[ 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: 114 KB, 555x414, Theodore_Kaczynski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16416810 No.16416810 [Reply] [Original]

I disagree with him about technology. I believe technology is a human appendage. The industrial revolution was ultimately for the better.

>> No.16416822

With great light there is also great darkness, that's the problem with enlightenment.

>> No.16416827

>>16416810
You're right. Only edgy brainlets praise hackzinsky as some visionary or prophet. In truth he was a coward afraid of a future with a question mark and wanted us all to run backwards from it.

>> No.16416830

Everyone agrees with you

>> No.16416861

>>16416810

>I believe technology is a human appendage.
Technology is a broad term and for every fundamental piece of tech that adds to utility or understanding, there has spawned industry and innovation for its own sake.
Look at the internet, an amazing tool to learn and communicate, but has every subsequent innovation regarding communication technology be in line with these two fundamental beneficial aspects?
No, if anything intellectualism and the pervasiveness of internet usage have a broadly inverse relationship.
>The industrial revolution was ultimately for the better.
Regarding who exactly? People are at a greater risk of destitution, violence, mental illness, social isolation, etc than ever before.

It is built on sand and is spiralling out of control. Only the popsci bugmen and the urbanised underclasses ( a direct result from the industrial revolution) can't see this.

>> No.16416878

Human biology -- including biological influences on psychology -- is primarily adapted to hunter-gatherer societies. Taken from that context results in contradictions and malsocialisation.

>> No.16416970

>>16416827
I believe he didn't even care much about future of mankind or technology. His whole philosophy was just his way of coping with the fact that he was a failure as a human being. Coming up with apocalyptic philosophies, critical of the zeitgeist, had long been a favorite pastime for those who are shunned by their peers.

>> No.16416976

>>16416827
>>16416970
So just make up some armchair psychology and ignore the diagnosis?

>> No.16417008

>>16416976
I didn't make up anything. He himself admitted that he was emotionally stunted and felt out of place among the people surrounding him.

>> No.16417026

>>16416810
>I believe technology is a human appendage
>t. guy living in the age of mass surveillance, automation and social media
Absolute state of technoids.
>>16416822
>t. dumbass stuck in the 17th century

>> No.16417030

>>16416810
>I disagree with him about technology.
>I believe technology is a human appendage.
ok? and? have you even read Kaczynski? tech is a human appendage? good for you I guess, but that's not the topic at hand.

What do you make of the availability of tech and the selective pressure on self-propagating system, and the outcome of genetical engineering? You simply ignore it? You ignore it and move on and act like technology will not precipitate our death even though it has been proven rigorously that it will?
Further proof that technophilia is a neurosis in which an individual is incapable of addressing very real, very obvious issues that are neither too complicated to understand nor too complex to be grasped by a non-STEM educated person.

What Kaczynski is right about first and foremost is about people like OP. There truly is a mental illness which prohibits the technophile individual from apprehending the general picture of Technology.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself

Here, while low IQ moralists argue over TK's use of terrorism (Which TK himself disavowed as a counter-revolutionary method in later writings) MIT scientists have vindicated the article posted right above, as well as the entirety of his works by the way. Kaczynski is right.

>> No.16417031

>>16417008
>"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I NEED TO BELONG WITH AN FEEL THE APPROVAL AND AFFECTION OF OTHERS AAAAAAGH, WHAT EVEN IS BEING AN INDEPENDENT, DIGNIFIED AND SELF-SUFFICIENT HUMAN BEING"

>> No.16417035

>>16416970
>failure as a human being
He literally was what industryfags call "successful"

>> No.16417037

>>16417026
Survellience is a result of a lack of technology and intelligence. To explain, if tech was used to advance the intellect of humanity istead of repress it, then organizations like the CIA and NSA would be removed once people understand the terrorism they preform to acquire funding.

>> No.16417053

>>16417037
>"if only tech was used in an utopian way and people woke up to TheTruthTM (in a utopian way) and created a utopia where tech is always used in the correct way, tech would obviously become a good thing"
>t. technoid

>> No.16417067

>>16417037
The CIA and NSA are features of a technological society. You seem to live in the delusional world of politics, which is a model that has been terminated following WW2, but of course, as Debord and Marx theorized, it is necessary for the system to entertain false consciousness, to prop up a fake model of understanding, in your case, and in the case of many, it is the fake political dichotomy (which is nothing more than a dynamic). That's where you are: thinking the NSA and the CIA can be removed, when in fact they are nodes of cybernetics, the most advanced form of "political" institutions that can exist in this particular temporality of the technological system/capital/whatever. The CIA is apoliticals it is cybernetics.

>> No.16417072

Technology is epic, the industrial revolution wasnt

>> No.16417074

>>16417053
>if I take my opponents argument and change it into something else, I will win
That isn't what I said and you know it. Tech is already advancing average intellect. There is large amounts of tech not yet declassified by the gov. (Advanced solider simulation chambers, MKUltra shit, ect) This tech is used for spying and control. If these hidden techs are released to the general population, then they will again increase in intelligence. Once people are as a whole smart enough, which happens naturally as a result of better tech (which creates better living conditions, which result in more opportunities for tech advancement), they will become more aware of the various evil deeds done by the governments.

>> No.16417088

>>16417067
I do not believe in the political circus and understand the deep state world government behind the scenes.
I do hold a firm conviction though that these negative agencies can (and will) be removed.

>> No.16417089

Does TK address the real problem in this equation? Blame the criminal not the gun.

>> No.16417093

>>16417031
> being critical of the current socio-economic system because it contradicts our innate nature and drives people towards alienation
> no, humans don't need social approval and can exist as individuals not phased by what others think about them.

pick one anon.

>> No.16417103

>>16417074
No, you're completely delusional. The developers and commercial owners of technology have no interest to use it to "improve the intelligence" of the broad masses, if such a thing were even possible at all. Always, in all cases, the powerful seek CONTROL over people, not their emancipation. Your idea that the powers that be will agree to somehow smartify the population, then that entire population will reach the exact same conclusions and rise up against those same powers that be out of pure rational calculation is entirely ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the reality on what tech does - the relentless idiotification of the masses. Nothing illustrates this better than social media but because you're stupid you latched onto a single one of the points I made and then, obviously, failed to tackle even that much.

>> No.16417111

>>16417093
Why should I? There's only a contradiction there if you're a hylic.

>> No.16417124

>>16417103
It won't be given to us by those in power. We must advance tech without them, despite them. I never said that The Powers will grant it willingly. Why do you think they use tech to aggressively attack intellect? Because humanity, if unrestrained, would have advanced past the necessity of these powers. Humanity does not have to collectively realize the negative of these powers, only make them obsolete, which they will.

>> No.16417127

>>16417037
>if tech was used to advance the intellect of humanity istead of repress it, then organizations like the CIA and NSA would be removed once people understand the terrorism they preform to acquire funding.
Why would increased "intellect" result in more ethical behaviour? Do you think 99% of people in the general populace (and probably in politics) don't already have a negative opinion of dark shadowy intelligence organisations? There are self-sustaining, hyper-rational reasons these groups continue to exist and behave in the way that they do.

>> No.16417130

>>16417093
You obviously haven't read him. The point is that while Humans are social creatures, they desire a part in the power process that usually is fulfilled by being self-sufficient. But the modern world of industry, has become so all encompassing that this is impossible.
Ted wasn't wanting everyone to live in isolation in a hut, but that was the extreme he went to because he was sensitive to the effects of the industrial revolution and its debasing affect on his psyche and his own satisfaction with daily life.

Not everyone would feel the need to be completely independent but no one can in the modern world, and it leads to adverse effects, maladaptive mental illness

>> No.16417150

>>16417124
>It won't be given to us by those in power. We must advance tech without them, despite them.
You don't even understand how R&D works. Absolute state.

>> No.16417159

>>16417088
Yes, they will be removed, when they become obsolete. Just as Monarchies were removed, not by some grand conspiracy, but simply because they became obsolete. The development of society is not subject to rational human control.

>> No.16417187

>>16417127
To clarify, the events I'm describing are not
>Oh, I just used my iphone 96, I'm now enlightened enough to go protest the NSA
But rather, the idea of using tech to bring living conditions to such a high standard, and tech to such advancements, that agencies as such are obsolete. Of course, the tech needed for this would be unknown to us, but an example from the past is the agricultural revolution, which helped us rise above tribalism. It was an advancement in tech which, over time, ended the prior methods of human governing.
>>16417150
Could you explain your viewpoint? An individual does in fact have the power to advance tech on his own.
>>16417159
Exactly. I can agree with that notion.

>> No.16417197

>>16417187
>the agricultural revolution, which helped us rise above tribalism
and led to hyper-stratified societies, slavery etc.

>> No.16417203

>>16417187
>Could you explain your viewpoint? An individual does in fact have the power to advance tech on his own.
Can you compare with the scientific and technological resources of megacorporations like Facebook and Google?

>> No.16417254

>>16416810
yeah no shit, I too disagree with a deranged mass bomber

>> No.16417729

>>16416810
wasn't this guy tortured by psychologists in college? I thought that's what drove him mad

>> No.16418024

>>16417729
>wasn't this guy tortured by psychologists in college?
that's just used to de-legitimise what he says, by making him seem insane, they cannot concede a successful and intelligent guy being not okay with the society

>> No.16419038

>>16416810
Sorry bro, you're a brainlet. You shouldn't even bother trying to read Kaczynski, and stick with normie feel-good shit like Steven Pinker or Thomas Friedman.

>> No.16419042

>>16418024
this. and no, the whole "MK Ultra tortured Kaczynski" thing is basically a bogus and debunked idea used to distract attention from his reasoning.

>> No.16419047

>>16419038
>Steven Pinker or Thomas Friedman
Filthy anti-Semite.

>> No.16419060

>>16416970
>coping with the fact that he was a failure as a human being
He was a legit mathematical genius who graduated Harvard at the age of 20.
If he didn't descend into autism and eventually terrorism, people would be saying he was incredibly succesful

>> No.16419489

>>16416810
Read Ellul.

>> No.16419538

>>16419489
ew no. Ellul never thought a serious revolution was possible, only some vague abstract spiritual revolution. So he never studied or argued for the possibility of a revolution against tech, which is the most important and interesting stuff.

>> No.16419590

>>16417089
>Blame the criminal not the gun.

Blame both. The gun is technology; the criminal isn't a zombie. You can hold both accountable.

>> No.16419608

>>16417729
No. Very little information is really known about the experiments in total, but the basic known information is that it was the earliest means of establishing useful interrogation techniques -- for the time, anyway. So, it was about questioning someone harshly and attacking them personally for long durations to try and break them down.

However, thousands of people took part in the experiment. So, I doubt you can really say it "drove" him mad.

>> No.16419622

>>16416810
Here's your solution bro
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

>> No.16419663

>>16419060
His philosophy grew out of some more underlying personal issues; he clearly felt quite isolated from those around him, and wasn't comfortable with himself, e.g. his consideration of becoming a trannie. Being that Ted was quite intelligent, when he devised a philosophy deeply influenced by his own experiences, his work demonstrated this.

>> No.16419749

>>16419663
Every philosopher is deeply connected with their philosophy retard

>> No.16419758

>>16419663
>ad hominem

>> No.16419806

>>16419663
Feeling "isolated from those around you" is a very common experience, and it doesn't make you a "failed human being", you imbecile

>> No.16419810

>>16416810
FUCK YOU

>> No.16420539

>>16416810
You're wrong. Everyone saying otherwise is a coping midwit.

>> No.16420810

>>16416810
you haven't even read his shit haven't you?
Kaczynskis main problem was the overreach of technology into everyday life which ended up impacting the collective human psyche

>> No.16420823

>>16416822

>> No.16420881
File: 2.02 MB, 3614x5149, Green Orange TS ATR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16420881

>>16416810
Kaczynski's works are amazing and must-reads.

don't be a fag.

>> No.16420908

>>16416810
>I believe technology is a human appendage.
No need to simply believe. It literally is that for those who design/invent/master it.

>> No.16420915

>>16416810
>technology is human apendage
Not even academical npcs believe that mcluhanite tesis. Technology is another life form, and it will melt with human life, it will destroy human life, or it will be destroyed by human, or any other life form. The second option is the most accepted right now; technology is using human life to grow itself, just as some insects do with other insects, cats or puppies.

>> No.16420916

>>16416810
I mostly agree with his criticism of modern society, but I dont agree with his solution. A solution which has the potential to both end climate change and technological alienation would be to live like the Amish. They got it all figured out, truly this people is a godsend for mankind.

>> No.16421018

>>16420915
Fucking retard

>> No.16421137

>>16420916
how do you plan on convincing everyone to live like the amish????

>> No.16421261

>>16421018
read a book, nigger

>> No.16421395

>>16419622
I'll forever be convinced this and trannyism is just an instinctual way to dodge bootstrappin' which is becoming less and less viable for more and more people.
Instead you stamp yourself with a certified disability and now you are oppressed. You have an excuse.

>> No.16421533
File: 131 KB, 1024x537, IMG_20200130_005407_778_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16421533

>>16416810
Technological slavery is definitely real. I support the neo-luddite narrative but reject insurrection. We need technology for the sole purpose of preventing extinctionary events, and yet developed nations fail to have enough of a diminished time preference to prepare for such things. The narrative shouldn't be rebellion, but pressing the limit; accelerating overpopulation, creating human exclusion zones, zero tolerance immigration policies, and military interventionism on a large scale to prevent developing countries from fucking up the world's natural resources. Be a techno-skeptic, but if liberal democracy ended and a neo-luddite were in power you bet your bottom dollar we'd make the appropriate changes for the sake of ecology. Let's launch anti-satellite missiles and cut off electricity to urban areas so we can see the night sky again.

>> No.16421697

Technology is a demonic appendage. Technological innovations are forced upon humanity largely through dreams and other trance-like states. The end goal is fostering as much human misery as possible.

I genuinely believe this by the way. The amount of world-changing technological innovations that only came about because their inventor had an extremely detailed dream is alarming.

>> No.16421856
File: 37 KB, 300x398, medium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16421856

>>16421697
>occult and satanic control over technology
Your argument is solid

>> No.16421929

>>16421261
Books can't teach you how to think properly

>> No.16421941

every boomer in every generation gets upset about how new technology is corrupting the youth and will end the world.

ted just happened to be really smart so he was able to explain himself ideologically, and also mentally ill enough to commit terrorism that brought notoriety to his work

>> No.16421945

>>16421941
>every boomer in every generation gets upset about how new technology is corrupting the youth and will end the world


therefore.......

>> No.16421964

Manlets will they ever learn

>> No.16421997

>>16416810
ok now justify that belief in light of the mountains of empirical evidence which suggests that exposure to digital technology alters humans (in terms of attention span, reward mechanisms, critical thinking, decision making)

>> No.16422008

>>16421945
Therefore you ignore them until they die and you see yourself grow old enough to complain about TikTok.

>> No.16422090

Take the Pol Pot-pill (agrarian socialism)

>>16416827
You're not wrong that some tedfags are edgy, but your post goes to show how people can only use adhom attacks against him without actually refuting his argument.

>> No.16422098
File: 360 KB, 1099x677, 1599913003084.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16422098

>>16422090
>Take the Pol Pot-pill (agrarian socialism)
dangerously based

>> No.16422110

>>16422008
every boomer is right though. the world gets worse and worse with more technology. just because nothing has happened to stop it yet doesn't mean nothing will happen to stop it in the future.

>> No.16422145

>>16419749
No shit, and it manifests in their work
>>16419758
How so? I don’t discount his ideas, just note (to the best of my knowledge) the experiences of its author.
>>16419806
Not saying it‘a uncommon, nor that he was unsuccessful. We don’t know if he may have found some far-reaching influential results as a mathematician, but his work and actions as a philosopher ensure the longevity of his insights.

>> No.16422154

>>16422145
It seems like you're bringing up the experiences of the author as a way of discounting his ideas a la >>16416970

>> No.16422155

>>16416810
>Ted Kaczynski
Smart but pessimistic to the point of pseudhood

>> No.16422160

>>16419663
>his consideration of becoming a trannie
autogynephilia actually, if you're one of the people who draws that distinction

>> No.16422182

>>16422154
I didn't attend it as that. Being a math major, I would have loved to see what he contributed, but there's no denying the saliency of his points and influence now. Ofc, in spite of being a retard, I should have anticipated mentioning his gender-related issues to be automatically interpreted as an ad-hominem, when it was just meant to illustrate his own discomfort with himself.
I'm not >>16422154 btw.

>> No.16422189

>>16422182
*intend

>> No.16422193

>>16422182
How might his philosophy have been different if he were more comfortable with himself?

>> No.16422202

>>16422182
>doesn't know what an ad hominem is

the absolute state of /lil/

>> No.16422208

>>16419590
>This chair tripped me, I'm going to shoot the chair

A gun is an inanimate object.
You're not humble enough to recognize the truth.

>> No.16422219

>>16422193
I know jackshit, but as far as I can tell, he probably would have arrived at the same conclusions, but would not necessarily have advocated nor used such violent or radical means in spreading the message. Maybe Ted would not have felt that he could best fulfill himself living isolated, and would be more content to advocate in a more public way, perhaps still working in academia.

>> No.16422230

>>16422219
I recommend you actually read ISAIF, it's short and interesting. As a math major you'll particularly appreciate the writing style.

>> No.16422234

>>16422202
I don't mean to critique the ideas; in fact, I consider them quite salient. I just wanted to discuss their author, so would personal attributes not be fair play?

>> No.16422242

>>16422219
>working in academia

wow yeah boy gee golly because that would certainly earn the respect of the kind of serious revolutionaries that are required to destroy the industrial system.

boy oh boy you guys are funny sometimes.

>> No.16422249

>>16422230
I've only read a few excerpts, so I probably should at some point, plus I have a copy lying around my room somewhere.

>> No.16422257

>>16422234
Is there anything about his ideas you disagree with?

>> No.16422268

>>16422249
You definitely should if you want to have an actual conversation about him. For example you think that he was advocating for violent or radical means, but the only time ISAIF comes close is the paragraph
>The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.

>> No.16422272

>>16422155
>extreme pessimism is pseudhood

Gotta disagree with these dubs

>> No.16422274

>>16422242
Some people have had radical goals and attempted to work inside the system intended be remade by them, a la Proudhon. Given, Ted's ideas are more radical than most reformists', but even then, the conjecture was meant to be a stretch anyways.

>> No.16422290

>>16422234
now you're switching the goal posts. nice sleight of hand.

>His philosophy grew out of some more underlying personal issues
>he devised a philosophy deeply influenced by his own experiences

this textbook ad hominem

>> No.16422296
File: 29 KB, 720x720, Thing_1991.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16422296

Does any very online dopamine fiend unironically still believe tech is not controlling us just as much or more than we control it? If it's an appendage it's like the Thing from the Addam's family!

>> No.16422307

>>16422274
>Ted's ideas are more radical than most reformists'

By definition they are more radical than ALL "reformists"

And they are the most radical over all other self-described revolutionaries.

lol oh boy nice conjecture, but it falls flat on its face. the people who try to "change the system from the inside" are all a JOKE. I'm frankly laughing at the fact you tried offered this silly conjecture.

>> No.16422311
File: 1.59 MB, 1067x1600, Anti-Tech Revolution w drones_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16422311

>>16422296
kek. this.

>> No.16422316

>>16422234
>I just wanted to discuss their author, so would personal attributes not be fair play?

This is literally how 90% of people attack his manifesto. It's retarded but least you're self aware about it I guess.

>> No.16422322

>>16422316
>least you're self aware about it I guess.

kek

>> No.16422332

>>16422307
huh?

>> No.16422351

>technological singularity is what prevents realization of the actual singularity
is it something like that?

>> No.16422376

>>16422257
From the excerpts I've read:
>science and mathematics are surrogate activities partially because they are only determined the conditions in which one pursues them, making any curiosity in them artificial
I find this point odd, because he excludes any scientist's interest as genuine simply because he doesn't put for any example in which curiosity would not be generated by external conditions, or some more suitable set thereof. He also criticizes the rigidity of disciplines, when while difficult (and increasingly so) polymaths have existed, and many still take on cross-disciplinary research to satisfy curiosity peripheral to their current field.
>distinction between small- and large-scale technology
More a question than a critique: by the point that what we now consider large-scale technologies be possible in atomized, self-sufficient communities would they become small-scale, or would this be beyond the point of a society salvageable from industrial society?

>> No.16422414

>>16421395
Trannyism is a multifaceted issues, primarily lack of sociability, lack of fatherly parenting, lack of real life experiences, combined with being an extremely online retard

>> No.16422451

>>16422376
>I find this point odd, because he excludes any scientist's interest as genuine simply because he doesn't put for any example in which curiosity would not be generated by external conditions, or some more suitable set thereof.
I agree with you, I disagreed with him on that point as well -- at least in general, although I do believe that the curiosity fades for many scientists as they age and it becomes more of a job
>He also criticizes the rigidity of disciplines, when while difficult (and increasingly so) polymaths have existed, and many still take on cross-disciplinary research to satisfy curiosity peripheral to their current field.
The fact that it's increasingly difficult to be a polymath is illustrating his point.

Not sure what you mean with your large-scale small-scale point

>> No.16422569
File: 6 KB, 225x225, micro_let.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16422569

>>16422451
>The fact that it's increasingly difficult to be a polymath is illustrating his point.
While this is upsetting, how does one go around solving specialization in research when a new subset of questions is asked, or vocations, where a more difficult, yet efficient method of production is found (of course being non-industrial)?
Do they simply stop inquiry when a certain level of specialization is reached?
Is this information restricted until a hobbyist derives/finds it themselves, at a point where they can balance their curiosity across the breadth of their interests?
>I do believe that the curiosity fades for many scientists as they age and it becomes more of a job
Avoiding this is more than just a question of technological advancement though; there are only so many satisfying avenues of expansion in ones occupation. Ofc the Industrial Revolution exacerbated it, but being satisfied with what's at hand is hard for most, from the conquerors of antiquity, to the merchants and artisans who populated their empires. I kind of feel that in these sections his critiques fell victim to the same problems of the leftists he observed: being of human nature rather than of the human condition.
>Not sure what you mean with your large-scale small-scale point
More a pedantic question on a small section of ISAIF, shouldn't have included it

>> No.16422705

I agree with a lot of his points but a revolution isn't necessary. Ted like to scaremonger about dystopian future technologies like AGI and gene-editing that are never going to become reality, and the threat of climate change is overstated too. I think we can just let industrial society fall apart itself in a century or two without much harm done.

>> No.16422760

>>16422569
Questions you're asking after quote one are all totally valid in the techno-industrial system, as Ted was pointing out there's really no way around them
What you're pointing out after quote two also seems very compatible with what he's saying. The stuff about science being a surrogate activity (I think) was his reasoning for how scientific experimentation does not fulfill the power process. I think the power process is one of his arguments that holds up less to scrutiny. But again, as you point out, the Industrial Revolution exacerbated it. It's not like he thinks pre-industrial society is perfect, it's that it's better

>> No.16422769

A lot of brainlets see Ted's work as a definitive repute of technological society when really Ted only wanted to highlight the problems that arise from technological society. He concedes that sufficient technology would amend the issues of current technological society. He suggests however a simpler solution which is abandonment of technological society all together. However, the outcomes he highlights are not inevitable. Environmental destruction for example is not inevitable and in fact, a sufficiently advanced society could reverse the effects of environmental destruction.

>> No.16422796

the industrial revolution COULD have been great for man kind but the bad guys won ww2 and are now abusing the fuck out of technology and dragging civilization through the mud

>> No.16422883

>>16422796
thank you for the hot take /pol/ you're really improving the quality of this board, keep it up

>> No.16423022

>>16422769
you're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about

>> No.16423025

>>16423022
he literally says exactly that in the first page of industrial society and its consequences you fucking idiot.

>> No.16423031

>>16423022
...it MAY eventually achieve a low level
of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment....

>> No.16423207

>>16422769
Huh?

>> No.16423419

>>16423025
please stop reading Kaczynski, your not smart enough

OR

re-read.


Thanks.

>> No.16423422

>>16423419
"you're"

>> No.16424427

>>16422883
nazi apologism is more interesting to read than passive-aggressive anti/pol/ snark

>> No.16424977

I think i shat my pants a bit.

>> No.16424990 [DELETED] 

>>16424427
Agreed, /pol/ack schizoposting is one if the most consistently entertaining parts of any board's culture.

>> No.16424998

>>16424427
based, a bit of /pol/ack schizoposting is one if the most consistently entertaining parts of any board

>> No.16425002

>>16416810
Heidegger gives the ultimate answer, nazism was a failed attempt, doesn't matter if it was for external or internal causes, to reconcile the technology with spirit.

PS. Nigger

>> No.16425018

>>16424998
*of

>> No.16425426

>>16416810
>The industrial revolution was ultimately for the better
then you didn't read him or stay sheltered in a suburb somewhere

>> No.16425588

>>16423022
>>16423207
>>16423419
Re-read the first page. He admits that the situation may resolve itself with even more advancements in tech, although there will be a very painful period in between. He personally wants to collapse the system, but he still admits a second possibility.

And what's likelier to happen? Will the system really collapse, after so much time and energy has been invested in it? Is there not going to be a painful period regardless? So why not go through the pain in order to come out the end where tech has advanced to such a degree that humanity is finally liberated from its pitiful mundane existence on Earth?

>> No.16425625

>>16416810
Clearly the most balanced take is that technology and industrialization is double edged, good and bad. If it weren't for it, we'd still all be toothless scraggly farmers struggling to extract a few meager spuds from the mud. And most of us wouldn't be alive today, for better or worse. It's true that technology has led to over-complication, but in complexity is possibility.

>> No.16425971

>>16421697
>The amount of world-changing technological innovations that only came about because their inventor had an extremely detailed dream is alarming
interesting... care to name a few?

>> No.16426000
File: 529 KB, 640x640, E3AC76D8-9916-4035-9863-903B3D5AF5E6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16426000

>>16416810
I seriously doubt anyone who has ever made posts like this in which they state they disagree entirely with what an actual intellectual has to say have actually read their works and only came up with their sweeping denial afterwards, if they even read a word of their work at all. You’re only addressing your constructed stick figure image of him and his ideas. Theres not a lot wrong with this in and of itself, But you can’t engage in retarded thought like this and also truthfully consider yourself a genuine seeker of knowledge. Jus don work like dat bruhsicle. Pic unrelated.

>> No.16426020

>>16426000
this

>> No.16426024

>>16425588
ok, that's it. you are either a complete moron, or a bad actor intent on misrepresenting Kaczynski to dissuade potential readers.

very bizarre.

>> No.16426092

>>16425588
You've completely misread the entire text. Kaczinski is opposed to the technological system in itself because it denatures and demoralizes those who participate in it to the level of dumb animals. His opening is not saying that the system is bad now but that it will get better. It's saying that it's WEAK now and will get STRONGER, which will be by clamping down harder and harder upon individuality and generating an increasingly homogeneous and soulless population which is highly manipulable by the small group of persons who manage things from above, and even these people will be soulless, in a kind of a circle of management in which they cannot deviate from the dictates of the system even in their supposed benefit from the system.

Kaczinski's concept of depersonalization by failure to complete the power process in industrial systems is identical to Marx's concept of commodification in industrial systems. These are both correlative to the Fascist opposition to the loss of national identity through modernity. These concepts all correlate to the same process, which is the homogenization of society to a controllable cattle-like existence. They all postulate different solutions. Kaczinski wants to annihilate centralized governance and return to a quasi-medieval existence of isolated towns. Marx wants (I'm not super well read on Marx so someone can correct me) to democratize the industrial system to avoid commodification since production is not "managed" but run through consensus of those who do the producing. Fascists want to save individuality from the furthest downward slide by generating a plateau at the step of national identity, so that one can never be less individual than his people, but at the cost of never being much MORE individual than his people.

>> No.16426096

>>16426000
Based and checked

>> No.16426213
File: 675 KB, 1003x1406, page1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16426213

>>16426024
>>16426092
The second possibility is outlined right there, of course colored with Ted's own thoughts on the matter.

It's not a fact that technology will "permanently reduce human beings [...] to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine." First of all, this implies that one's environment plays the primary role in development, when clearly genetics have a greater role. Second of all, this implies that the political structure, and other factors, don't play a role. There can be people who benefit from the "social machine" without being a part of it. This means his use of the term "human beings" is vague. The basic premise here is an exaggeration of the importance of one part of the environment (technology and its demands) over the development of humans.

His idea of, let's say bugmen, being a "reduction," is also questionable. What glorious state of existence is he even referring to for the vast majority of these individuals? Do they not come from backgrounds like farmers and shepherds, maybe pastors or engineers, and other servile occupations? So why is commuting every day to an office job suddenly an indecency being committed against them? When has the majority of humanity ever been liberated and "higher" as he's implying here? It hasn't been, except for the nobility of only the last several thousand years in history. Calling for these people to attempt a revolution won't change their genetic calling, either.

Overall, there are two possibilities, which Ted himself admits in that paragraph. He says it will require pain to reach. However, a collapse of the system would ALSO require pain to reach. Therefore, both possibilities are painful, and should be measured by their outcome. So, which is preferable?

Possibility A:
>the system collapses
>humanity is once again free from modern technology
>work is still work, however
>the possibility that we'll return to the modern technological state is very high anyway

Possibility B:
>the system accelerates
>humanity is once again free from modern technology
>work is still work, however
>but now we're at a different state never reached before, like traveling in outer space or something to that effect

I think the answer is obvious.

>> No.16426264

>>16426213
>this implies that one's environment plays the primary role in development, when clearly genetics have a greater role
not him but i need a sauce on this please.

>> No.16426284

>>16426264
You need a source on that but not anything that Ted writes?

>> No.16426287

>>16426213
Have you read the book? He explains that this "painful adjustment period" is likely several centuries of population reduction and mass deaths or sterilization so that the population can be reduced down a level commensurate with a high level of production through automation. I agree with you that option A is a cop-out on account of this process essentially having to continue forever, indefinitely. The question is just is he right and we will just have to do this, or is he wrong because there's a way to sidestep this and approach the end goal of B without the industrial system. This is why I wanted to explain the similarities between his thought process and Marx's or the general fascist thought, but that their solutions are different, because other political schools do not reject technological advancement like Ted does, but his assessment of the state of things is correct.

>What glorious state of existence is he even referring to for the vast majority of these individuals
He's not referring to some kind of psychological nobility, but of an idea that might be summarized as "pride in one's own responsibility for their survival, and success in surviving". Ted thinks that there is an enormous value in "just" scraping by, and that a large source of psychological trauma in modern society, and the degeneration of social morals, derives from the fact that a person does not necessarily have to work hard to survive. A farmer who works his ass off to make it through the season and is always working is, to him, happier than someone who works 8 hours a day, commutes another hour, and has to kill time for 7 for a complete day, often by eating or pursuing generic hobbies that generate the feeling of accomplishment despite the fact that they do not accomplish things. That gets to the heart of it. Ted believes that the key to a truly psychologically happy and stable society is that when one works hard to accomplish things, that those things are ALWAYS real. That there is not a moment in which a person does things to "occupy time" or because they need to feel accomplished, but that there actions are ALWAYS a kind of accomplishment. This is what Marxists would call commodification, the selling of accomplishment, and fascists would call decadence, the ability to "waste time" not contributing to society.

>> No.16426298

>>16426284
i need a source on it to use it in irl arguments

>> No.16426308

Zerzan is so much more interesting than Kaczynski. He has a true weltanschauung that he can incorporate any aspect of life or philosophy into. Also his writings about how language, time and numbers are oppressive forces that only came into existence due to the birth of civilization is much more revelatory than anything Ted came up with.

>> No.16426320

>>16416810
Oh, you "believe" that do you? Are we just supposed to care about every random, half baked idea you happen to "believe"? What a profound statement! You believe this statement! Are you going to bless us with your revelatory statement about why you believe this?

>> No.16426329

>>16419663
>"quite intelligent"
t. some kid who graduated from a top 100 university in his country

>> No.16426358

>>16426213
>Therefore, both possibilities are painful, and should be measured by their outcome.
That's an utilitarian take that is completely antithetical to Kaczynski's reappropriation of Being.

by the way, scenario 2 is an impossibility. Humans will NOT be kept alive. Humans are inefficient, and the systemic model that drives technological progress is EFFICIENCY. That's it. Civilization is an efficiency-driven self propagator. Once the system is free of human labour, it will eliminate humans, obviously. Why would a system that inexorably terminates its anteriority (anteriority should be understood as an obsolete model of efficiency: every form of inefficient labour, machinery, social relation, type of society, politics etc...) in order to further pursue its goal keep alive inneficient assets? It will not. It cannot. Else we would not be living under the current temporality of capital.

Which is why Kaczynski is clear: Humanity will be either: destroyed, or augmented, engineered into something that is so far removed from our current selves that it will have nothing to do with humanity. There isn't a single other outcome.

>> No.16426399

>>16426213
>What glorious state of existence is he even referring to for the vast majority of these individuals?
The state of Being.

Pure being, unfragmented, undivided. In material terms: no division of labour. In terms of spirituality: the teachings of Christ.
Organic christian communities spawned following the fall of rome, and there is a three hundred year gap in archeological findings during this moment. History quit existing during this brief period. This is the gorious state of existence he intuitively perceived. It exists. In fact it has existed for waayyyyy longer than civilization has. 300,000years of Being vs 12,000y of Having. Civilization is the disease.

>> No.16426444

>>16426287
>He explains that this "painful adjustment period" is likely several centuries of population reduction and mass deaths or sterilization so that the population can be reduced down a level commensurate with a high level of production through automation.
It will be exactly the same way for possibility A though. There's no reason not to think this. The world population is over 7 billion at this point.

>He's not referring to some kind of psychological nobility, but of an idea that might be summarized as "pride in one's own responsibility for their survival, and success in surviving". Ted thinks that there is an enormous value in "just" scraping by,
Isn't that psychological? By the way, pride in this manner is still possible for a commuter going to an office job... I see no reason to think why it wouldn't be possible. The farmer is still working for both his role in the system and for the benefit of others with perhaps the only difference being that he isn't comfortable enough to be able to reflect on his situation like the office commuter is. On that note, I can see the flaw in the current system, which is that it permits people who harm themselves when they think to be able to afford doing so... but I don't think Ted sees it this way.

>>16426298
You can do your own homework, friend.

>>16426358
>Humans will NOT be kept alive. Humans are inefficient, and the systemic model that drives technological progress is EFFICIENCY. That's it.
"Humans" here is as vague as the way Ted uses it. I see no reason to think this when our genes play such a powerful role in our development, even cognitively, and we have such a diverse set of them. At most, only some humans will be driven to extinction, but nature has this plan for all species regardless.

>Once the system is free of human labour, it will eliminate humans, obviously.
The system is made up of humans, so this doesn't make much sense.

>> No.16426455

>>16426399
If you wanted to achieve this again, you'd have to kill every homo sapiens on Earth. I don't see what's the big deal with technology causing a catastrophe then.

>> No.16426494

>>16426444
Checked

>still possible for a commuter going to an office job
The question of whether or not this is valid is not one I can answer yet, and despite you thinking you can I suspect you can't. In fact I don't think even Ted can answer that question. But Ted does take for granted that it is qualitatively worse, and much of his argument hinges on this assumption.
>it permits people who harm themselves when they think to be able to afford doing so... but I don't think Ted sees it this way.
You are correct. The way you word it I think you mean it does not actively stop them. Ted is arguing that not only does it not stop people from actively harming themselves through hedonism, menial work, and foolish materialism, but that it actively encourages it for the sake of generating a controllable populace that creates revenue for those in control.

>> No.16426560

>>16416827
This

>> No.16426570

>>16417111
Does hylic mean "not a jaded, obtuse faggot"? That's the meaning I'm gathering from all the times I see it used on here.

>> No.16426581

>>16426570
A hylic is a person who's incapable of conceiving of non-material things.

>> No.16426587

>>16426444
>"Humans" here is as vague as the way Ted uses it.
lmfao, you can't be serious

>> No.16426591

>>16426581
So people who use "hylic" on /lit/, in other words?

>> No.16426648

>>16426587
The system is made up of people, so it makes no sense to say that "it" would kill all people.

>> No.16426667

>>16416810
1. Economic progress is undoubtedly driven by technological innovation, in the long run.
2. Our current mode of societal organization is enabled by economic standard
3. Hence, any current society is a product of technology both directly and indirectly.
This is irrefutable. The question then becomes “how important a factor is technology, and can it ever facilitate the creation of a good/better society”. Any sociological theory suggests that technology is not the problem. It is therefore not an answer to the “can it facilitate a better society” question, and it is this second question that determines whether tech is good or bad.

>> No.16426701

>>16416810

You realize we're still only seeing the short term effects of the industrial revolution
It was a paradigm shift on par with the likes of the development of agriculture and all of the modern farming we have today which is still a controversial subject despite being much less complex and easier to understand

>> No.16426740

>>16426648
The system is not made up of people. what do you even mean? is "the system" an emergent property of individuals conglomerating?

>> No.16426779

>>16426740
>The system is not made up of people.
Then "system" refers to nothing. There's no process which isn't perpetuated by and the result of a human being somewhere.

>is "the system" an emergent property of individuals conglomerating?
Yes.

>> No.16428006

>>16426701
Like darkwaters.
it took decades to realize the effects of teflon.

>> No.16428380

>>16416810
Somewhat correct

Without a proper taxonomy of technology though, it's hard to properly evaluate uncle ted. Simple technologies like an axe, yoke, etc. merely just simulate peak human action. It's very Zuhandenheit, as such tools are literal extensions of human's intention. Industrial Revolution tech (looms, factory culture etc) is worse but autonomy was still preserved in that humans use a machine to expedite human labor, even becoming skilled at using what is metaphysically a very big and unwieldy axe. Even in something like Ford's assembly line, specialization retains some autonomy and connection to the product (not in retard marxist sense, intention sense)
the only tech imo that is a true problem is stuff that can simulate human intentionality, and can be percieved as its own subject. It could be argued that the logic circuit fulfills this, and stuff like weak and strong AI definitely fulfill it. These technologies corrupt the relationship between human intentionality and tool, and take on their own autonomy that will no doubt be harmful to human psyche, and eventually material life (e.g. becoming like the people in WALL-E)

>> No.16428883
File: 45 KB, 800x450, moron tries to be smart.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16428883

>>16426213

>> No.16429081

>>16428883
big cope

>> No.16429096

>>16426667
This is true, albeit, simplified. Overall, the way societies are organized are a little more than just economics.
The united states for example, has a terrible industrial output compared to china. But it exceeds this flaw by using dollar as a world reserve currency and leveraging power through demonstrations from deep state - i.e. invasions, surveillance, economic sanctions, etc.

>>16422769
> a sufficiently advanced society could reverse the effects of environmental destruction.
That's a very H.G. Wells approach. I'd say, we'll never stop thrashing stuff, polluting and destroying balances. Because the universe is almost endless for our minds and eventually it's going to end. So, once we get space tech to travel outwards the solar system, it's done. Why be an enviromentalist and try to save a measly planet out of billions?

>> No.16430152

>>16417074
Technology makes us smarter? Smarter based on what criterias? We are only made "smarter" by technology relative to our ability to be better technicians and increase our submersion in technique. D you seriously think for a second that somehow being "smarter" would make us happier and have more fulfilling lives? Of course not. Our "smartness" would only serve to further technique regardless of its effect on humans. Whatever way you might try to make technique into a tool for human happiness or smartness would be be erroneous because you, a fully integrated part of the technological system, have made up the definition of these two things according to your purely and entirely technicized perspective

>> No.16430223

>>16416861
>It is built on sand and is spiralling out of control. Only the popsci bugmen and the urbanised underclasses ( a direct result from the industrial revolution) can't see this.
Exactly.

>> No.16430242

>>16416878
>Human biology -- including biological influences on psychology -- is primarily adapted to hunter-gatherer societies.
You speak as if 10,000 years of selection under agrarism didn't happen.

>> No.16430273

>>16430242
Maybe it didn't for his family.