/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19844541]

What are the best counter-arguments to this?

[Anonymous No.19844562]

>>19844541
Yes, technology is enslaving us. No, I don't care. I can coom now.

[Anonymous No.19844571]

>>19844541
Ted says pre-industrial society was good, but the fact is that society was never good.

[Anonymous No.19844573]

kaczynski was a faggot who had dreams of being a woman. If he hadn’t gone off the deep end and become a terrorist he would have become a cock gargling tranny.
if you listen to anything he says seriously you need to kys.

[Anonymous No.19844579]

He talks too much about leftists and I'm a leftist so I disregard it!

[Anonymous No.19844610]

>>19844571
I dunno man, pillaging unsuspecting villages for some shit-loot sounds like fun when you do it with the boys

[Anonymous No.19844616]

>>19844571
He says it was better, not that it was good.

[Anonymous No.19844628]

>>19844541
glasses

[Anonymous No.19844635]

>>19844610
you would 100% be the retard villager in this scenario

[Anonymous No.19844807]

>>19844541
He makes some excellent points, but fails to address the reality that technology came about as naturally as anything else. Were we to do away with it completely, it would just come back. It's normal and natural - even if we razed everything back to the stoneage and wiped eveyone's memories, we would just invent all the same things again and be back in technological society within a few millenia.
Industrial society is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.19844821]

There's literally no such thing as a technology

[Anonymous No.19844823]

>>19844616
>life as a serf was better
>yeah, there was a famine or a plague now and then, or a passing knight would rape your wife if he felt like it, but, other that that, it was better

[Anonymous No.19844829]

>>19844571
Your philosophy is shit
>>19844573
Your meme is shit
>>19844610
Your kind is why the preindustrial world was a bit shit
>>19844628
Are tools we can make in the post-technical world.

[Anonymous No.19844839]

>>19844823
No one but turd-eating fascists think it will be exactly the same. Though only through organizing can we avoid these pitfalls

[Anonymous No.19844885]

>>19844839
>>19844829
A single country the size of North Korea with 1950s military would conquer and enslave your whole "post-technical world" in a matter of months.

[Anonymous No.19844924]

>>19844885
Your dreams are shit and why it will be a slow walk back into a more manageable population, ah, but your kind are bringing us the extinction event first.

[Anonymous No.19844927]

Dude provided zero solutions. If you read his other works, his only solution is to "destroy industrial civilisation irreversibly, somehow". Gee thanks Ted.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.19844939]

>>19844927
Ah! Spoilers!

[Anonymous No.19844961]

>>19844924
Could you please knock down your coprophiliac obsession a notch and provide some actual arguments? Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.19844971]

>>19844807
You never read his books
>>19844571
ynrhb

[Anonymous No.19845006]

>>19844807
He does address this in Anti-Tech Revolution. He says that even if it comes back, it would be worth it to get rid of it now. It would be worth the chance. But even if it was absolutely certain, he would still say: do it. It makes sense with his ethics. The catastrophe of technological society, and especially what it will inevitably evolve into (which could be said to be the end of humanity all together), really supercedes any other, and as such even preventing it for only a few centuries would be completely worth it.

[Anonymous No.19845034]

What exactly is wrong with industrial society? I read his manifesto and his criticisms mostly fell flat. It just felt like he was projecting his own neurosis and failure to thrive onto society at large.

t. befriender of samsara

[Anonymous No.19845040]

>>19844939
Peak oil is a myth my man.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.19845072]

>>19845040
The date of peak oil may be off (in which case you need to worry about the climate catastrophe more) but it isn’t a myth. The earth isn’t infinite and we haven’t found anything that can replace fossil fuels. Dilithium crystals, fusion energy are a myths.

[Anonymous No.19845372]

>>19844541
>TECHNOLOGY BAD
>What are the best counter-arguments to this?
this : technology good.

[Anonymous No.19845571]

>>19844541

[Anonymous No.19845596]

>>19845040
lmao what

[Anonymous No.19845801]

>>19844541
Apparently there is this whole Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) movement in sociology, and they seem to believe that society has full control over technologies it develops and uses.

[Anonymous No.19845826]

He was right about everything

[Anonymous No.19846391]

The best parts of Kaczynski's thought came from Ellul so you should read him.

[Anonymous No.19846711]

>>19844541
He's correct on a lot of individual cases, but there central thesis, that man lacks autonomy and would be much happier if he was in a natural setting, are shown wrong if you study chimpanzee behavior. Despite not living in enclosed shelters, chimpanzees absolutely hate the rain. The scream when they get wet, and if you offer them shelter they will gladly take it, but they still don't build shelter themselves. It should be apparent that humans have the same deal, only we are able to make things to reduce natural suffering.

[Anonymous No.19847855]

>>19845040
Peak oil already happened over a decade ago. Now we're reliant on fracking to get the "difficult" deposits.

[Anonymous No.19847882]

>>19844541
Steven Pinker I guess, whom I've not read, because he's a clear moron, but that kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.19848008]

>>19844807
>even if we razed everything back to the stoneage and wiped eveyone's memories, we would just invent all the same things again and be back in technological society within a few millenia.

That is an interesting thought. What if our progress and industrialization was just the consequence of unlikely chance? That if we reset it all the chances are it would be a different path and we never progress so far as we have now.

[Anonymous No.19848509]

>>19844807
> we would just invent all the same things again and be back in technological society within a few millenia.
And then there will be a Kaczynski willing to burn it down all again. Anti-tech attitudes are inevitable as well.

[Anonymous No.19848642]

>>19847855
when did oil production decline again? oh yeah it didn't btfo kek

[Anonymous No.19848649]

>>19844573
>t. glowie

[Anonymous No.19848660]

>>19845040
I think you meant woman

[Anonymous No.19848686]

>>19845034
A supposed befriender of samsara should see technological society and its imbibing of desire for what it is.

[Anonymous No.19848688]

>>19844807
>Were we to do away with it completely, it would just come back.

You would need easily accessible fossil fuel for that. The beast must be killed once, then it is gone for good.

[Anonymous No.19848689]

>>19845801
>they seem to believe that society has full control over technologies it develops and uses

They're deluded. When has technology ever ceased its spread or advancement? They're about in as much control of technology as death.

[Anonymous No.19848699]

>>19846711
The creation of shelter is a natural output of man and animals. I would, also, say the creation of technology is a natural output of man and it's not necessarily to its benefit -- which is what Ted's thesis largely is; along with reduction on reliance to the technological system.

[Anonymous No.19848932]

>>19848688
Even with easily accessible fossil fuels you would need a society with a societal structure that facilitates innovation, and a sufficient number of societal members that have desirable traits (high intelligence, novelty seeking, risk taking, etc.). People like to believe that the explosion in technological advancement was/is some sort of inevitability but it requires very specific circumstances for it to occur and the situation we find ourselves in is quite precarious, we are one Carrington Event away from global systems failure and there is no guarantee that the post-failure environment would ever have the requisite circumstances that would allow for the reemergence of an advanced technological society.

[Anonymous No.19849247]

>>19848642

[Anonymous No.19849277]

Unibomber simply regurgitated what he read. i 'd say go read original thinkers instead.

[Anonymous No.19849278]

>>19844541
Basically any political philosophy worth its salt, Heidegger and Zerzan are honestly just this guy but better.

[Anonymous No.19849308]

>>19844541

[Anonymous No.19849929]

>>19844541
There are none.

[Anonymous No.19849960]

>>19849247
I too love sources without citations or out of context. I'm totally gonna believe a random chart on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.19850019]

>>19844541
Ted Kaczynski would've been much more successful if he hadn't killed anyone.
>tenured university professor
>excellent intellect
>his writings, despite being limited, are widely read by people who are dissatisfied with modern society
>despite his success, no significant anti-tech movements have emerged

Kaczynski could've spent the last 30-40 years expanding upon his work and gaining public traction. Instead, he has relegated himself to a fringe movement.
>but Jacques Ellul and other authors wrote about the same issues before Kaczynski and they never gained his level of notoriety
Whilst true, I don't think anyone has ever articulated the problems with technological society as well as Kaczynski. Ellul, whilst insightful, is nowhere near as methodical in the delivery of his arguments. Kaczynski articulates himself better on this subject than pretty much anyone else I've read. It's a shame that he decided to use criminality as his means of spreading his message.

>>19844571
Tell me you've never read Kaczynski without telling me you've never read Kaczynski.

>>19844573
>kaczynski was a faggot who had dreams of being a woman.
He said this one time when he was like 16. There's no evidence he was ever a homosexual or engaged in homosexual activity. Your false tough guy cope is stunting your growth.

[Anonymous No.19850039]

>>19849308
Good list. I would also consider adding George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier. I think Orwell was pretty based on the technology question but tended to communicate it more in the social effects of mass poverty, oppressive state oversight and the ennui that most people.

[Anonymous No.19851219]

He made some good points, but a quarter of the book reads like a Fox News script

[Anonymous No.19851227]

>>19851219
>but a quarter of the book reads like a Fox News script
>implying this is bad

[Anonymous No.19851228]

>>19844541
The only counter-argument is that it's too late.

[Anonymous No.19851254]

>>19850019
>Your false tough guy cope
That anon is 100% a tranny. It's a tactic that supporters of the global agenda use to push dissidents away from figures of interest. Poisoning the well.

[Anonymous No.19851322]

>>19850019
>ted Kaczynski would've been much more successful if he hadn't killed anyone
I believe hearing that the primary motivation for the bombing campaign was revenge, just like McVeigh.

[Anonymous No.19851441]

>>19844541
By realizing "the natural world" is not a concept opposed to human civilization or even a real thing at this point. There is a philosophical debate proximal to my area of study about understanding the Earth as a terraformed system via large-scale infrastructure we have built. An alternative view to "fuck it all, burn it down" deep ecology is treating "nature" and human systems as one thing that can be managed, mitigated, improved.
He is probably right about adaption to technology (idk, my knowledge of Kaczynski comes from this board and secondary sources). Humans have a limit to what we can adapt to as we are essential visual-linguistic processing machines trying to run logical/abstract reasoning software (and it's impressive that we can do it as well as we do). Also, my intuition is that industrial society will not collapse as catastrophically as Ted or laymen doomscollers would have you believe, but will instead go through cycles or crash then stabilize. That is barring extremely quick increase in intelligence and production which would probably be very bad.

[Anonymous No.19851527]

>>19844541
The most common criticism of Ellul and Kaczynski that I've seen online is that they are technological determinists. How that's supposed to prove them wrong is unclear though.

[Anonymous No.19851701]

>>19851219
>but a quarter of the book reads like a Fox News script
Lol. Do leftists actually think that they aren't how Kaczynski described them? No truly intelligent person is a "liberal" according to the standard modern definition.

[Anonymous No.19851753]

>>19844541
having sex is a good surrogate activity

[Anonymous No.19851765]

>>19851441
>By realizing "the natural world" is not a concept opposed to human civilization or even a real thing at this point.
False. Everything man has done to the Earth would easily be reversed if he disappeared tomorrow. The idea that we "can't go back" is an illusion created only by our psychological attachment to and reliance on the current system.
>An alternative view to "fuck it all, burn it down" deep ecology is treating "nature" and human systems as one thing that can be managed, mitigated, improved.
Never, ever, ever going to happen. Human civilisation is now highly interconnected in a way that makes managing it from a central authority almost inconceivable. Governments have the ability to monitor, intercede, and rob, but lack the competence or motive to actual manage large-scale projects successfully over a long period of time. Besides war and tax collection, everything is fobbed off to private corporations who actually have a financial incentive to do a good job. Expecting world governments to come up with a system that is for the mutual benefit of humankind is like expecting the Mafia to manage Amazon. They'd just steal everything and wouldn't give a shit about the sustainability of something they couldn't sustain anyway.
> Also, my intuition is that industrial society will not collapse as catastrophically as Ted or laymen doomscollers would have you believe, but will instead go through cycles or crash then stabilize
This is also my belief, although I doubt it will be a good thing for human satisfaction. People are saying that western civilisation will collapse for decades because the system is unsustainable, but in reality people born and raised in the system will put up with A LOT before they do anything truly disobedient. Only now, after massive economic downturns, logistical crisis, and government tyranny are you even beginning to see wide-scale peaceful protests like the truckers in Canada. A few minor concessions will be enough to placate most people.

Obviously collapse will EVENTUALLY occur but the time scale could be so long that we may as well consider the technological system to be a permanent fixture of human life for the foreseeable future of our species.

[Anonymous No.19851771]

>>19851753
>having sex is a good surrogate activity
Sneed's surrogate activities are seed and feed, whereas Chuck's power process involves suck and fuck.

[Anonymous No.19852560]

>>19850019
>He said this one time when he was like 16. There's no evidence he was ever a homosexual or engaged in homosexual activity. Your false tough guy cope is stunting your growth.

I distinctly remember a letter of his where he admitted to sucking some cock, but I can't find it anywhere.

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19852580]

proper eco-defense https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-ecodefense-a-field-guide-to-monkeywrenching

[Anonymous No.19852593]

>>19852560
>I distinctly remember a letter of his where he admitted to sucking some cock,
He was just starting with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.19852630]

>>19844541
Technology advances faster than our limbic systems and doesn't feel right. It's time to do drugs or change our limbic systems. We don't get to choose if we like evolution or not.

[Anonymous No.19852659]

>>19852560
t. glowie

[Anonymous No.19852838]

>>19851219
>t. has neither watched Fox News nor read any of Kaczynski's writings

[Anonymous No.19852912]

>>19851765
But man isn't disappearing tomorrow. What I meant is along the lines of "there is nothing to go back to". Think about Modern civilization as an accelerating outcome from some initial conditions of the system, or maybe as a huge shock on the ecological time series of sustainability that includes events like super volcanoes eruptions and meteorites. The point is that we are still part of the natural system rather than being opposed to it, and this perspective independent of man-as-other opens the door to more applicable solutions than "tear it all down". Or at least possible solutions that need to be tried before we tear it all down. We have to try.
I still think there's something valuable in being the only species we know of that can carry out the scientific method and act as a scholar for this insane, beautiful world, but maybe I'm just a naive humanist and tech cuck. I would be off in the mountains with the monks if I thought there was no chance of this planet pulling through (though maybe that will still happen)
>They'd just steal everything and wouldn't give a shit about the sustainability of something they couldn't sustain anyway.
We pull off large scale projects when profit is on the line. All the researchers that I look up to realize this and try to find a way to fit their morally necessary projects within a economic framework, albeit with a large lag between innovation and industry uptake. You are right that making it past the next 200 years is going to take some serious re-tooling of our value systems.
>People born and raised in the system will put up with A LOT before they do anything truly disobedient.
It has been really interesting reading the news everyday and seeing how hard the CBC manufactures consent against a group (young men who probably don't own property) they think is a threat to the state. This country has benefitted from long term stability and now it is facing some actual problems. They gave much less attention and negative press towards first nations protesting against pipelines a year ago. Our elites see them as pets to be farmed for social points when needed and not a serious threat to their banana republic. The bold two-faced shit makes me depressed.

[Anonymous No.19853423]

>Wanted to hear some constructive criticism and negative reviews
>The thread is full of uncle's Ted fanboys

Okay