/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16291263]

ITT, "everyone but me is an idiot" essentials

I'm a dumb phoneposter, but it's my birthday, so only give me your best, be it books or insults.

[Anonymous No.16291507]

You could read the nonfiction book called ‘a short history of nearly everything’, not because it’s current (it’s from decades ago) and not because it’s elite or even influences elite thought. Because it does none of those things. But at least it’s not written by a globalist zionist jew like your pic related. And it lives up to its title ‘history of everything’.

Hope this helps you minimally. Preferably not at all.

I hate you OP.

[Anonymous No.16291551]

>"everyone but me is an idiot" essentials
this thread, kys op you insecure faggot

[Anonymous No.16291634]

>>16291507
Ah, sounds delightful.
Hate you too, fuccboi.

>>16291551
I like that you misunderstood what I was trying to do, and insulted me for that. Goes great with the theme of the thread.

[Anonymous No.16291644]

[Anonymous No.16291744]

>>16291644
Ooh wow.
Resumé sounds like this book is "communists are faggots and here's why."

[Anonymous No.16291749]

[Anonymous No.16291760]

[Anonymous No.16291765]

>>16291749
Oh dear lord.

[Anonymous No.16291784]

My uni professor recommended this one

[Anonymous No.16291796]

>>16291784
Seconding your professor desu, the amount of doomer retards you'll be able to BTFO after simply reading the first page of this book is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.16291813]

>>16291784
Big fan of Rosling, so this is definitely going on the list.

[Anonymous No.16291840]

>>16291263
Yeah, this book is trash.
A friend of mine mentioned he wanted to get it and had heard great things. I told him it was fine, particularly the first couple chapters, but that its inadequacies and biases became more obvious the deeper in you get; that it glosses over everything with an entirely singular perspective - absolutely everything - and that Harari's views on economics, liberalism, feminism, and race are incredibly narrow; and that all of it is written in this kind of ignorant but authoritative way which entirely rejects and refuses to acknowledge any kind of ideological plurality. This, imo, is the book's greatest failing, particularly given its subject matter. There isn't a drop of insight in this book, and yet it's praised for touching on all essential human characteristics, its poignancy, and scope.
At this point, my friend, who is a bit of a midwit and was skeptical of the criticism, then asked who it was by. When I told him it was written by a History PhD, his response was "oH wELL iT mUst bE goOd tHEn"

I don't want to be the "everyone but me is an idiot" guy, but it's just so hard sometimes.

[Anonymous No.16291851]

I believe this is what you're looking for OP

[Anonymous No.16291864]

>>16291851
Is there meant to be a problem with all the books on there or is it just the smugness midwits have from reading them that's the issue?

[Anonymous No.16291870]

>>16291796
Let me guess, he states that people are living longer, less poverty, fewer wars, more democracy?
Dismisses overpopulation and doesn't mention IQ or dysgenics?

[Anonymous No.16291888]

>>16291840
I found it to be easy and interesting reading, in that it points towards a lot of areas in global development that I might want to study further.
The reference list seems pretty reasonable too.

But yeah, his globalist "take a chill pill"-bias seems designed to piss everyone off a little bit, rather than teach anyone anything.

[Anonymous No.16291895]

>>16291870
Rosling would never dismiss overpopulation. That issue remained one of his primary concerns to his death.

And dysgenics is probably less of an issue now than it has ever been before, depending on your preferences, of course.

[Anonymous No.16291899]

>>16291870
>Let me guess, he states that people are living longer, less poverty, fewer wars, more democracy?
Yes. He discuss overpopulation, but not the other two from what I remember. However if he had mentioned IQ he would probably have done it in a positive light since he had a hard-on curves and average IQ have increased during the last decade.

[Anonymous No.16291900]

>>16291870
>overpopulation
This is an absolute non-issue on a global scale.
The latter two could be solved with current tech, the issue is political will and public sentiment.

[Anonymous No.16291902]

>>16291263
The best idea I got from this was that collective fictions are everywhere in our life - money, institutions, history itself.
These collective fictions we all accept allow us to work together at increasingly larger scales.

I'm sure he got the idea from somewhere else. I wish he cited where would like to explore it more

[Anonymous No.16291903]

>>16291870
Rosling talks a lot about population in general and he hold the belief that it will eventually stabilise at 10 billion, with a more even generational dispersion than we have now. He wasn't a Steven Pinker type character.

[Anonymous No.16291911]

>>16291900
It isn't a non-issue. The world cannot support an unlimited amount of people. Overpopulation is driving man-made climate change

[Anonymous No.16291917]

>>16291903
>10 billion
Closer to 11 billion actually, but it will stabilize.

[Anonymous No.16291924]

>>16291917
All these Mexicans...

[Anonymous No.16291926]

>>16291796
Doomers are completely wrong. The Brave New World is coming, maybe not in our lifetime, but as technology develops further humanity will become more and more incompatible with it, and will have to be made to serve technology (genetic engineering, social conditioning etc.). There is no such thing as a free lunch - every improvement in our material living standard through technology comes at the cost of something, such as man's psychological wellbeing

[Anonymous No.16291928]

>>16291911
I specified on a global scale because pockets of overpopulation are possible. This is true but it won't happen, birthrates drop as societies advance and population will stabilise at a liveable level. This is an issue that is related to population but not solely controlled by it, again it's a matter of political will and public sentiment.

[Anonymous No.16291929]

>>16291851
Ah, I think this might be what I'm looking for, yes.

>>16291864
The books aren't the problem as such, I'd wager. More like it's annoying to deal with people who, when reading something written in a matter-of-factly and assetive way, take it to be all the knowledge they need on the topic, to form a personal understanding.

[Anonymous No.16291932]

>>16291911
>muh climate change
Opinion dismissed.

[Anonymous No.16291934]

>>16291917
That could be it. I remember watching some lecture/presentation of his from a few years ago in which he used boxes to represent various age groups within the population.

[Anonymous No.16291935]

>>16291926
*aren't completely wrong
Doomers are wrong about letting the doomed fate of man affect their personal lives and aspirations.

[Anonymous No.16291941]

>>16291924
And 5 billion Africans

[Anonymous No.16291942]

>>16291926
>maybe not in our lifetime
Everything can happen in our lifetime if you choose the right future Anon.

[Anonymous No.16291948]

>>16291932
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.16291955]

>>16291926
Technology cannot take away your free will, the Brave New World is not mandatory. 10 million years ago you had to be able to avoid being eaten by a lion, nowadays you have to avoid melting your brain with 4chan, Tiktok or cocaine. Different problems but you still have to take care of yourself.

[Anonymous No.16291956]

>>16291902
I found that to be a very refreshing and useful outset for understanding societies too.

I would inagine he has the idea from general theories on the inter-subjective, but I'm not wise enough on that topic to point toward any specific writings.

[Anonymous No.16291963]

>>16291928
>birthrates drop as societies advance and population will stabilise at a liveable level.
Depends on whether the third world can escape the Malthusian Trap. There are some economists who believe this is not going to happen anytime soon, such as Gregory Clark. Also immigration to the first world is contributing to preventing population pressure in the third world from stabilising.

[Anonymous No.16291972]

>>16291955
>Technology cannot take away your free will
It will, when the people of tomorrow are factory made through genetic engineering/social conditioning to serve specific purposes in society. They will be preprogrammed to enjoy certain tasks and want to consume certain things. Unironically read Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited

[Anonymous No.16291975]

>>16291955
>muh free will in 2020

[Anonymous No.16291981]

>>16291963
>Also immigration to the first world is contributing to preventing population pressure in the third world from stabilising
Explain.

[Anonymous No.16291992]

>>16291963
Several first world countries are already stabilized, despite heavy immigration.

And most third world countries / communities show the same trends of drastically reducing birthrates when standards of living are improved.

Governments like high infant mortality rates and huge poor families as little as the affected, so only highly destabilized regions are in "danger" as I see it.

[Anonymous No.16291997]

>>16291981
Emigration from third world countries relieves population pressure in these countries. As the population increases, living standards decline (due to the law of diminishing marginal returns). As living standards decline, the birth rate falls. The population stabilises where the birth rate equals the death rate, but this doesn't happen when excess population continually leaves the country to move to a first world country. So world population keeps increasing

[Anonymous No.16292008]

>>16291997
>As the population increases, living standards decline (due to the law of diminishing marginal returns).
This is a fallacy, modern society is not a zero sum game. Technological breakthroughs outpace population increases.

[Anonymous No.16292012]

>>16292008
That's partly true in industrialised first world countries. The third world has not industrialised because productivity growth is still lower than population growth, so living standards actually fall. They are in a Malthusian Trap.

[Anonymous No.16292014]

>>16291997
>As living standards decline, the birth rate falls
Yes, except it's the other way around. When living standards increase people feel safer and don't feel the need to get 14 kids to make sure that at least 1 survive to take care of them when they're old and frail.

[Anonymous No.16292040]

>>16292014
That is only true in first world countries

[Anonymous No.16292101]

>>16291851
Absolutely based chart, this is the literature for successful, attractive and very sexually active high IQ chads - its must read works for those who dont want to end up as basement dwelling incel losers

[Anonymous No.16292136]

>>16292040
If that's the case, why does the maps of Africa showing GDP/Capita and Births/capita look basically the same?

[Anonymous No.16292140]

>>16291744
lurk moar newfag

[Anonymous No.16292395]

>>16292101
The high concentration of buzzwords means I can trust this post to feature nothing but the unironic truth.

[Anonymous No.16292400]

>>16292140
I was hoping for this reply.
I am indeed new.

[Anonymous No.16292407]

>>16291851
>Alan Watts
>midwit
no-o-o-o-o-o

[Anonymous No.16292463]

>>16291851
Chomsky, The Arab, and Sowell don't belong here imo

[Anonymous No.16292474]

Thank you all, this has brightened my birthday.

I will now turn my attention to baking lemon maringue for the first time and sucking at it.

[Anonymous No.16292490]

>>16291765
god is not real anon yes, I am very smart

[Anonymous No.16292494]

[Anonymous No.16292649]

>>>16291864
not recognizing obvious baits is the sign of midwittism. That pic is meta if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.16292662]

>>16292463
sowell is the biggest fraud in the pic. And that says a lot having Peterson, Shapiro, Rogan or spencer there

[Anonymous No.16292852]

>>16291784
Woah

[Anonymous No.16292875]

>>16291784
that uni's professor? albert einstein

[Anonymous No.16292932]

>>16291507
Is this how people think these police shootings go down?

[Anonymous No.16293019]

>>16291851
kys

[Anonymous No.16293041]

>>16291749
will christcucks ever stop being butthurt at Dawkins?

[Anonymous No.16293063]

>>16291784
This guy took a lot of flack by Swedish media after he took (an entirely reasonable) anti-immigration stance IIRC.

[Anonymous No.16293072]

>>16291900
Any population of niggers is an issue imho.