for those who follow ted k and other anti-tech persons: what would your optimal society look like?

[Anonymous No.15565304]

let's say people manage to overthrow the system. what type of life do you imagine after that? i've heard people even say that things like heating, air conditioning, and basic electricity would still be allowed. so would there be some technology? would you picture an agricultural society or completely hunter-gatherer? a harmonious blend of technology and nature?

[Anonymous No.15565434]

>>15565304
Ted's primary critique was of INDUSTRIALIZED society, hence the title of his manifesto. He probably liked the agriculture revolution and basic technology.

[Anonymous No.15565464]

>>15565434
where does it stop dumbfuck?
stupid psyop control games by the elite will always be played

[Anonymous No.15565489]

something like the traditional Chinese 漁樵耕讀 agrarian ideal, or Walther Darré's plan for the East

[Anonymous No.15565503]

The Amish without the whacky German Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.15565520]

>>15565304
even hunter gatherers used spears and the like. what distinguishes good technology from bad?

[Anonymous No.15565525]

turn industrialization into a forbidden esoteric art that is only allowed in rare cases and to be handled by well rounded people

[Anonymous No.15565529]

>>15565520
>what distinguishes good technology from bad?
My emotions

t. Ted and his faggot followers

[Anonymous No.15565557]

>>15565520
The effect it has on people. Ted's point about technology isn't TECH BAD, it's that we as humans don't have time to adapt to tech safely, so we adapt to the tech poorly. We've had time to adapt to spears, we haven't had time to adapt to TV.

[Anonymous No.15565563]

Huxleys island. Except for the getting BTFO by corporations part.

[Anonymous No.15565610]

>>15565464
He doesn't care. He knows the world can be saved, he wasn't trying to create heaven on hearth, he is simply trying to stop the machine before the world turns in the worst hell ever imagined

[Anonymous No.15565652]

The same as it is now but AI should be made illegal

[Anonymous No.15565673]

>>15565652
Retard.

[Anonymous No.15565680]

>>15565673
Current tech is fine. (Real) AI will cause mass unemployment and possibly overturn humans

[Anonymous No.15565704]

>>15565304
Imagine a futuristic world with only a few hundred million people worldwide and a stable and eugenic birthrate around replacement level.
First and foremost, drop bioweapons on the third world.
Ban single-use plastics outright and incentivize metal/wood/glass/porcelain etc for other applications. Biodegradable, chemically inert and much more aesthetically pleasing.
Much more localized energy production, even as local as household to household using solar panels, geothermal heating etc.
Most families living on a homestead with a garden and some basic animals the wife can take care of inbetween cooking and knitting. Most people living in or near villages under 1k pop. The majority of freight moving on rails, most people getting around on bicycles, small dogsleds, horses, buses, maybe some electric vehicles. It would mean a slower and more natural way of life, we could make our finite resources last a hundred times longer with minimal pollution. Mental health issues and obesity would evaporate. Our nuked endocrine systems would recover, etc.

I realize the incentives or political will for anything like this doesn't exist because the oligarchs demand a large population of consumers to milk and bilk. It's partly why the turd world is pouring into the west right now. More warm bodies means more people buying toiletpaper. If they're on a living wage or taking welfare is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15565811]

The one in Haibane Renmei

[Anonymous No.15565853]

>>15565304
>what would your optimal society look like?
There would be no government, just a single man, in a locked room, deciding which countries he would nuke. And women would be brought to him.

[Anonymous No.15565898]

>>15565304

If you follow Ted and believe in what Ted stood for then you should strive to live as Ted lived
Simple as

[Anonymous No.15565937]

>>15565304
I've written some longass blogpost shit in Ted K's defense but quite frankly, even our own society doesn't seem too technologically advanced in principle to me. My real issue is that technology is a field that has advanced so much faster than so many others. STEM should be more well trusted but philosophy doesn't even have a place in gradeschool and creativity is something to grow out of. I can describe the industrial world as "Rube Goldberg's suicide booth" and what I'll get back is, "angry autist," as if such a person wouldn't be more offended by the sound of velcro unpeeling than such an utterly artless insult. A beer is more worth my mind than most people, and it's largely their upbringing's fault. Rewinding won't happen but technology should be put on as much a hold as philosophy was.

[Anonymous No.15566017]

>>15565853
Who is that man, you ask?
It's me.

[Anonymous No.15566029]

Technology was fine up until the 50s/60s
It all silent downhill from there, with the 90s/00s as the point of no return

[Anonymous No.15566042]

>>15565464

Didn't he specifically address this? Tech that can act independently from a "total system" is allowed and good, like tools made by the people using them with their own resources and skills. The problem with something like a fridge wasn't primarily the item itself but the conditions necessary for its production and maintenance/operation.

[Anonymous No.15566128]

I somewhat disagree with Ted on the feasibility of any real revolution, and therefore I generally advocate moving to small scale and simplistic, self sufficient lifestyles with a group/family of like-minded individuals (Ted failed because he tried to do it alone).
An ideal society might be one in which everyone primarily grows, hunts, or forages their food, society is organized by small cohesive communities, trade between communities exists but no large scale production exists to the point where people are dependant on it economically.

[Anonymous No.15566139]

>>15566029
Do you think Asians feel the same way?

[Anonymous No.15566167]

>>15566128
>and therefore I generally advocate moving to small scale and simplistic, self sufficient lifestyles with a group/family of like-minded individuals
Until the government decides that a road should be built where you live and burns you and your whole family alive
>An ideal society might be one in which everyone primarily grows, hunts, or forages their food, society is organized by small cohesive communities, trade between communities exists but no large scale production exists to the point where people are dependant on it economically
Ted is against ideals

[Anonymous No.15566201]

Ted is a reactionary, he doesn't offer a vision he just reacts against change. He's playing devils advocate, being the voice of caution that nobody really listens too. It will all be over soon, the sweet embrace of death will come upon him and he will feel the tremendous weight loosen as his soul is set free. It's going to be ok, even if it's not ok.

[Anonymous No.15566246]

>>15566167
>Government
Yeah, obviously there are problems with that. You need to be prepared to move, and you need to set up somewhere very disconnected and remote. This would be very difficult in the US but wouldn't be too hard in Europe.
>Ideals
I know, and so am i, but the question in the OP was about ideals.

[Anonymous No.15566297]

>>15565304
nigger free

[Anonymous No.15566316]

>>15565304
his anger was misdirected
technology isn't at fault, it has no ideology
the real problem is the system technology is supporting - technology is working for the system, not for us
the system can only go down when you declare war to marketing and mass media manipulation

[Anonymous No.15566325]

>>15566316
You're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.15566330]

>>15566029
No. Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.15566337]

>>15565304
Ted looks like such a fucking chad in this pic. He could have been slaying women left and right if he wasn't socially retarded.

[Anonymous No.15566344]

>>15566246
>Yeah, obviously there are problems with that. You need to be prepared to move, and you need to set up somewhere very disconnected and remote. This would be very difficult in the US but wouldn't be too hard in Europe.
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide

[Anonymous No.15566407]

>>15566325
that's right Ted

[Anonymous No.15566434]

>>15566316
Tech is its own praxis- ideology is afterthought.

[Anonymous No.15566436]

[Anonymous No.15566445]

>>15566436

[Anonymous No.15566455]

>>15566445
The bullet substituted for the semen, of course... Probably Kaczynski couldn't get it up and blamed the dog for his impotence...

[Anonymous No.15566470]

>>15566445
>>15566436
NOT THE HECKIN' DOGGERINOS

[Anonymous No.15566519]

>>15566316
The medium is the message; technology is the system.

[Anonymous No.15566631]

>>15566519
But how good thing be bad? I like watching funni tv show. How bad for me?

[Anonymous No.15566648]

>>15565304
Immeadiate pre-Industrial Revolution, think 1750-1800. Most goods are are cottage industries, and more harmful technology like heavy industry, computers, etc are restricted to military use. This is due to the fact if a country de-industrializes, it’s neighbors will see it as a chance to take over

[Anonymous No.15566938]

>>15566201
This.

I think that Ted knew that a perfect world was impossible. He was just disturbed on a really fundamental level by his perceptions of society and the direction it was moving, and he dedicated his life to stopping the bleeding, so to say. Ted no doubt was smart enough to know that everyone shacking up in a wood cabin like he did was a pants on head retarded notion

[Anonymous No.15567104]

>>15566436
>>15566445
Kaczynski himself is irrelevant; we're only interested in his ideas.

[Anonymous No.15567130]

>>15567104
This. It's like pointing out Lovecraft was racist (poor analogy if you think that's BASED though).

[Anonymous No.15567379]

You should overthrow on principle alone, not minding the outcome. Be romantic like Mishima.

[Anonymous No.15567407]

>>15565520
your question has already been answered in the manifesto and his other writings, why don't you go read it and then post you faggot

[Anonymous No.15567417]

>>15565898
but i am

[Anonymous No.15567802]

>>15565520
The position isn't any tech = bad you fucking absolute mongoloid. The main problem is mass industrialization and commodification was adapted way too fast for humans to adjust adequately.

[Anonymous No.15567808]

>>15566029
>Technology was fine up until the Edwardian period
ftfy

[Anonymous No.15567987]

https://vimeo.com/387434655

New Ted Documentary out. Its on netflix. Hearing his voice is surreal.

[Anonymous No.15568959]

>>15565557
>>15567802
you're moving the problem from tech to the system technology proliferates, which is what leftists focus on and what Ted is against. even if humans were able to theoretically adjust to industrialized tech, that wouldn't mean we should utilize it.

[Anonymous No.15568971]

>>15568959
>even if humans were able to theoretically adjust to industrialized tech,
What does this mean? Humans already have for well over a century now.

[Anonymous No.15568986]

>>15568971
lmao if you think that then there's no hope for you

[Anonymous No.15569001]

>>15568986
Don't mistake your own misery for being greater than it is.

[Anonymous No.15569011]

>>15568959
>which is what leftists focus on and what ted is against
Leftists are ok with psychological torment.

[Anonymous No.15569033]

Is it not a question of whether the system will collapse but when?

[Anonymous No.15569059]

>>15566436
These are fake quotes. I recognize the latter part "I am perfectly ready to litter in parts of the woods that are of no use....", is Ted but taken out of context. You are an evil person. When I become moderator, I will hunt you down and destroy you.

[Anonymous No.15569080]

>>15568971
We're extremely maladjusted. Divorce rates and anti-depressants in the first world, trash and crime in the third world show that it is not a smooth transition.

[cheap ARs No.15569177]

>>15565898
haha bro jus go live off the land bro, haha just make the money appear bro, haha bro im smart and you're dumb because you participate in society while critiquing it

[Anonymous No.15569346]

>>15566330
no, are you?

[Anonymous No.15569850]

>>15565464
did you actually read his works you room temp iq larper? he specifically is against system based technology. local technology is fine

[Anonymous No.15570065]

>>15568971
We haven't adapted, we have become subservient to it.

[Anonymous No.15570819]

>>15565304

>>15565503
This (sort of).
I think the ideal is a petty commodity mode of production like in early America where at the peak 80% of citizens owned their own enterprise. Highly local communities are key, local bakers, local builders, local farmers. But having benefited so greatly from the internet, I'd like to see our information networks preserved. So perhaps something where local communities still manage their production and welfare, but they maintain a node of the internet infrastructure. Maintainence still requires resources, highly specialized and intricate supply chains and production lines, so I dont fully know how these can be integrated into a decentralized societal organization.
Again, all that is secondary to localism and a return to artisanship (in the broadest sense, including farming, or anyone who runs shop for the community)

[Anonymous No.15571342]

>>15569177
$1000 a month would be plenty if all your expenses are just food, property tax, and an LTE bill
You can buy a decent rural parcel of like 5 acres or more depending on where for like 10000
In a forested area you can clear some trees and build a cabin with them, the majority of it is free, you just need to buy the tools, roofing, windows, door, furnishing
But yeah, unless you can commute to a job, passive income or remote work are your main options, or you could go full dick proenekke in Alaska, but even then you need a decent nest egg

[Anonymous No.15571351]

>>15568971
Humans change for the system-thats being adapted-not adapting. Technology and drugs give sophisticated dopamine dispensers to cope with these disruptions. Industrialization (distilling) and alcoholism were not randomly tandem.

[Anonymous No.15571366]

I mostly acknowledge that they see the sickness more clearly than others. Technology is a part of global arms race and distancing yourself completely from this development is the same as accepting defeat.
To me it's an idea of separating the profane from the divine. You don't grow trees in your bedroom, you don't love the machine and think it's the highest good. The machine is a monster that must be tamed

[Anonymous No.15571429]

>>15571351
Lots of whites, asians, and jews have adapted well to the modern technoglobal system.

[Anonymous No.15571498]

>>15571429
They strictly rear their children with minimal exposure to technology. Silicon valley technocrats don't get high off their own supply- it's a class warfare.

[Anonymous No.15571839]

>>15571498
And all the ones who work directly in the technoglobal system like software developers and Ecommerce agents traveling all over the place? Have they not adapted well?

[Anonymous No.15571897]

>>15571839
It's not autonomous, it is techno-industrial grooming.

[Anonymous No.15571918]

>>15565464
this is exactly the failing of tk's ideas. he is too focused on the Technological creations of man and does not give enough consideration to the social-political structures which enable their creation. his naive critique of movements which do seek to create non-hierarchical collectivized society is very dumb. within a truly individualized society, you are just as powerless as anyone else to prevent those who try to exploit others. within a collectivized society, you can work with others with whom you already have cooperative relationships to prevent any person or people from exploiting others in the group. this is all regardless of the technical sophistication of the society

[Anonymous No.15572043]

>>15566445
so he got fucked by dogs?
damm gender dysphoria hits hard

[Anonymous No.15572062]

>>15565304
>for those who follow ted k and other anti-tech persons: what would your optimal society look like?
I imagine it would be the way Ted lived when he was free to live as he liked:
a lot of raping of dogs to death with knives and guns, smearing your own excrement on animals and things, torturing rats, and of course vandalising peoples property when they are away rather than face them since that would mean having some sort of courage.

[Anonymous No.15572087]

>>15572043
Yeah, sad but true...
He does have good verbal skills, a high IQ, and he can package up others' ideas well enough as rationalisations of his own insufficiencies and failings to be taken for original. But looking at him without incel-fueled hero worship he's obviously just another neo-luddite who is a neo-luddite because he can't cope. If only he had had sex....
Well, he sure is getting a lot of "sex" now I suppose LOL!

[Anonymous No.15572135]

>>15565304
>what would your optimal society look like?
The "western world" exactly as it is right now, but everyone moves to the countryside except people working for the govt, people attending universities and people working for corporations (the few that would survive this change). Most would spend their time farming for sustenance (selling excess food to your neighbors at a village market would be acceptable) or running small village shops/businesses. The military would still exist and enlistment wouldn't be looked down upon. The police would be much more spread out and officers would all be residents of small communities they serve.

[Anonymous No.15572139]

>>15565304
>so would there be some technology? would you picture an agricultural society or completely hunter-gatherer? a harmonious blend of technology and nature?

speaking for myself - yes, technology would be here. The difference would be in its quality - it would be less gimmicky, more sustainable and more beautiful.

Good technology has some of these traits:
>modular
>sustainable
>investment and not a fashion accessory
>low bar for entrance
>low obsoleteness

[Anonymous No.15572144]

Fuck why is not using your phone easier said than done. This shit is honestly worrying, especially at such a large scale

[Anonymous No.15572173]

>>15572144
They are engineered for attention extraction and addiction, big tobacco problem expect it's social scientific techniques.

[Anonymous No.15572505]

>>15566316
Yeah, I think you're fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.15572568]

>>15571897
>i-it's not adaptation if it was a group effort!
Do you even Darwin, kid?

[Anonymous No.15572828]

>>15572144
what the hell are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.15573435]

>>15572568
>Technological society running operant conditioning!=natural selection
Nope