do you like him?

[Anonymous No.22994634]

[Anonymous No.22994649]

>>22994634
He’s right to point out that there’s a mismatch between our biology and our environment (modern society). But like most people, Ted forgets that WE ARE STILL EVOLVING. You might as well try to get rid of language and fire and go back to living like monkeys. The problem with this is that you can’t stop other societies (let alone other planets) from seeking power and eventually destroying your primitive tribe. There is no going back, only forward. And those who can’t handle it will die out, like Ted.

[Anonymous No.22994662]

he's cool but his ideas are shit. it's a sad case because he's autistically obsessed with rigorous truth yet obviously knows that his ideas are emotionally motivated.

[Anonymous No.22994666]

>>22994634
i don't find him interesting at all.

[Anonymous No.22994685]

>>22994649
He lived into his 80s.

[Anonymous No.22994687]

>>22994649
>let alone other planets
reddit moment

[Anonymous No.22994699]

>>22994634
Like him? I fucking LOVE him.

[Anonymous No.22994700]

>>22994687
>forget about the unknown bro, caring about fighting things that don’t exist is le reddit
your kind will die out too, faggot

[Anonymous No.22994707]

>>22994649
>WE ARE STILL EVOLVING
Autistic STEMfags will create a self aware AI that dooms us all long before we have time to adapt

[Anonymous No.22994709]

>>22994634
Yes and no

[Anonymous No.22994717]

>>22994634
yes and no. I think his predictions about the future are based on solid inference but his promotion of accelerationism is a little cringe. believing the ends justify the means is the height of delusional narcissism

[Anonymous No.22994725]

>>22994709
>>22994717
did i accidentally samefag or is this a beautiful bit of synchronicity

[Anonymous No.22994729]

>>22994634
Yes but Edward Abbey went about it better

[Anonymous No.22994733]

>>22994725
just imagine, if it happens again we might have a real idea of how to find SOs. sorry

[Anonymous No.22994737]

he was right about everything and I'm SICK and fucking TIRED of pretending he was not

[Anonymous No.22994743]

>>22994707
wrong we just have to genetically alter ourselves before that happens, retard

[Anonymous No.22994745]

>>22994733
you even knew I was an incel. impressive. maybe the problem is our fence riding position on anarcho primitivism

[Anonymous No.22994752]

>>22994707
>>22994743
As soon as AI becomes powerful enough we will just use it to analyze the human genome to suggest how exactly to make the genetic alterations to increase intelligence, etc. We will start with rats, obviously, to make sure that it actually works.

[Anonymous No.22994759]

>>22994634
i wonder if he dropped any classes

[Anonymous No.22994791]

I found it quite interesting how acute his essay The System's Neatest Trick, specially considering that he wrote it while in prison and having lived in a cabin in the middle of nowhere before.

[Anonymous No.22994881]

>>22994649
>But like most people, Ted forgets that WE ARE STILL EVOLVING.

>122. [...] The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

>The problem with this is that you can’t stop other societies (let alone other planets) from seeking power and eventually destroying your primitive tribe. There is no going back, only forward. And those who can’t handle it will die out, like Ted.
>195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down.
And to the statement that there is no going backwards:
>129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. [...]
I don't want to write an essay, but Kaczynski directly addresses all of your points, some with an entire chapter.

[Anonymous No.22994897]

>>22994717
>the ends dont justify the means
nothing will ever change then

[Anonymous No.22994917]

>>22994881
you might as well try to make everyone act like a perfect communist and never try to make more money than anyone else. Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.22994928]

>>22994917
He does not believe that humans will ever relinquish technology, which is why he believed that the entire world's economy and industrial infrastructure must be destroyed. He specifically critiques the Marxian sort of utopianism (yes, I know Marxian socialism was supposed to be a "scientific" non-utopian socialism, it doesn't change the fact that it's utopian with more words.)

[Anonymous No.22994973]

>>22994917
>>22994928
To be more precise, he does not even believe that it is possible to willingly relinquish or roll-back technology.

[Anonymous No.22995016]

>>22994928
>>22994973
It still won’t work, and most people don’t care anyway. Ted was coping because he didn’t know how to function in modern society. When you’re successful and have friends and a wife you don’t think about this shit

[Anonymous No.22995048]

>>22995016
>most people don’t care anyway.
True, he says that most people won't, and the vast majority that do, only do so because they believe they will survive to see the primitive world they create (they almost certainly won't).
>When you’re successful and have friends and a wife you don’t think about this shit
True. Revolutions are almost always carried out by those with little or nothing to lose.
> Ted was coping because he didn’t know how to function in modern society.
Debatable. Regardless, this does not refute his thesis (industrial society = bad). Even the literature written by his opposition does not refute him. The only coherent argument given is
>So what? I'm a utilitatian, it's okay if we are given a PleasureMaster 9000 implant directly to our brains from birth, so that we enjoy slaving away for the system in unending ecstasy.
>Well even if you destroy the system another will come back in 500 years.
>who cares man. it like, probably won't even happen or whatever.

[Anonymous No.22995194]

>>22994634
I met someone once who said he used to be all about Ted, and then going full Nick Land. How does that happen? I wish I could have asked him, but it didn't occur to me at the time. I wonder if he was more nuanced from the get go because he studied technology deeply despite seeming to hate it, then became opposed to anyone who disrupted technological development.

[Anonymous No.22995216]

>>22995194
Kaczynski's ideology is extremely pessimistic, not only about human nature, but about the nature of the world-- it is even more pessimistic than Christianity-minus-God. I can imagine that if one were to be mind-broken by ISAIF but unable to erase it from one's mind, they might just give in to the other side and get it over with. On the other hand, may just believe in typical collapse-accelerationism, which aims to make technological development so rapid that it is unsustainable. This is also a part of Kaczynskiïsm.

[Anonymous No.22995220]

>>22995216
Interesting. Thank you.
I mean he did seem to tell me that he believes that technology could be made fast enough to make the world better. But perhaps that is not what he really meant to say, if he is still influenced by ISAIF.

[Anonymous No.22995231]

>>22995194
Well that’s basically me. The answer is that I liked Ted when I was a teenager, then I grew up. I cringe when I remember the conversation with my dad about how everything is horrible because of modern technology. He was a smart man, and he simply thought I was crazy. I think I latched onto those ideas at that time because I was depressed and resentful because I was a socially and physically inept. But now I realize that there is nothing inherently wrong about either a primitive society or an industrial society, provided that we are suited to live in that environment. I assure you that most people would not like to be hunter-gatherers, and would easily return to modern society after living that life for years if given the choice. Humans have already evolved a little since ancient times, and we will keep evolving. And you might ask, well why not just try to evolve in a primitive society? There are two main answers: you forfeit power and the potential elimination of suffering. A primitive society is weak and will always be defeated by the “industrial” society, so it simply does not work, it does not last. But even if it did, and we could have millions of years of living like cavemen, then that would be far inferior to the world that we could create with advanced technology. Do you actually think that humans will be factory slaves forever? Do you think that we won’t eventually try to reduce suffering for all life? Nature is awful, life has suffered for billions of years on this planet. Our goal is to make all of this suffering worth it, and to create trillions of years of heaven.

[Anonymous No.22995236]

>>22995231
Woah you are a modern-day Socrates

[Anonymous No.22995237]

>>22994881
what were his views on space colonization out of curiosity? it's easy to see that going horribly wrong for earth too of course, but by extension it seems to be the only way with technology out without irrepairedly destroying our species with transhumanism and/or genetic engineering.

[Anonymous No.22995259]

>>22995231
>you forfeit power and the potential elimination of suffering.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, 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 and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

169. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds or thousands of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalog of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?

170. “Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure. That’s what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). In the mean time there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.

[Anonymous No.22995260]

>>22995236
yes, thank you for acknowledging this. But I didn’t really give you that much evidence to reach that conclusion. I would make Socrates (Plato) look like an idiot. The actual Socrates is based though and so I appreciate your compliment

[Anonymous No.22995268]

>>22995237
>>22995231
I can knock two birds out with one stone.
Going to another planet doesn't stop the issues inherent NOT to technology but to technological DEVELOPMENT, and merely postpones whatever immediate issues are present for a later date.
The problem is that, even if we assume that at some point in the future human beings will extinguish all suffering, at any point before and after technological development could bring about an unexpected yet highly disastrous change. An example might be a scientific experiment gone wrong, or a new chemical which at first appears to result in a reversal of age, but has dire consequences decades down the line. All of these could result in a fate worse than death, and it is impossible to predict or prevent these issues without having prescient knowledge.

[Anonymous No.22995284]

You don’t argue with luddites, anti-natalists, and nihilists. You outbreed them.

[Anonymous No.22995291]

>>22995284
>204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

>205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problem, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
But you don't really read before writing.

[Anonymous No.22995305]

>>22995291
Doesn’t change what I said. Revolutionaries will be outbred. You will lose. Does this bother you? Go blow someone up.

[Anonymous No.22995311]

>>22995305
What an intelligent and well thought position.

[Anonymous No.22995314]

>>22995311
it comes from someone who wants to see more of today

[Anonymous No.22995318]

>>22995311
Intelligence is being able to adapt and survive. The aliens will use you like slaves if all you have is caveman technology when they show up. Good thing that will never happen.

[Anonymous No.22995321]

>>22995268
i imagine it would be a lot easier to postpone it in space. technological development seems liable to be less of an issue there initially seeing as how it's already a artifical environment. although his view would likely be that in the grand scheme, the whole universe would be ruined.

[Anonymous No.22995324]

>>22995318
>Intelligence is being able to adapt and survive.
you can't just make shit up you know

[Anonymous No.22995325]

>>22994649
>There is no going back, only forward. And those who can’t handle it will die out, like Ted.
Tf does that mean? Do you think you won't "die out" as well?

[Anonymous No.22995350]

>>22995231
>Nature is awful, life has suffered for billions of years on this planet. Our goal is to make all of this suffering worth it, and to create trillions of years of heaven.
You won't believe in me, but you aren't the first one to think about this, and to have the same idea: "we shall eliminate human suffering in the upcoming years!"; as a matter of fact, people were saying this for a few centuries! What went wrong, i wonder? But okay, things will get better, as our history has shown.

[Anonymous No.22995369]

>>22995350
You cannot make the world a better place until you first make humans better. A society made of good people will be good regardless of what level their technology is, but the technology gives them an advantage over competing societies. But of course humans aren’t perfect, so we actually need technology very badly to correct our biology. We still have problems because we have not yet perfected genetic engineering. A lot of people really don’t like to hear this but the truth is that humans are retarded. We are the problem. Not the world, not technology, not life itself. But human ignorance, selfishness, and cruelty.

[Anonymous No.22995372]

>>22994634
He was a hair's-breadth away from becoming a tranny.

>In the summer after his fourth year, he describes experiencing a period of several weeks where he was sexually excited nearly all the time and was fantasizing himself as a woman and being unable to obtain any sexual relief. He decided to make an effort to have a sex change operation.

>When he returned to the University of Michigan he made an appointment to see a psychiatrist to be examined to determine if the sex change would be good for him. He claimed that by putting on an act he could con the psychiatrist into thinking him suitable for a feminine role even though his motive was exclusively erotic. As he was sitting in the waiting room, he turned completely against the idea of the operation and thus, when he saw the doctor, instead claimed he was depressed about the possibility of being drafted. He describes the following,

>"As I walked away from the building afterwards, I felt disgusted about what my uncontrolled sexual cravings had almost led me to do and I felt humiliated, and I violently hated the psychiatrist. Just then there came a major turning point in my life. Like a Phoenix, I burst from the ashes of my despair to a glorious new hope. I thought I wanted to kill that psychiatrist because the future looked utterly empty to me. I felt I wouldn't care if I died. And so I said to myself why not really kill the psychiatrist and anyone else whom I hate. What is important is not the words that ran through my mind but the way I felt about them. What was entirely new was the fact that I really felt I could kill someone. My very hopelessness had liberated me because I no longer cared about death. I no longer cared about consequences and I said to myself that I really could break out of my rut in life an do things that were daring, irresponsible or criminal."

>He describes his first thought was to kill someone he hated and then kill himself, but decided he could not relinquish his rights so easily. At that point he decided "I will kill but I will make at least some effort to avoid detection so that I can kill again."

Source: https://www.karenfranklin.com/files/Kazynski-Johnson_Report-09.11.98.pdf -- see pp. 17ff.

See also:
https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1667635830750597120

https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-unabombers-transgenderism/

[Anonymous No.22995374]

>>22995369
Then we should not trust ignorant, selfish, and cruel humans to change humanity.

[Anonymous No.22995381]

>>22995372
Yes, this isn't the first time the FBI and government made something up to discredit someone or something. I.e., "Yockey was like... A gay prostitute!1"
Even granting its validity, it doesn't refute the thesis.