No.15561352]

Hegel retroactively refuted him

[Anonymous No.15561360]

>>15561352

[Anonymous No.15561362]

No, but does it matter? So a gun is still a gun regardless of who uses it and who is shot with it. The "technical problem" with the gun only exists for the person who was shot, while the gun wielder has no problem with the gun, because it helped him achieve his goal. The gun was invented precisely for shooting things, or intimidating things, and that is what it is used for.

Whenever I see Ted quotes I always think that he is too focused on technology and not enough on people. He conflates problems between people with problems of technology. Further, he seems to treat technology as having its own autonomy, as if that makes sense. We imbue a thing with the energy called "technology" by utilization. To me, it seems like Ted saw no way of competing with others, so he chose to use dialectic as his chief tactic of persuasion. This is always a mistake though, because dialectic is always founded in some kind of idealism, which is always mendacious to some degree.

[Anonymous No.15561377]

>>15561272
>>15561294
I read the first four chapters and wow. Ted really hit it accurately. Gonna keep reading tomorrow but it's pretty late for me.

[Anonymous No.15561381]

>>15561272
So he's positing that the end doesn't justify the means form a Luddite perspective. Snore.
> It evolves in a purely causal way: the combination of preceding elements furnishes the new technical elements.
As Stuart Kauffman says: the universe is non-ergodic above the atomic level. Possibilities are not infinite but indefinite.
From my glancing at Ted's manifesto it seems to me that the entire thing falls into that murky domain of wicked problems. It's a lot like the Lucas Critique, you can't quantify the negative effects of intervention, but you can't quantify the positive effects either.
You can probably attack it the way Popper attacks Marxism - "how do you falsify it? You can't. Theory rejected."

[Anonymous No.15561524]

>>15561362
>Whenever I see Ted quotes I always think that he is too focused on technology and not enough on people. He conflates problems between people with problems of technology. Further, he seems to treat technology as having its own autonomy, as if that makes sense.
Technology, as he uses the term, doesn't refer strictly to machines but rather to systems of human organization, of which machines are a part (in Technological Slavery, I forget where, he mentions something along the lines of how agriculture itself is encompassed in the term 'technology,' which is not restricted simply to plows, canals, etc., to give just one example). So saying "we imbue a thing with the energy called 'technology' by utilization" misses the point, as the utilization you refer to is itself the object of Ted's analysis. The point here is that the sociological phenomenon referred to by technology/technique evolves irrespective of any human ends. As for your comment "he seems to treat technology as having its own autonomy, as if that makes sense," I will respond to this post with a relevant passage of ISAIF.

[Anonymous No.15561530]

>>15561524
SS. 127 of ISAIF:
>A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace; one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

[Anonymous No.15561584]

>>15561362
>The technical problem with the gun only exists for the person who was shot, while the gun wielder has no problem with the gun
So? He has no problem in this singular situation. He can still end up on the other side of a gun, and, depending on his location and lifestyle, that may be a source of anxiety for him.

[Anonymous No.15561602]

>>15561272
>character
Anthropomorphizing.

>>15561381
>"how do you falsify it? You can't. Theory rejected."
Suppose there's a million ways of falsifying a theory, and all have been exhausted. Then the theory can no longer be falsified. Does Popper reject it?

[Anonymous No.15561642]

>>15561602
>Suppose there's a million ways of falsifying a theory, and all have been exhausted.
What are you on about: Let's start off with ONE way you could falsify Ted's Theory? That's enough.

[Anonymous No.15561651]

>>15561308
This. Why is Ted such a big deal when he's not saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times already? Is it just because he blew some people up?

[Anonymous No.15561659]

>>15561602
>Anthropomorphizing
It's ironic that your single takeaway/criticism of a passage entirely concerned with asserting the essentially non-human character of technological evolution is that it is guilty of anthropomorphizing said evolution.

[Anonymous No.15561667]

>>15561651
>Is it just because he blew some people up?
Bingo! he has edgelord appeal that other 'thinkers' who spent their lives behind desks don't have.
It's branding. The whole mountain man thing also increases his appeal to a certain demographic.

[Anonymous No.15561671]

>>15561651
Because we have a schizo spamming threads about him 3-4 times daily

[Anonymous No.15561675]

>>15561308
>>15561651
This is actually a quotation of Ellul. I'm not sure why Ted's picture is there, although I imagine he agrees with everything written. I don't believe any of his writings refer to "technique," which is Ellul's term, taken from the French.

[Anonymous No.15561774]

>>15561675
Ted haters showing once again that it doesn't matter what words are attributed to Ted, they will hate them nonetheless because they're biased dumbfucks.

[Anonymous No.15561780]

>>15561272
Ted is weirdly oblivious to how development is conditioned by natural limits, and to how its patterns change as they're approached, depending on what's growing and the surroundings it's in. It's like asserting, no matter how contrary to evidence it is, that trees cannot attain any height because they can't grow upward forever and infinitely, and that because of that it must be the case that we're only imagining the shade, the fruits, the wood emerging from all that cellular technique (if you will) that its genes deploy. They say psychopaths don't do metaphor, but it gets better: Their diction is too cramped for the characters in it--characterizing generally. Can he even describe a pineapple?

[Anonymous No.15561826]

>>15561659
No, it's ironic that your criticism of my point relies on the presupposition that human = good, when Ted admits that this certainly isn't the case. Ultimately Ted isn't for humans, he's against them along with their technology, which is why he has no problem anthropomorphizing it.

[Anonymous No.15561913]

>>15561362
Careful bro. The autism of the Kaczynskiites knows no bounds. I would wager that it is transmissible.

[Anonymous No.15561931]

>>15561826
I neither said nor believe that "human = good" (at least not unequivocally), and I further fail to see how my criticism's soundness depends on such a notion. Also, see >>15561675 as this isn't even Ted's writing (which is, by the way, irrelevant, supposing we intend to discuss the text's content and not merely, through "argument," identify ourselves as pro or contra this or that personality).

[Anonymous No.15561942]

Woof Woof.

[Anonymous No.15561956]

[Anonymous No.15561961]

>>15561780
>can he even describe a pineapple?
Can you write a coherent metaphor?

[Anonymous No.15561988]

>>15561272
>Has this ever been refuted?
If it has, you won't hear about it here. The anti-ted camp mostly seems to be incapable of constructing any arguments beyond the most basic ad-hominems:
>>15561651
>>15561667
>>15561942
>>15561956
Are you all really such imbeciles that you can't see that personal attacks do not meaningfully interact with the ideas contained in the text?

[Anonymous No.15561998]

>>15561272
As if there are human ends or for that matter these ends concern the unique in the slightest

[Anonymous No.15562046]

technology inevitable!
people bad!
no purpose!
It's all rubbish, circling around simple concepts and going nowhere, exactly as you'd expect from a malcontent

if you choose to ignore a Holy God that is the purpose and maintainer of all things, you'd better saddle up, because there are a lot of unpleasant experiences

[Anonymous No.15562163]

>>15561642
If ONE method of falsification fails to falsify a theory, then the theory is not falsifiable, unless a SECOND method of falsifying it is contrived, and so on.

[Anonymous No.15562168]

>>15561988
>Are you all really such imbeciles that you can't see that personal attacks do not meaningfully interact with the ideas contained in the text?
That's hilariously hypocritical. And yes, obviously you can hate an audience but love the author, and you are a perfect example of why one should hate ted's audience. And you do him a disservice and stop people being open to his ideas by having a skin so thin that I can see your spleen.

[Anonymous No.15562215]

>>15562163
I think you're confused, Popper's idea of falsification says that a theory should be rejected if there is no clear conditions where it might be falsified. That might is key.
For example, if I say "All leprechauns have green hats" it's a shit theory because there's no way to prove it false. Show me a leprechaun, oh you can't? Then how can you prove it false? Theory rejected.
However, something like Newton's Second Law of Motion is a good theory because it makes an unambiguous prediction about the force of an object. That means it's falsifiable. You can do the equations, and it proved time and time again to make accurate predictions and was never inaccurate except for quantum phenomena. It was falsified, but it's a good theory because we can make predictions with it and we can check the accuracy of those predictions.
I think it was Popper himself who said, but it might have been Einstein
>a thousand positive experiments can't prove me right, but one negative experiment can prove me wrong.
This should not be mistaken for saying that theories are useless, as George Box said
>all models are wrong, but some are useful
What Popper's criteria for theories does is give us a very clear means to evaluating whether we should even bother with a theory. Even a crackpot theory like
>if Israelites and Palestinians had more zinc in their diet, there would be less deaths by militia in the region
fulfills Popper's criteria because provided we have trust worthy data on diet and death, we can in fact try to falsify it. And if it isn't falsified, well then, we've learned something we thought was crazy, which is obviously a net plus for science.
Now, how would we go about falsifying Ted's theories? What unambiguous predictions does he make that we can test the accuracy of?

[Anonymous No.15562245]

>>15562168
How is it hypocritical? If you're implying that my calling them imbeciles constituted an ad-hominem attack, then you're right in the very loosest sense of the word. However I have no issue with ad-hominem arguments as such, except when they are formal fallacies, i.e. of the form "X has Y personal quality, and X made Z argument, therefore Z is wrong." (a pertinent example: "Kaczynski raped dogs, therefore ISAIF is bullshit"). But unlike other posters in this thread, I did not make an argument of this form, rather embedding the personal attack in my conclusion: "anon used the formal ad hominem fallacy, therefore anon is an imbecile." Again, this may loosely be described as an ad-hominem, but not as the formal fallacy of the same name, which is what I attribute imbecility to. So I fail to see any hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.15562258]

>>15562046
good summary but how is god the answer when all the technological levers of power are held by people who dont believe in god?

are you going to convert them? outcompete them? use it as a personal coping mechanism?

>>15561272
It's not technology's fault. Technology is made by humans to satisfy human will in a competitive environment.
>technique’s rigorous autonomy with respect to morals
in the same way powerful people have autonomy wrt morals

mailing bombs, or even his dream of a full technological reset isnt going to solve the coordination problem of people's pursuit of technology, just set back the clock

[Anonymous No.15562264]

>>15562168
>And yes, obviously you can hate an audience but love the author
His point was that neither the audience nor the author are relevant, and that it is the text, and the ideas contained therein, which stands alone.

[Anonymous No.15562268]

>>15561961
Growth of tree, growth of civilization. It's not that fucking difficult, psycho.

[Anonymous No.15562285]

>>15562264
But my point was about his audience. Should I now make my point about spotty socks as a fashion statement? is that how we're going now?

[Anonymous No.15562296]

>>15562215
Kaczynski's ramblings work on the basis of confirmation bias so do not really expect coherent responses.

Also,
>Popper
Now that's a name I haven't read in a long time, you probably should read Putnam.

[Anonymous No.15562798]

>>15561942
>>15561956
Keep seething, glowies, your time is coming

[Anonymous No.15562858]

>>15561530
Jesus christ, this passage pretty much asserts what I said before. He focuses way too much on technology and not enough on people. Does he not realize the true reason why cars became a necessity in that situation? Because of people! Not because of cars! People, who loved using cars, kept using them, to the point that they restructured society to accommodate what they were good for. Additionally, there are more people living on the planet now than before, with more immigrating to first world countries every year, because of garbage foreign policies and globalist greed. Meanwhile, municipalities are corrupt, and they pocket funds rather than use them to fix issues like potholes and broken signs. People, in turn, are the cause for all this mayhem, not cars.

Further, people are not equal, as he almost seems to suggest here. Those with the wealth and knowledge know better than to remain in one place for long, and they hardly have an issue with moving from place to place, because changing your environment frequently is refreshing and invigorating, and good for the body and mind. And they certainly know better than to live in congested areas for a long time. So they own multiple houses, and they plan ahead for this lifestyle, because they are smart, and better than those around them, who squander their savings on trivial shit and in poor investments, and get stuck living in a shithole that becomes more congested over time, where this issue of technological necessity that he mentions flourishes. All this, combined, suggests a very different picture that Ted portrays there: that technology is never a problem, except where the weak are concerned; people are not equal, and all perceived necessities stem from those who have been enslaved, to their awareness or not, by superior wills.

Which brings me back to my initial conclusion about Ted. Doesn't he deliberately focus on technology rather than people too often? Is dialectic not a famous tactic of the weak?

[Anonymous No.15562886]

>>15562858
You're putting the conclusion of your reasoning in the premise, i.e. your reasoning makes no sense

[Anonymous No.15562936]

>>15562886
You're looking for a kind of reasoning that doesn't exist for such a problem. This is what the Popper poster meant. Ted's theory, and the problem itself, cannot have such reasoning. The only conclusions that can be drawn are going to "make no sense" if you yourself don't share the sense behind the views.

So I see Ted's conclusions and they make no sense to me. Ted and his readers see my conclusions and they make no sense to them. This is the issue with these problems and theories being outlined, and again, Ted and his readers seem to ignore the differences between people and instead prefer to focus on dialectic. On "technology" and "reasoning" and so on. And it is only your ego that will prevent you/them from seeing otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15563444]

>>15562858
(1/2)
>He focuses way too much on technology and not enough on people. Does he not realize the true reason why cars became a necessity in that situation? Because of people! Not because of cars! People, who loved using cars, kept using them,
As if this were merely a matter of consent, and not competition? And what of nuclearization, I take it we could just safely dispose of our bombs and still hold the same place in society?

Look, on the subject of cars, let's take Braess's paradox. You have two parallel roadways; one of which is quick for the first half but then slow, windy, and the other instead being the reverse; slow where the first was fast, fast where the first was slow. Suppose we join these roads by making a path connecting them by the points at which their qualities change. Now the fastest way to ride across is to take the fast half of one road, the new shortcut, and then the fast half of the next road. Except, you now have huge amounts of your original road going unused, and thus an increase in vehicle density along the new ideal path, enough to make this path actually take MORE time than your original route. But, even your original route is now also more clogged, making it currently slower than the added shortcut and in turn forcing you to partake in the very road that is making your ride longer, lest it be even worse.

This is something which actually happens and is not so much a matter of bad human decision makers so much as how force travels. Suppose instead of cars traveling over roads we have a weight hanging from two paths. One path is 50% spring followed by 50% string, the other the reverse, like the roads. If we tie these paths together at their midpoints, the string is simply slack while 100% of the tension is in the two springs--but untie them, and by virtue of more tension being in the string, less will be in the springs, such that the weight actually rises in elevation. What you call facts of man-made technology are often just facts of physics.

[Anonymous No.15563450]

>>15562858
>>15563444
(2/2)
Soon one of these "roads" we add is going to be a bomb that kills us all, a grey goo scenario, or some other manner of apocalypse intended to make our lives easier. I mean we've had multiple test runs of the goo scenario this year. Fake news for example. I can lie about as fast as I can read/type, but the amount of time it takes you to prove a lie false is at least that amount of time plus more. It is quite simply, and always, "more." And boom, you have a dishonest political system in which the candidate who is elected may well be just the one who tweets as rapidly as possible. A lie is a quick problem to make, but a painstaking one to solve. Incidentally we also have a pandemic spreading over the venues of technology, a problem spreading like wildfire over the pacific ocean while a vaccine is yet to be made, let alone distributed. See the pattern? And recently BLM activists had unwittingly drowned out their own hashtag by posting empty black screens with it; people had to send out messages telling everyone not to not use the hashtag with the screen. And not only that, but they even learned from the mistake and used it as a trick to drown out white hashtags by spamming Kpop on them. Literal gibber jabber is our top political weapon. But how long until this black screen is permanent? How long until the whole world is indoors? And when incurable grey replicator comes to visit me? And what will I do? Turn it away like two Mormons? How ironic. But no, I imagine death looks a bit more like a Rick Astley song I know, on loop. "Never going to give you up, never going to let you down, never going to run a round and desert you."

[Anonymous No.15563518]

>>15562858
>>15563450
(2/2)
Soon one of these "roads" we add is going to be a bomb that kills us all, a grey goo scenario, or some other manner of apocalypse intended to make our lives easier. I mean we've had multiple test runs of the goo scenario this year. Fake news for example. I can lie about as fast as I can read/type, but the amount of time it takes you to prove a lie false is at least that amount of time plus more. It is quite simply, and always, "more." And boom, you have a dishonest political system in which the candidate who is elected may well be just the one who tweets as rapidly as possible. A lie is a quick problem to make, but a painstaking one to solve. Incidentally we also have a pandemic spreading over the venues of technology, a problem spreading like wildfire over the pacific ocean while a vaccine is yet to be made, let alone distributed. See the pattern? And recently BLM activists had unwittingly drowned out their own hashtag by posting empty black screens with it; people had to send out messages telling everyone not to not use the hashtag with the screen. And not only that, but they even learned from the mistake and used it as a trick to drown out white hashtags by spamming Kpop on them. Literal gibber jabber is our top political weapon. But how long until this black screen is permanent? How long until the whole world is indoors? And when the incurable grey replicator comes to visit me? And what will I do? Turn it away like two Mormons? How ironic. But no, I imagine death looks a bit more like a Rick Astley song I know, on loop. "Never going to give you up, never going to let you down, never going to run a round and desert you."

[Anonymous No.15564356]

>>15563444
>As if this were merely a matter of consent, and not competition?
You should have kept reading my post before writing a response, because I addressed this. Those who desire the technology as a means towards a personal end consent to it, while the rest don't. The ones that don't sometimes get outvoted and lose, because they're outgunned, and they're outgunned because they didn't embrace yesterday's technology either.

Now, you and Ted seem to think that everyone has been embracing technology since the dawn of time simply out of mistrust of others, but that's only because you and Ted are part of that losing crowd. You don't share the feelings of those at the top. Those at the top, the ones who embraced technology as soon as it came out, feel pretty fucking good about their decisions, which have landed them in an advantageous position. When someone has the advantage, they aren't so neurotic as to be motivated solely by something like a mistrust of others; that's for the losers to do! The winners have no reason to feel like that, because they don't feel that others as a threat. So what do they do at that point? They start to sate whatever other desires they have. This is called freedom, and there has been an invisible class of free spirits like this for millennia, and they are the ones who have been creating and embracing all the technology, and not once have they ever operated off of this base fear that Ted or you projects into them, for lack of an understanding of what it's like to be them.

[Anonymous No.15564381]

Anything he has said has been said better by people like Heidegger and all those Marxists he ripped off and also without the edgy killing people thinking it would spark some kind of revolution

[Anonymous No.15564399]

why are zoomers comparing heidegger to fake unabomber quotes

[Anonymous No.15564403]

>>15564381
>edgy killing people thinking
But that's a staple of Marx and all his derivatives.

[Anonymous No.15564416]

>>15564356
>You should have kept reading my post before writing a response, because I addressed this.
>Now, you and Ted seem to think that everyone has been embracing technology since the dawn of time simply out of mistrust of others
You should have kept reading MY post before replying because that is essentially the ONLY thing I was addressing you fucking complete loser retard.

[Anonymous No.15564431]

>>15564403
They weren't personally terrorists unlike him. You could blame Jesus for his followers killing people, doesn't mean they did themselves

[Anonymous No.15564464]

>>15564416
I did read your posts. The problems eventually caused by technology are:

1. Still not a matter related to the technology itself, because they are caused by people, and

2. Not problems for anyone other than the weak, which I already explained in my original post.

I keep bringing us back to people because that is really what matters.

[Anonymous No.15564488]

>>15564464
>because they are caused by people
They are caused simply by how physics works. I proved this. The weak man is the fool enslaved by entropy.

[Anonymous No.15564503]

>>15564488
That's a shortsighted take because no one would be building roads and using cars if there weren't people who cared to do these things in the first place. It comes back to people and their desires.

[Anonymous No.15564515]

>>15564503
People kill themselves. It is nothing new.

[Anonymous No.15564581]

>>15564515
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

[Anonymous No.15564584]

>>15561956
rape victim dogs?

[Anonymous No.15564587]

>>15564581
That it all comes back to people and their desires. Your life is a convoluted suicide.

[Anonymous No.15564627]

>>15564587
>life is pointless bruh
Alright.

[Anonymous No.15564647]

>>15564627
No, that was a personal accusation.

[Anonymous No.15564694]

>>15564647
It seemed more like an attempt to derail the conversation. People who embrace technology first, achieve their goals, and live satisfied, are killing themselves? If that's your view, so be it, but it makes no difference.

[Anonymous No.15564706]

>>15564694
My view is that you're a quarter-wit playing in Rube Goldberg's suicide booth.

[Anonymous No.15564739]

>>15564706
And my view is that you're an angry autist, just like Ted.

[Anonymous No.15564744]

>>15561651
>He's not correct but he's not original.
Get a load of zoomers. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15565162]

>>15561352
if you're going to say some shit please back it up. We aren't all brainiacs like you.

[Anonymous No.15565659]

>>15565162
"If we consider the appearance of a claim like this in its more general setting, and look at the level which the self-conscious mind at present occupies, we shall find that self-consciousness has got beyond the substantial fullness of life, which it used to carry on in the element of thought – beyond the state of immediacy of belief, beyond the satisfaction and security arising from the assurance which consciousness possessed of being reconciled with ultimate reality and with its all-pervading presence, within as well as without. Self-conscious mind has not merely passed beyond that to the opposite extreme of insubstantial reflection of self into self, but beyond this too. It has not merely lost its essential and concrete life, it is also conscious of this loss and of the transitory finitude characteristic of its content. Turning away from the husks it has to feed on, and confessing that it lies in wickedness and sin, it reviles itself for so doing, and now desires from philosophy not so much to bring it to a knowledge of what it is, as to obtain once again through philosophy the restoration of that sense of solidity and substantiality of existence it has lost. Philosophy is thus expected not so much to meet this want by opening up the compact solidity of substantial existence, and bringing this to the light and level of self-consciousness is not so much to bring chaotic conscious life back to the orderly ways of thought, and the simplicity of the notion, as to run together what thought has divided asunder suppress the notion with its distinctions, and restore the feeling of existence. What it wants from philosophy is not so much insight as edification. The beautiful, the holy, the eternal, religion, love – these are the bait required to awaken the desire to bite: not the notion, but ecstasy, not the march of cold necessity in the subject-matter, but ferment and enthusiasm – these are to be the ways by which the wealth of the concrete substance is to be stored and increasingly extended."

[Anonymous No.15566746]

>>15564464
>>15562858
>Still not a matter related to the technology itself, because they are caused by people

If Ted focuses too much on technology, you focus too much on people. Technology changes people and while people are programmed to behave within parameters defined by biology, technology has the effect of altering those limits in unpredictable ways. The introduction of writing/reading, for example, changed the way people understood themselves and reality. Come present day, we see the same thing with the introduction of smartphones and the internet. The most obvious is the effect is that people's attention spans have been decreasing due to their use, the less obvious is what will something that small have upon the interactions people have with each other, the media they create, their culture, and so on. The relationship between people and tech is complicated for a conversation like this and Ted doesn't really cover any of it except the worst parts, but those parts remain true. What Ted fears is that technology will eventually gain the upper hand in this relationship and subsume those limits for the purpose of creating a 'system' that is incredibly efficient at propagating itself. I'm going to add my take: humanity will become a hivemind race of bugmen with no individuality, ruled by an omniscient superintelligence. I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

[Anonymous No.15567993]

https://vimeo.com/387434655

New Ted Documentary.

[Anonymous No.15569659]

page 1

[Anonymous No.15569744]

>>15561272
>>15561294
>>15561352
This guy astroturfs a thread on /pol/ regularly with 4-5 other posters making almost all of the replies, on boards without IDs he probably just sucks his own dick and pretends like Ted is hot shit

[Anonymous No.15571220]

>>15561362
It goes more like this.
If there is technology to mass produce firearms in your country you can start massive conscript armies and steamroll other fuckers.
You can also of course not do it and get steamrolled by others. Game theretically if your group does not use every available tehcnological mean to dominate others then yours will be elimineated by such that does.
This kind of means that once you've started with seeding industrail processes in the world it will just continue to accelerate and accelerate.
You cold also say but we could all just stop doing it together but you know this is kind of absurd.
So at the first moment of introducing some sufficently advanced technology into the world every group is kinda caught into advandcing these systems as much as possible or be eliminated.
Advancing tech not to get crushed but refusing it to give to the needs and desires of your population -- i guess rahter hard to do. And large scale advancement causes another - > need enough guns for your "good" use -> need smelters, mines, roads, railroads, ports, housing projects.
Doesn't matter if your idea of using something for good or bad or wahtever. If you move on to mass producing your item you need put up allkinds of infrastructure --< which will have its own needs and changes peoples lives and their ideas of what to do. etc
I guess if you could wiht your own firkking psi-powers and flint tools produce a high-tech laser-rifle then you could just say- look the tehcnology is "innocent" its just me deciding what targets i choose.
But in reality producing such and item would mean massive reorganization of everything and these reorganizatons would be a need for some other reorganizations. And no-body would actually be in control of these and have any idea where ti would lead in 300 years.

[Anonymous No.15571237]

>>15571220
This is all common sense stuff. Where is the problem in all this?

[Anonymous No.15571274]

>>15571237
Teddy and the likes are not found of the idea of humanity careeining into an uncotrolled ever complex self-replicating techno-system.
I can understand their distaste but I see no workable solutions -- you either play this game that get ever faster and more out from your grip. Or you'll get obliterated by those who do.

[Anonymous No.15571334]

>>15571274
>I see no workable solutions
Ted doesn't either, his answer is that because the system is finite the Technological Society will collapse. The techno-spiral simply must collapse, it HAS to, because it can't go on forever. He doesn't really go into this, but what will basically happen is Peak Oil will kick in. Chad Haag is someone that touches on this if you want a philosophy of Peak Oil (tl;dr without it Modernity collapses).

The entire point of Ted's philosophy is that so someone after that knows what happened, why, and how to prevent it in the future.

[Anonymous No.15571441]

>>15571274
>careeining into an uncotrolled ever complex self-replicating techno-system.
It's not uncontrolled, only the parts which become less important become less controlled over time.

[Anonymous No.15571468]

>>15561272
No, now go destroy USA as Ted told you to.

[Anonymous No.15571486]

>>15561272
Good he does looklike a tranny pedo dock-fucker, doesn't he? That look in his eye says "At last I'm gonna get me some BBC!"

[Anonymous No.15571613]

>>15571486
I never get why Lefties get so butthurt about the whole MKULTRA thing.

Yes, Ted was subjected to torture by the US Federal Government that was designed to make you temporarily insane. He went temporarily insane. He got better within a month, and a decade later started living in the woods. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by pointing out that your side is full of insane psychopaths?

[Anonymous No.15572110]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15572499]

hellow fellow /lit/-izens.
Whenever Ted K comes up as a subject of discussion, I hear refutations that his thoughts aren't original nor rigourous enough. To those of of you who would perchance stumble upon this thread and happen to share those thoughts, what do you consider a better text on similar themes? I know of Ellul and Heidegger, but given the time they were writing, aren't they a little dated?

[Anonymous No.15572520]

Idk but this is just repackaged Jacques Ellul, who you should read

[Anonymous No.15572548]

>>15572499
>given the time they were writing, aren't they a little dated?
such a weak bait

[Anonymous No.15573130]

>>15572499
>but given the time they were writing, aren't they a little dated?
How would they be outdated? Nature is nature.

[Anonymous No.15573992]

>>15572548
poster you're responding to here, sorry if I came off as trying to bait, but I've only recently started reading into anti-tech/problems of neoliberalism. i was under the impression that maybe the advances between heidegger's 50s and ted k's 80s/90s would change perspectives given how fast technology evolves.

i gather that there isn't all that much difference, then, so I'll be reading Ellul and Heidegger.

again, i apologize if i came off as willfully ignorant

[Anonymous No.15574380]

>>15572520
Actually, it is Ellul, who I am reading. I foolishly thought that a picture of Kaczynski might catch people’s eye, which it did, though most of the responses this induced were to his picture exclusively and not the passage.

[Anonymous No.15575207]

>>15561377
>Ted really hit it accurately
dud it was 25 years ago, the world bwas absically the same. I can predit 2045. Trannies everywhere, state spying more, more mutts in every white country, more riots, less real value of wages, etc.