[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 308 KB, 1221x1514, Unabomber-HS-Portrait-lo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019595 No.3019595 [Reply] [Original]

Theodore kaczynski (the unabomber), mailed bombs to various professors and industrialists. Around the country. He also wrote a 30 pages essay called "Industrial society and its future"

Has anyone read it? I have found a few people on /sci/ in the past who have read it and appreciated it (like I have), which is totally against the grain of normal /sci/ opinion.

>> No.3019624

bump

>> No.3019625

It was just standard neo-luddism arguments. Nothing which hadn't been said thousands of times before. I wasn't impressed.

>> No.3019630

It was worth reading. Some concerns he raised were legitimate, but unfortunately his inability to use evidence of history to address his own concerns led him to a rather dystopian view of technological progress.

He seemed like a smart guy. Had he learned history, math, and some economics he might have found some of the problems with his arguments and become a useful member of society.

>> No.3019637

>>3019630
but his abilities to use bombs altered history.

>> No.3019649

no one cares, you're not special or edgy.

go away

>> No.3019652

>>3019630

OP

Could you elaborate?

I do think he appealed a little bit too much to emotion. None the less he left a big impact on me.

What Ive heard a lot is people say:

"He was a smart guy, he said a lot of interesting things, however he killed people and thus I totally disregard him"

I feel like, if he was right about something, and that something lead him to kill people, then the act of killing someone was justified.

However, if you want to criticize him, you need to pry at the notion that he was right about he said.

>> No.3019653

>>3019637
Everything alters history, in that sense. It's not very enlightening.

>> No.3019658

he kinda went crazy so I wouldn't go too much into his writings. I think the best way for humanity is to embrace technology instead of running away from it. Sure in the end we will lose our humanity but at least the impact of technology wont kill us anymore.

>> No.3019670

>>3019658

OP here

On what basis do you feel he went crazy?

>> No.3019671

>>3019658 we will lose our humanity

Can you explain what this "humanity" is, and what it means to lose it?

>> No.3019677

>>3019652
I'm sorry, it has been years and years since I read it. I remember thinking it relied heavily on a slippery slope that history has shown does not exist. Appeal to history is not a particularly strong argument in itself, but they are data which must be accounted for if one is to say "This time, it's different." As I recall, he fails to do this.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All the evidence we have indicates that slippery slopes based on wishy-washy "progress is going to kill us all!" arguments (or make slaves of us, or etc) are not well-founded. The null hypothesis would be, quite simply, that the slope isn't slippery. Rejecting this hypothesis would require some extreme evidence. He offers---as I recall---none.

>> No.3019691

>>3019677
>All the evidence we have indicates that slippery slopes based on wishy-washy "progress is going to kill us all!" arguments (or make slaves of us, or etc) are not well-founded.

That's an opinion. Fact is, "progress" changes lives in uncontrollable ways.

>> No.3019694

>>3019671
I have found what most people call their "humanity", tends to be their present thoughts and feelings. They disregard the fact that what they call their humanity they unconsciously discard and replace on a constant basis, because what they really don't like is the idea that something external could make them change their mind.

This is what I call "children". Of all ages.

>> No.3019695

>>3019677

OP here

I think his statements werent

"Everything is fine now, but if he keep going this slippery slope will send us all to point X, which is extremely undesirable"

I think it was

"Everything thats horrible today is a result of this slippery slope we started sliding down 10,000, and its only going to get worse"

I dont know if that makes a difference. I just want to make his statements clear.

>> No.3019703

I agree with 95% of what he wrote. I even understand why he choose his method, despite it being atrocious. I think the world would be more content returning to a primitivo anarchy. The only problem is that it denies my instincts for increasing order and understanding, though this is somewhat irrational on my part.

>He seemed like a smart guy. Had he learned math...
Fool. Kaczynski was brilliant, he got his phd in theoretical geometry in less than a year. He had teaching positions at Harvard, Berkeley, and Michigan. Do a little reading.

In a similar vein, the most intelligent person I've ever met:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html

>> No.3019709

Sage for underage retard whose reading comprehension skills aren't sufficient enough to interpret the essay.
You are not a special flower. Smoke less pot, believe in less pseudo-profound ideas and stop disregarding anyone you disagree with. Oh, and have fun strawmanning my last point.

>> No.3019711

>>3019691
Good for it. Thing is, if we're not progressing, we're either standing still or regressing.

And yet, as scary as progress can be, nobody who isn't a dipshit would ever seriously suggest we stop progressing

>> No.3019713

>>3019670
I think the fact that I am discussing this with you guys, by way of pulling your replies out of the air with my laptop is dangerous, and it is ruining humanity, this sort of discourse. Where's my gun?!

>> No.3019718

>>3019595
Hey OP, I've read it a few years ago.

I think the writing reflects a lot of his personal bitterness and frustration with the academic world, but I also believe some of his observations are undeniable.

>> No.3019724

>>3019711
Yes, I know you don't like questioning your religion of progress, but it's stupid.

>> No.3019727

>>3019703

OP here,

I feel the same way. I remember after reading his essay in high school I just went into some severe anger/depression. I didnt sleep for a few weeks. I just kept thinking "I guess I am a terrorist now"

I think this was becuase I found what he said convincing, and I found his course of action to make sense given what he said.

I came to a point where I just thought "If society goes to hell, its not my responsibility." With that said, I still dont feel like, I, or society, should head in this direction.

What Ive begun to think, is obviously technology is a natural part of humanity. And the advent of technology obviously was a natural occurance to begin with. The best thing we can do is learn from Kaczynski (?), and try and minimize the damage.

>> No.3019733

>>3019653
Nah, posting on 4chan doesn't alter history.

>> No.3019736

>>3019670
he built a cabin in the woods and lived there alone and made bombs, also his face when they found him.

>>3019671
I don't want to define it, but what i mean is that technology will change the look of an average human so much that it will be more like a blend of machine/human. Right now the only technological changes that differentiate us from animals are clothes, glasses, and prosthetics. Even though we are using or holding computers now, it will be possible to integrate them into us, so imagine a future where the average person has many computers implanted throughout their body that give him aditional senses/abilities, and possibly when robotics will get more advanced people will start trading their biological limbs for artificial ones.

>> No.3019744

>>3019739

I think the idea is that "progress", and the attempts to fix problems are the cause of problems to begin with.

>> No.3019749

>>3019703
And if geometry were paramount in understanding history and economics, your point would be show-stopping and I would have to submit that my point was massively incorrect.

But, it is not so.

>> No.3019752

>The best thing we can do is learn from Kaczynski (?), and try and minimize the damage.

agreed

>> No.3019758

>>3019744
Thank you. But I don't think that guy is capable of understanding.

>> No.3019760

>>3019744
Because we all know Cro-Magnon man had a much more problem-free existance.

>> No.3019761

>>3019724
Spoken like a true retard.

I know, let's just sit around not even attempting to fix things that are very obviously in need of fixing because hurrrrrrrr progress might be scary!

>> No.3019766

>>3019760

Well maybe he did?

A bunch of scientists circle jerking about how much better they have made life doesnt count as evidence that the cro-magnon man was any worse off.

>> No.3019771

>>3019760
>cultural propaganda
>>3019761
>strawman argument

>> No.3019772

>>3019736
Technology is one of humanities defining features. Wouldn't increased technology make us more human?

>> No.3019781

>>3019772

Its true, but, there is more than just technology that makes us human. Technology can come at the cost of other human traits

>Big bitey jaws are one of the defining features of dogs
>If we gave dogs enormous mandibles that are ultra powerful and 40 pounds they would be more dog like.

>> No.3019782

>>3019772
Temperature is one of the Earth's habitable regions' defining features. Wouldn't increased temperature make those regions more habitable?

>> No.3019787

>>3019703
spoiler: being good at math != being smart
imagine if kaczynski was a famous painter instead, would you still take his ideas seriously then?

Most people associate being good at math with knowing everything correctly, which is completely wrong. Not everyone is a great painter just like not everyone is a great mathematician. Everyone can try painting just like everyone can do basic arithmetic. Same shit, it's just people don't really know what math is.

>> No.3019796

>>3019766
Spoken like someone who has never felt suffering, the feature of life in nature technology aims to eliminate.

>> No.3019797

>>3019761
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but it's pretty apparent that things done in the name of progress have advanced to the detriment of humanity at large.

Industrialization has coincided with overfishing, pollution of our water and air, an increase in population which is arguably unsustainable... I mean, look at the use of nuclear weapons. Comparing to pre-Industrial society is one thing, and maybe you can reject that comparison, but you can't deny that progress has resulted in widespread degradation of the environment and perhaps of our collective psychological well-being.

>> No.3019798

>>3019787

>spoiler: being good at math != being smart

For whatever its worth, he was just "good at math" he was amazing at math. I think he was offered professorship at age 25 or something. He could be called the best at math.

Besides they make 300k starting. What do you make starting?

I have a lot more respect for people who are pioneers in their field, than for people who are just 'good at it'

>> No.3019803

>>3019796

What do you know about my life? How about you dont make any assumptions about how much either of us have suffered?

"aims" dont count for anything. Which was kind of the point of the essay to begin with. Good intentions dont mean anything when the results are always, and invariably, complete failure.

>> No.3019804

>>3019772
not really, if you think about it most technologies were developed by a few very smart people. Most humans have not contributed to the advancement of the human race. The technology we have today has surpassed the evolutionary capabilites of our bodies, not just physically but mentally (people in power now can destroy an entire continent if they choose to). Basically, we need tougher bodies in order to survive the next change in technology or it will be impossible to live in a world that changes so fast.

>> No.3019805

>>3019695
(That is also my recollection.)

It does make a difference, though not in his favor. Instead of explaining why past events run counter to his thesis, he instead attempts to claim that they are exactly what they aren't. This method of argumentation is clever when used rhetorically, and is certainly a favorite of politicians, but it has no analytical weight. Facts like, "We have to work hard to purchase automobiles, entailing thousands of voluntary choices over long periods of time, any one of which would halt the sale," are hard to sweep under a rug of servile obedience, stupidity, pressures of world-controlling cabals, and so on. If this is a kind of prisoner's dilemma, then that should be demonstrated. Instead it is not.

Progress in an abstract sense is easily stopped. All we have to do is say "no." We don't say "no," and we feel we are better off for it. We don't have to say "no" to big things to halt progress. We could say it to little ones in a thousand ways and progress would grind to a halt. If he sees a trend of accelerating progress, I agree; if he thinks it is *bad*, then what is required is a serious explanation of why we continue to do it, even though it's been for the best time and time again.

>> No.3019807

>>3019796
Nifty how it's totally eliminated it then, and never created any when it wasn't there before.

You're acting like a fundamentalist. Go live with the amish for a while. Maybe it will help you grow up.

>> No.3019809

>>3019803
You can't deny that without technological progress, our species is doomed to die. Without question.

>> No.3019810

>>3019803
>when the results are always, and invariably, complete failure.
>implying science hasn't been wildly successful

>> No.3019818

>>3019809

Well what do you mean "doomed to die"?

We'd be doomed to die if we do, doomed to die if we dont.

>> No.3019819

>>3019809
The biggest threats to humanity's survival happen to be direct results of technological advancements i.e. climate change, environmental degradation, and nuclear weapons.

>> No.3019821

>>3019809
So you would prefer biological stagnation via technological progress? All species die out eventually, mostly by evolving into better adapted species.

>> No.3019830
File: 71 KB, 357x290, 1273466965825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019830

>>3019810

This is my expression at like half these posts.

Someone says something like

"You know, science hasnt been wildly successful, I think we might be overestimating this. Maybe even to a harmful extent"
"Yeah, but thats implying science hasnt been wildly successful"

Its like, none of you guys can even consider the premise of the essay to begin with.

"The notion is wrong because it suggests something which we all know is undoubtely correct is wrong."

>> No.3019831

>>3019796
It's not the african pygmys that have huge rates of chronic depression.

>> No.3019833

Never read it, but based on what people are posting, he wrote about why being a luddite was good I suppose.
Thing is, none of the people who have posted in here have grasped what an event of 'progress' really is. If it's towards achieving a goal, no matter how specific you can state it, that's arbitrary. If it's against a goal, same thing.
Progress is not a figurative vector of changes in society from bad to good (those concepts aren't real), but it's a natural irreversable occurence. People want to do more things in life, and increased technology means increased ability.

So I don't understand the luddite argument. Also I don't care how fluent and adept in mathematics Kaczynski was, fact is that no mathematician has instant grounds to argue on the topic of society and politics.

>> No.3019842

>>3019805

I dont know if this answers you but I remember he made a statement about a chess game.

If you are in a chess game, and there is a chess grand master present. And he gives you advise on your next move. You are better off. But if he gives you advise on every move, you are worse off.

Its easy to say yes to 1000 small choices, then no to 1 big one. Especially how confusing the modern world can be.

>> No.3019847

>>3019830
lol

nobody cares bro

>> No.3019857

>>3019833

You dont understand what "progress" conventionally means. I know by definition it means good. But a lot of times it just refers to furthering things called "progress."

Technology is progress, because by definition technology makes something easier. But technology can be guns, or global warming. Global warming is "progress" because its the result of inventions meant to better humanity.

When you simplify it, it looks stupid to say "progress is bad" because obviously progress is good. But thats not how we use the word "progress"

>> No.3019858

The Unabomber is remembered as a terrorist and murderer; what is forgotten is that he was a brilliant mathematician and philosopher, despite being a sociopath. Kaczynski was originally an Academic - in less than a year he completed a doctorate in theoretical geometry and went on to teaching positions at Harvard and Berkeley. Despite success, his student and professional life were plagued with social anxiety and awkwardness, which may have contributed toward his decision of moving into the wilderness where he lived in a cabin based upon Thoreau's specifications. During that time he wrote his manifesto and mailed bombs to distinguished academics, killing 3 and injuring 23. In his manifesto ultimately published in the New York Times, he argues that the industrial revolution has been "a disaster for the human race".

>> No.3019859

>>3019833
Earth will not be habitable forever, regardless of the technologies we create that "harm" it. Life will not continue if we don't ensure it does. It's that simple, decide for yourself whether you think that's a bad thing or not.

You're on /sci/, not /lit/

>> No.3019856
File: 15 KB, 269x221, andromeda-15-42-s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3019856

>>3019819
>waves wand, technology saves us
>Jesus descends, Jesus saves us

>mfw logical conditioning creates paradox

>> No.3019868

According to Kaczynski, human happiness is simply explained: by setting reasonable goals, putting sustained effort towards them, and having reasonable rates of success in attainment of those goals, we are content. Technology, however, disrupts this power process; if we made no effort to get food, water, or shelter, society would provide them for us. The loss of 'necessity' in our lives results in hedonism, boredom, and "frustration if non attainment of goals is compatible with survival"(37). Kaczynski says the life of civilized people has become "an institution, in which the life of the individual is to a great extend absorbed, in order to persevere and perfect that of the race… [and] I wish to show at what a sacrifice this advantage is at present obtained."(20) Despite benefits such as increased life expectancy, technology has destabilized society and made life unfulfilling; thus, we create artificial and superficial goals in their absence according to Kaczynski's rules. Kaczynski claims the arts and sciences are included as artificial goals because if we only had real goals we would not feel deprived of the arts, while the converse is not so. Additionally, with these sorts of goals we can never be at rest.

>> No.3019871

>>3019833
Change is inevitable. Progress is an opinion about perceptions.

The luddite argument is basically that it is possible for technology to have detrimental effects on people's lives. If that sounds ridiculous, consider the opposite - it is impossible for technology to have detrimental effects on people's lives - is basically techno-fundamentalism.

Everyone has instant grounds to give their opinions on and perceptions of society and politics. Meritocracies are good in restricted conditions - the best heart surgeon telling people in the OR what to do - not universally.

>> No.3019875

Leftist ideals, he claims, not only create feelings of inferiority for the individuals who hold them but appropriate seeing minorities or 'primitive cultures' as inferior and in need of their assistance. He believes that if society solved all it's problems leftists would be compelled to invent new ones. Excess possessions require excess labor, which in the end amounts to nothing meaningful for the individual. A technological society also requires the breakdown of the traditional family unit and community to function, as we must leave our homes to work. While we have physical security, the security primitive man has in the ability to change his own condition is more valuable

>> No.3019878

>>3019842
I'm not sure the analogy is appropriate, but I fear we are treading too far outside my memory of the work. Was his position that we're being guided in this manner?

>> No.3019884

>>3019878

Yeah, that was an exact analogy he made.

>> No.3019885

>>3019856
I don't understand what you're trying to say.

>> No.3019888

>>3019595
wanna read something impressive read this.

http://www.suicidenote.info/

>> No.3019890

legitimate source for the essay?

>> No.3019892

>>3019859
This was to
>>3019818

>> No.3019895

I'm sure our lives would be so much better if we inhabited caves and had to move with the seasons to hunt the little food there would be.

>> No.3019897

>>3019857
That was a really long way of agreeing with me.

>>3019859
You're arguing on something that I never said.

>> No.3019899

>>3019890

Just search "industrial society and its future" in google.

I think wikipedia has the whole thing for some reason. BUt there are also some fine pdf torrents on thepiratebay

>> No.3019906

>>3019884
I'm sure he made the analogy. Rhetoric use of analogies serve two purposes. One is to relate a technical discussion to more familiar terms. This is innocuous, though sometimes misunderstood. Example: bowling ball / rubber sheet analogy which is sometimes misunderstood to be "using gravity to explain itself." Another is to inject propositions into the discussion for which there is an intuitive feel, but no supporting evidence. This grandmaster analogy seems like the latter.

Again---we're far outside my recollection of the work in question.

>> No.3019915

>>3019895
The stability of it all sounds extraordinary!

>> No.3019926

>>3019895
The whole world is food, until people like you come and fuck it up.

>> No.3019940

I think it is easy to be taken in my Ted's manifesto. It speaks to a certain dissatisfaction with modern life. Ultimately though it is kind of sophomoric and you have to remember that the man who wrote it decided the answer was to kill and maim people. This is hardly sane. I'm not saying that an insane man can't be right but it is kinda like the fact a stopped clock is right twice a day.

tl;dr Would you take anger management advice from a murderer? Maybe you'd listen but you'd check it out elsewhere.

>> No.3019943

>>3019595
lols that guy is one insane cunt

>> No.3019947

>>3019926
People like you always think that cavemen had it oh so good hunting mammoths all day and exercising their drawing skills on some walls. Back then, life was shit.

>> No.3019953

>>3019947

How do you know life was shit?

I am a forager and gardener. I am not convinced life was shit.

>> No.3019958

>>3019947
>strawman projection plus cultural propaganda

Jesus you're a fucking disappointment.

>> No.3019959

>>3019953
How badly are your teeth hurting you today?

>> No.3019961

>>3019953
You're a liar.

>> No.3019962

>>3019940
Even the sanest of men are often incorrect

>> No.3019966

>>3019959
HG's had better dentition than agricultural folk. You fail bioanthro.

>> No.3019968

All you anti-civilization fags are welcome to go live in the hills any time now.

Really, GTFO if you think it's so much better. Fucking hypocrites.

>> No.3019971

>>3019940
The probability that he was right, given that he bombed people, is not the probability that he bombed people, given that he was right. I don't recall the manifesto describing murder as a solution.

>> No.3019972

>>3019959
>>3019961

Im not a liar, nor are my teeth hurting.

One time I intentionally went a year without brushing my teeth to see if it would result in cavities.

It didnt, the dentist said the same "Looks good, just brush more" like they always do.

>> No.3019973

>>3019962
This is an argument for believing an insane man how?

>> No.3019980

>>3019968
This. If forager and gardener up there felt so strongly about it, he'd be out in it. But he's not, because he thinks being comfortable is better, just like the rest of us. Nothing to be ashamed of, guiltfag.

>> No.3019982

>>3019968

1. Being a hypocrit doesnt make you wrong

2. its not feasible to leave society

3. even if we did leave society, society gets big and encroaches onto those outside of it.

>> No.3019983

>>3019968
When people attempt to live outside of civilization, they get killed.

You fucking hypocrite.

>> No.3019987

>>3019972
People have a vastly different tolerance for poor dental hygiene. So much so I wonder if telling people to brush does any good.

The ones with good teeth don't really need to except to prevent bleeding and the ones with bad teeth are gonna lose them anyway.

(of course it helps those inbetween, just sayin)

>> No.3019991

>>3019980

Forager here

If I could live out in the woods securely I would. By being on the internet here today, says nothing about my long term goals.

>> No.3019992

>>3019973
I was agreeing with you, nignog.

>> No.3019990

>>3019972
>One time I intentionally went a year without brushing my teeth to see if it would result in cavities.

So badass! Certainly shows us that dentists are liars and cavemen's teeth were fine, rite?

>> No.3019995

>>3019991
+1

>> No.3020002

>>3019992
Tony?

>> No.3020004

>>3019982
>2. its not feasible to leave society

Wat? Who's stopping you?

>> No.3020005

>>3019983
>>3019982
Oh the excuses and buttrage.

You can go live in the mountains any time. Really, you can. Kaczynski was living proof. He decided to start bombing people when his favorite getaway starting being developed.

His argument was "I have more right to have this land how I want it than all the rest of you, and I'll kill you if you disagree". That's the man you want to emulate?

>> No.3020008

>>3020004
Apparently the persecution fantasies extend to this:
>>3019983
>When people attempt to live outside of civilization, they get killed.

FFS. Really?

>> No.3020009

>>3019953
If life wasn't so bad than why did humans settle down thanks to technology?

>> No.3020011

>>3020005
>His argument was "I have more right to have this land how I want it than all the rest of you, and I'll kill you if you disagree". That's the man you want to emulate?

You moron, that the same argument you people make.

>> No.3020013

>>3020002
Gerald.

>> No.3020014

>>3020007
Yeah, I'm sure they had great teeth when they died at 30.

>> No.3020007

>>3019990

I think you underestimate how good of health, even dental health, cave men likely were in.

Our diet stimulates the growth of plaque and bacteria that cause cavities and dental health problems.

Brushing, while it does a good job cleaning our teeth, its harsh and rubs away tooth emanual, which ironically just makes us more vulnerable to dental problems in the event we ever stop brushing.

>> No.3020024

>>3020004

The government, and the fact that its illegal to live on federally protected land, which accounts for a large majority of the western states.

Even theodore kaczynski had to buy land and pay property taxes

>> No.3020027
File: 779 KB, 1285x1200, 1302920794161.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020027

>>3019871

>The luddite argument is basically that it is possible for technology to have detrimental effects on people's lives.

No, that's a moderate "technology can cause good and evil" argument. The luddites advocate the return to pre-Industrial civilization, which is why we hate them here.

>> No.3020030

>>3020008
Yes really. Your ignorance of history notwithstanding.
>>3020009
Settlement happened before technological advances.
>>3020014
Oh good, I thought we might have to go a whole thread without someone stupid enough to repeat that bullshit myth.

>> No.3020031

>>3020011
This shit again? No one is launching hunt-and-kill campaigns to rid the world of hillbillies. What the hell are you even referring to?

>> No.3020033

>>3020009

>If life wasn't so bad than why did humans settle down thanks to technology?

Because in the short term technology appears to be a benefit, but in the long term it comes at severe costs

>> No.3020036

>>3020027
>The luddites advocate the return to pre-Industrial civilization

Incorrect. That is the phantasm you have created out of fear of questioning the technofundamentalism.

>> No.3020037

>>3020014

Yeah, but they didnt die at 30. Thats a misconception. BAsically when people say "they died at thirty" they are including infant mortality. In primitive societies today with high infant mortalitiy, the average life can be like 30, but the modal age of death can be like 75. Which is the reality of what primitive life is like.

>> No.3020040

>>3020030
>Settlement happened before technological advances.

No. The ability to grow crops and farm animals was only possible with the help of tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology
Technology is the creation, usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization as means in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose or end.

By this definition technology is a human characteristic.

>> No.3020042

>>3020037

We know that. Now show us a pre-Industrial civilization with low infant mortality.

>> No.3020045

>>3020031
Your ignorance is astounding. Recall why the native americans are a minority. Note the arguemtns over amazon rainforest protectionism.

>> No.3020046

>>3020031
srsly, tell the swampfolk in the Mississippi river delta that

1- they have great teeth
2- they have to leave their land because it's illegal

See where that gets you.

>> No.3020047

>>3020045
Oh THAT'S what this is about.

>> No.3020052

>>3020040
A. Settlement also occured around highly productive seafood resources, utilizing the same fishing/gathering techniques that a;ready existed.
B. Otters and crows also use technology by that definition.

>> No.3020053

I prefer Heidegger's approach to technology.

http://www.cas.buffalo.edu/classes/dms/rtscholz/heidegger_on_tech.pdf

>> No.3020054

LOL at the Luddites arguing on an imageboard on the internet in their air-conditioned homes.

>> No.3020055

>>3020042

I cant. You got me.

But I can point out that infanticide has appeared in cultures all over the world, can could be argued to be a natural human behavior. Even abortion today is a form of infanticide. People kill their children when they cant take care of them. And when you kill them after birth it looks a lot worse than abortion.

>> No.3020061

>>3020047
No, that's what you're ignoring to pretend that your bullshit isn't bullshit.

>> No.3020082

>>3020054

Im the forager luddite.

Yes I am on the internet.

No I am not benefitting from air conditioning.

>> No.3020084

>>3020055
>equating the high infant mortality of pre-industrial cultures with infanticide and abortion
oh wow

>> No.3020089

None of any of this will matter when a cosmic phenomena ends life on Earth completely. We have 2 options, try or don't try.

I'd rather try and fail, then fail to try. Lest we go the way of the dinosaurs. Like it or not, it's true luddites. We'll have to leave this rock if we want to continue the only life we know to exist in the universe.

>> No.3020091

>>3020084
You desperately need to take some anthropology classes.

>> No.3020098
File: 216 KB, 640x480, ICAN-41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020098

>>3020055

>I cant. You got me.

Thank you for not extending this beyond necessity.

>But I can point out that infanticide has appeared in cultures all over the world, can could be argued to be a natural human behavior. Even abortion today is a form of infanticide. People kill their children when they cant take care of them. And when you kill them after birth it looks a lot worse than abortion.

Allright. I don't think I follow.

Regarding "techno-fundamentalism", which is prone to be used against me since I'm a transhumanist, well; meet Michael Anissimov: The guy is a hardcore transhumanist but each of his posts talk in one way or another of the increase in what he calls 'existential risk'. He's as paranoid as Charlie Pellegrino, but he's not a luddite.

Case in point: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2011/04/security-is-paramount/

>> No.3020100

>>3020084

Yes I said it.

Its worth pointing out, a woman who lived in the 1900s, who lost 75% of her children to poor living conditions, unregulated and unsanitary food, and war, is not the same as a cave woman who might have have had to kill, or abandon one of her children at some point in her life.

>> No.3020103

>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053
THIS

>> No.3020107

>>3020091
I've taken one, actually, though I'm a physicist. What's your point?

There's a world of fucking difference between
1. Having the majority of your children die whether you like it or not
2. Murdering your children after they are born
3. Choosing not to have children through birth control and/or abortion

>> No.3020118

>>3020100
Nice, choosing an early industrial case.

But the middle ages of Europe were even worse. Or is that inapplicable, because it was an agricultural society?

>> No.3020120

>>3020107
1 is no more common than 2 or 3. Your assumption that hundreds of thousands of years of tribal living never produced any kind of medicine adapted to tribal living is idiotic.

>> No.3020123

>>3020098

>Allright. I don't think I follow.

Having a child is a big investment, and sometimes its hard to predict if youll be able to raise those children. Its a large calorie and time committment.

Inevitably, human parents have to kill their infants. Its part of family planning. Today we have the technology to abort our children before they are born. In the past they often did too, via herbs and drugs to induce still born, or premature births. When a woman tries to get rid of their infant in a primitive socieity it looks like some horrible consequence of their life style. But when a woman wants to get an abortion, (not to make it sound good, no woman wants to get an abortion), its a great benefit of science.

One looks bad, one looks good, but its the same human behavior.

>> No.3020128

>>3020107

When and where did people have a majority of their children die whether they like it or not?

>> No.3020133

yes i read it
i don't care about what he said but i quote it a lot because i think it's funny to do so

>> No.3020134

>>3020120
1 has been the rule for all societies until the advent of modern medicine, which is exclusive to advanced industrial societies.

>> No.3020140

>>3020128
Right now. Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, war was a part of tribal days too.

>> No.3020141

>>3020118

Was it worse?

First of all, middle ages were still an example of technology.

Second of all, you still exaggerate how worse off they were. I have a scientific paper here on my computer about measuring the quality of life in england during 1200. In which they state the quality of life was far greater than our stereotypes.

>> No.3020143

>>3020132
Please. I was an Eagle Scout too. Or are you going to shit all over the idea that I've done my fair share of wilderness survival too?

>> No.3020132

>>3020107
you may be a physicist, but you're not smart enough to be a caveman.

>> No.3020146

>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053
THIS

>> No.3020149

>>3020089
Answer me this, faggots. Think big picture, beyond your shitty guilt.

>> No.3020150

>>3020128
Pick your war, we've had a lot that fit that description.

>> No.3020151

>>3020140

1. tribal =/= primitive

2. Do you have any proof that societies, such as the small few thousand person tribes in africa are more or less violent, and war like that large societies, like america are.

>> No.3020153

>>3020143
Not enough to get through your cultural programming bullshit, obviously.

>> No.3020155

>>3020150

No you pick a war.

>> No.3020160

>>3020149
I agree, humanity should colonize the stars.

Happy?

>> No.3020163

>>3020155
>>3020150
It's not about war, goddamit.

You really think that's the cause of high infant mortality in pre-industrial societies?

>> No.3020165
File: 498 KB, 2000x3000, 1292683070108 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020165

>>3020153

The "you close minded" argument is not proper discourse, sir. You can't just disregard what someone else says on the basis that they are "close minded" when your definition of close-minded is 'he no like what I like, baawwwww'.

>> No.3020172

>>3020098
>The second we create an intelligence superior to ourselves

Stopped reading there. You cannot create something smarter than you.

>> No.3020173

>>3020165
It'snot "close-minded" it's "delusional". This is a religion he's reciting.

>> No.3020174

>>3020163

Oh, I guess that makes sense.

Sorry my bad, I let one huge atrocity from society bleed into another.

>> No.3020178

We are living in the least violent period in all of human history. At no other time in all of human civilization's past are you less likely to die violently.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

>> No.3020181

>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053>>3020053
>>3020053
>>3020053

THIS

>> No.3020183

>>3020163

For whatever its worth, war results in a loss or resources, like food. People starve from war.

In iraq due to sanctions 1.5 million children apparently died. I presume some of them could be infants.

>> No.3020185

>>3020160
So where does the writing of some nutjob, about how technology is evil, fit in to that plan?

We can't get to our next step by picking strawberries and wearing hemp bracelets, brah.

>> No.3020191
File: 307 KB, 2000x875, saassemblyv4_cutaway_april2007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020191

>>3020172

AI is just a block of ice on the edge of the tip of the iceberg, though. There's also molecular nanotechnology; whether biological or diamondoid mechanosynthesis, genetic engineering; somatic or germline; and other related things.

I have never been much of the AI guy myself.

>> No.3020192

>>3020181
Dude. Summerfag. We get it.

>> No.3020193

>>3020172
+1. We can make things that are stronger, faster, etc. But smarter? You have to have within your mind the plan for something that is smarter than you. Is that possible?

You can probably create self-improving systems that do it semi-blindly, trying to maximize some given fitness. But I doubt it's possible for any intelligent system to simply write down the blueprints for "Me 2.0, more intelligent than ever".

>> No.3020199

>>3020185
I'm not one of the Kaczynski faggots ITT. But you're right, they ignore the long view.

>> No.3020203

>>3020192

Heh

Its funny how 4chan is seasonal.

I was just outside thinking "Damn its hot, summer is here I guess"

>> No.3020205

>>3020192
>Summerfag

how d'you get that?

>> No.3020206

>>3020178
Huh.

>> No.3020211

>>3020205

Fuck you summerfag. Stop being such a summer faggot. No one owes you an explanation.

>> No.3020268
File: 50 KB, 500x375, 1278184588655.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020268

I have read about 1/3 of it and it occured to me that if he hadn't chosen the path of the murderer he could have had a successful career as a primetime news commentator on any of the 24 hour networks.

>> No.3020282

>>3020211
been here for 3 years mate

>> No.3020288

>>3020268

OP here

Yeah, it is funny isnt it. He could have been horrendously mis portraying terrorists himself.

>> No.3020311

I think the debate isn't worth the anger being spewed. Why?

1. Reversing the industrialization trend entirely simply isn't going to happen. There's too many people to go back to hunting and gathering, and people like not starving to death.
2. The present and future is not as bleak or techno-dystopian as some fear. Life expectancy is at an all-time high and rising, individual members of the middle class are wealthier than royalty of ages past, and human population growth is tapering off and set to go into population decline shortly after 2050.

It's a great time to be alive. If anything, I'd like to live further in the future.

>> No.3020406

/sci/: 1
/ludd/: 0

>> No.3020458

>>3020406

Im actually really satisifed with the luddite's comments. I wasnt convinced of anything. I was siding with the luddites. Im just happy to see they were as sane and numerous as they were.

>> No.3020684

>>3020458
>I agree with my earlier posts, me and myself are right
LOL

>> No.3020716

>>3020684

I posted a bunch. But I noticed there were a lot of other people posting with me who agreed with me. It was nice to see.

Im not impressed with my own statements, or the statements of others. Im just happy these people exist to begin with. Makes me feel significantly less alone about this issue.

>> No.3020753

I don't feel like digging through the 160+ posts here but I'd like to say that I largely agree with Ted's manifesto. Modern life is luxurious but draining and unrewarding.

A 40-hour work week sucks and watching TV doesn't compensate for it.

>> No.3020756

>>3020753
I agree. Let's kill some people!

>> No.3020767

>>3020753
You think a 40-hour work week sucks?
OMGWTFBBQ

You don't know how good you've got it. And if you don't like watching TV, don't do it.

>> No.3020786

>>3020753

Heh, I know how you feel. And I appreciate you posting in this thread.

I was just saying to that guy how happy it makes me to see people like you post similar feelings. I think he was acusing me of being alone.

>> No.3020787

>>3020753
>>3020767
You can work less than 40 hours a week, but only with a hunter-gatherer standard of living.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Hunter-gatherer

I'll work 40 hours a week.

>> No.3020798

>>3020786
I was, but I was trolling.

Anyway, I think this is just a massive case of "the grass is greener".

>> No.3020811

>>3020798

I disagree, but, maybe you will turn out to be right, for we will soon find out after the coming rapture of technology.

Just kidding.

>> No.3020823

>>3020811
Neither the singularity nor the collapse of agricultural civilization is going to happen.

Deal with it, both sides.

>> No.3020847
File: 199 KB, 800x600, 1296938579458.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3020847

>>3020823

In other news, pies are crumbly but good and the speed of light is a constant.

>> No.3020862

>>3020823

Well... okay... FINE...

>> No.3020874

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but this is his manifesto: http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt..

>> No.3021042

>>3020874
finally... thanks

Read the entire thread, relatively interesting. I would side with technology on this one, simply because it enables us to question these matters (internet) and maybe even prove beyond a doubt which side is correct. Progress trap is old news for me, of course there are consequences for our actions and solutions only really change what the problem is, but I don't think we will ever stop trying to solve problems and therefore progress. Infact, the luddites want to achieve what they regard as progress as well, its just entirely different from what most of /sci/ thinks it is. I don't think any of them would sincerely want to live in the distant past because then they wouldn't have the well of knowledge telling them that's a good thing, instead they conclude with their present technology-provided information that they would be better off.