[ 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: 157 KB, 750x560, 32149920_366678950492956_3006491027189006336_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9743559 No.9743559 [Reply] [Original]

>The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Was he right? Or was the 170 IQ Berkeley mathematics professor just a crazy hobo?
Discuss.

>> No.9743560

>>9743559
Disastrous in some ways, extremely beneficial in others

>> No.9743566

>>9743559
Were his ideas right? Absolutely.

Did he need to kill anyone? No, he did not. He was wrong about that, sure it brought "attention" to his ideas but it made him instantly dismissed as a crazy person.

>> No.9743573

>>9743566
To be honest, he killed 3 people and injured 23 over the span of about 20 years.
Now imagine how many people lose their lives or are injured because of how our civilization works (in this case - cars, alcohol, depression, machinery accidents etc.)
People don't seem to lose their shit over these things as easily as they do when they hear about a terrorist or a killer

>>9743560
Exactly. But would you say it's more disastrous or more beneficial generally speaking?

>> No.9743609

>>9743573
he didn't have the right to kill unlike a politician or a business man in search of profit. no idea can be important if the originator is not a paragon of virtue according to the rules of the establishment.

>> No.9743630

>>9743559
>Was he right
Industrialised civilisation will collapse during this century, what a redundant question.

>> No.9743637

>>9743559
seedlings of truth and good intentions but mostly he's a retarded ideologue who glosses over and misconstrues things

>> No.9743638

>>9743566
Killing people is good.

>> No.9743646

I think he was mostly just butthurt that he could never fit in with society. At one point, when he almost lost his virginity, he started behaving more normal, but then when the girl he was dating rejected him he got even more angry and went full "Walden".

>> No.9744086

>>9743573
>Now imagine how many people lose their lives or are injured because of how our civilization works (in this case - cars, alcohol, depression, machinery accidents etc.)
^This.
Cars alone have always bothered me. It's a socially acceptable death lottery. We all know there will be over 1 million deaths due to car accidents every year (over 3,000 deaths every day) but everyone believes they themselves are special and different and that all these people getting fucked by cars must have done something wrong.

>> No.9744202

>>9743559
Technology is damaging, but it will all be worth it a thousand years from now.

>> No.9744212

>>9744202
What is going to be better in 1000 years? How is more technology going to fix the current problems?

>> No.9744221

>>9744212
nobody will be around to worry about it

>> No.9744222

>>9744212
Genetic engineering + population control (maybe war) will fix a lot of problems. The first large batch of geniuses will be conditioned to engage in STEM, and they would develop better techniques for the creation of superhumans and you'd get exponential advancement in genetics alone. It's difficult to imagine what technology they would work towards, but I'm sure it would be amazing.

>> No.9744249

>>9743573
>Now imagine how many people lose their lives or are injured because of how our civilization works (in this case - cars, alcohol, depression, machinery accidents etc.)
Now imagine living in a state where you die of dysentery, common viruses and parasites, starvation, and black lung since every time you fire up your oven, you breath in the soot.

These kind of arguments are garbage.

>> No.9744257

>>9743566
>Were his ideas right? Absolutely.
This is your daily reminder that the noble savage doesn't exist.

>> No.9744259

He was smart but he drank too much of his own kool aid and like other very smart but socially isolated people he came to believe that he knew all the answers and would accept no compromises.

>> No.9744276

It's impossible, barring extraterrestrial intervention, for the human species to exist long-term without colonizing space.

First is the hard limit imposed by changes the Sun will undergo in its lifetime. Beyond that, we have to worry about large impactors, gamma ray bursts, rogue black holes, and other cosmic fuckery. Next is geological and ecological instability- where supervolcanos, ice ages, and atmospheric composition shift are just some of the fun and exciting things that could go wrong. Then, there's the potential of catastrophic plague, whether it's viral, bacterial, fungal, prion, or parasitic. Between all those possibilities, and the ones I forgot to even bring up, humanity is in immediate and desperate danger of going extinct, if you're thinking beyond the scope of the present and a few generations from now. Earth is a cradle for now, but if we stay too long, it'll be a tomb for our entire species at some point in the future.

>> No.9744300

>>9744259
But that's wrong. In all of his works I've read, he clearly states and even emphasizes multiple times that he doesn't know everything or have all the answers, he doesn't claim to. He did believe compromise within the system wouldn't work, which is probably a legitimate point.

>> No.9744314

>>9744276
Good. We should die here instead of fucking up space too.

>> No.9744339

Each epoch of civilization had it's own problems, while ours is particularly unique I don't think it's civilization ending. Whether or not we actually regress technology wise who knows but we'll eventually deal with the problems we have now and there'll be a new set of problems to figure out down the line once we progress more.

Still, for all the faults of modern society I'd rather not go back to a hunter-gathering civilization because anarcho-primitisivism is fucking stupid.

>> No.9744340

>>9744314

Did cyanobacteria fuck up the Earth by drastically increasing the oxygen content of the atmosphere, killing off many of the other species of microorganisms around at the time?

Stop thinking like a child and have some perspective.

>> No.9744371

>>9743573
You dont even understand his principle argument, and your argument amounts to "hey people die so he must be right xd". see>>9744249 Teds assertion was that the ennui and malaise of modern life are a function of technology.

>> No.9744372

>>9744340
>Stop thinking like a child and have some perspective.
Our species is incapable of caring about anything beyond personal gratification on large scales. Colonizing another planet doesnt solve the problem, it just delays it.

>> No.9744373

>>9744371

I don't suffer from ennui OR malaise. I have a terrific time sillyposting all day.

>> No.9744390

>>9744314
How do you fuck up space?

>> No.9744391

>>9744249
hard to imagine that primitive living is not equal to poverty innit

>>9744371
that was barely a counter argument to anon who blamed ted for killing people

>> No.9744394

>>9743609
sounds like something a slave to the establishment would say.

>> No.9744397

>>9744222
>technology will be worth it because we'll be a genetically altered slave race living under a totalitarian dictatorship incapable of even existing outside of our own self created bio-technological hell, probably incapable of even imagining a better life or feeling dislike towards the system thanks to extensive generic engineering that makes the current big-pharma industry look quaint
>trust me it's going to be great guys

>> No.9744398

>>9744372

As far as we know, no species is capable of caring about anything beyond personal gratification on large scales. Condemning the entirety of humanity on your own assumption that it can never develop into something you personally deem "worthy" of long-term existence is ludicrously arrogant, short-sighted, and again- childish.

>> No.9744400

>>9744390
We’d literlly spread like a cancer through every star system, filling them full of trash and destroying their resources ad infiitum until we eventually run into aliens that have been doing it for even longer that kill us or the universe dies.

>> No.9744411

>>9744400

And why is that bad? Explain yourself.

>> No.9744418

>>9744400
>Why is trashing the visible universe bad

>> No.9744422

>>9744418

Yes, that's the question. Are you capable of answering it, or have we arrived at the end of your ability to rationalize?

>> No.9744424

>>9744418
The universe exists for us to enjoy it. Without us it might as well be destroyed.

>> No.9744473

>>9744398
What you are literally telling me is that it is childish to have a realistic expectation of the actions of our species on large scales and that it is childish to critically examine human psychology and form conclusions because my conclusions dont align with yours or dont fit your personal narrative. Additionally these two statements are mutually exclusive :
Species only care about personal gratification
and
Develop into something that doesnt care about personal gratification

>> No.9744475

>>9744424
Nope. It doesn’t have a reason. It’s just there.

>> No.9744479

>>9744424
>>9744422
>>9744411
>The black man exists for us to enjoy it. Without us he might as well be destroyed.
Perhaps we should aspire to be something more than glorified bacteria in our grandest designs.

>> No.9744491

>>9744475
Well obviously. But from our perspective we have no incentive to protect beyond our expiration.

>> No.9745892

>>9744391
>primitive living is not equal to poverty
Holy shit Anon, see >>9744257. Jesus Christ you're dumb.
Here is a dose of reality for you so you stop sipping the kool-aid: When the great depression hit, we basically turned the clock back 20 years and everyone found that state of living to be unbearable - and rightly so.
Currently, we are operating on roughly where we should have been in 2012 due to the financial crisis, we are not back on trend, and people are sick of it.
It's one thing to step off the proverbial treadmill yourself. It's another thing entirely to force others to do so.

>> No.9746072

>>9744397
I'm so fucking stoked for this.

>> No.9747424

>>9743566
>sure it brought "attention" to his ideas
You wouldn't be discussing him or his ideas right now if he didn't waste those people.
>>9743646
>muh dick

>> No.9747440

>>9743559
>170 IQ
Wasn't he tested in prison and found to have 136 IQ or something like that?

>> No.9747452

>>9743559
>Was he right?
You're asking about objective truth when he was expressing an opinion.
You're also implying a math professor is an authority on history, anthropology, or something like that. I can't even quite pin down who you think would be an authority on the subject.
You're also implying an outlier (IQ wise) could/should speak for those in the middle of the bell curve.
Finally, you're implying high IQ and "crazy hobo" are mutually exclusive.
Ergo, while I can't show Kaczynski was _wrong_ I can prove OP is a faggot.

Besides, he was wrong. Pre-industrial revolution was a horrible time to live, without the interwebs, modern medicine/dentistry, space travel, or brownies.

>> No.9747474

>>9744394
What he said is accurate; whether or not he is a slave to the establishment is irrelevant.

>> No.9747477

>>9744259
>He was smart but he drank too much of his own kool aid and like other very smart but socially isolated people he came to believe that he knew all the answers and would accept no compromises.
He didn´t claim his principles to be more "right" than anyone else´s principles. Believing in personal liberty led him to the conclusions outlined in his book - that´s all.

>> No.9747483

>>9747452
>Besides, he was wrong. Pre-industrial revolution was a horrible time to live, without the interwebs, modern medicine/dentistry, space travel, or brownies.
Life was shorter and more dangerous back then, yes, but longevity and safety has its trade-offs, such as vast concessions to personal liberty.

>> No.9747493

>>9747483
>vast concessions to personal liberty.
Such as?
Life before the industrial revolution was far less "free than you apparently imagine.
Right now, today, I _could_ clean out my bank account, fly to Hawaii, buy a tent at Wal Mart, and spend the rest of my life living on the beach.
Seriously, this is a real thing, there are thousands of people who do this.
Before the industrial revolution, I was free to either: become a wage slave, be a sustenance farmer, or starve to death.
Let's not forget, even in "enlightened" countries, you were locked into a particular level/role based on what family you were born into.
If you think modern political and capitalistic forces are somehow less corrupt and oppressive than in the past, you've fallen for the "good olde days" meme.

>> No.9747501

>>9747493
Ooh,oohh!
I completely forgot about indentured servitude, debtors prisons, religious intolerance, women being second-class citizens, lifetime military conscription, actual slavery, etc. etc.
The past is NOT the land of freedom you romanticize it to be.

>> No.9747562

>>9743559
I invite anyone who legit thinks this to go fuck off into the woods with no modern tools. But they won't.

>> No.9747588
File: 221 KB, 1400x650, virginchadtranshumanism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747588

>>9743559
Transhumanism > primitivism. The reason there is so much suffering is because the brain has not changed along with everything else in society. It should be theoretically possible to re-engineer the brain in some way to raise one's hedonic set point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pearce_(philosopher)

>> No.9747590
File: 39 KB, 1000x750, civilizationhappiness.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9747590

>>9743559
Relevant graph

>> No.9747647

>>9744397
lel

>> No.9747652

>>9744397
What would be the point of maintaining a slave race if you could just use automatons? If anything genocide is on the menu, not enslavement.

>> No.9747715

>>9747493
>Before the industrial revolution, I was free to either: become a wage slave, be a sustenance farmer, or starve to death.
What you describe is an agrarian society, which is only a slightly less effective version of industrial society.
>>9747501
>The past is NOT the land of freedom you romanticize it to be.
Of course it isn´t what you strawman it to be, you imbecile. A hunter-gatherer society is what Ted uses for comparison.

>> No.9747719

>>9747562
>I invite anyone who legit thinks this to go fuck off into the woods with no modern tools.
Fucking off into the woods with no modern tools will not magically do away with industrial society and its ills.
> But they won't.
They are indeed not retards who believe that the world goes dark when you close your eyes.

>> No.9747720

>>9743559
It's called paranoid schizophrenia. Otherwise normal people or even very successful people descend into completely irrationality. Look up some case studies.

>Kaczynski cited an example of his mother scolding him for not putting his dirty socks in the laundry hamper, an incident for which he railed against his mother in a letter 20 years later. The report concluded that hypersensitivity and irrational rage at his family are symptoms of Kaczynski's underlying mental illness.
>Based on the interviews and test results, Johnson determined that Kaczynski, 56, has suffered from paranoid schizophrenia since his early 20s.

>A significant mental shift took place in graduate school, Kaczynski reported, during a period when he considered having a sex-change operation.
>He said he recalled setting up an appointment at the University of Michigan's health center after weeks of fantasizing about becoming a female. By the time of his consultation, however, he lost his nerve and lied to the psychiatrist. Leaving the building in shame, Kaczynski said, he developed a violent hatred for the psychiatrist.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-09-12/news/9809120119_1_unabomber-theodore-kaczynski-dr-sally-johnson-paranoid-schizophrenia

>>9743566
His manifesto appeals to disaffected sperglords on the internet but in the end it's not a terribly compelling piece of writing.
It's overly cynical and nihilistic at best, downright irrational at worst. The axioms and assumptions in the introduction of the paper are highly debatable, but go unsupported for the most part. Then he builds his arguments on them. And that's fine -- it's not an academic paper where real facts and logic are expected, it's a manifesto.

>> No.9747722

>>9747590
>happiness
>caring about what brainlet, nondescript plebs answer in surveys rigged to produce a certain result
Let me guess: you´re a Dane, Swede, Norwegian or Finn. If the state says you live in paradise, it must be true, right? Moron.

>> No.9747723

>>9747590
>modern day less happy than medieval days
yeah, being a slave and dying of bubonic plague is pretty fun

>> No.9747724

>>9747720
>spreading lies
What does the CIA pay for each shitpost? Three cents?

PS. The only time Kaczynski was "analyzed" by a shrink - by a state-appointed one, no less, who would´ve had ample reason to provide false testimony in aid of establishment propagandists - , he was declared to be of sound mind.

>> No.9747729

>>9747720
>The axioms and assumptions in the introduction of the paper are highly debatable, but go unsupported for the most part.
What assumptions would those be? Go on, pick one, you utter brainlet.

> And that's fine -- it's not an academic paper where real facts and logic are expected
Facts and logic rest on certain assumptions, without which no rigorously reasoend conclusions can be drawn. Would you have preferred to read his manifesto in rap-song format?

>> No.9747732

>>9747715
You should realize that we have very little information when it came to ancient hunter-gatherer societies and most of the stuff we know about them came from collections of numerous shit they left for us to dig up. I can certainly see shit like religious intolerance and and women being 2nd class citizens actually happening within a hunter gatherer society. Imagine ingesting some mushrooms, seeing a new god, trying to preach it and then being stoned by the entire tribe because of your primitive stone-age heresy.

>> No.9747824 [DELETED] 

>>9747715
>What you describe is an agrarian society, which is only a slightly less effective version of industrial society.
So, the good-old-days are pre-agriculture?
About 12,000 years ago people had to choose between berry-picking, hunting, and starving to death.
Wow, that's so different.
>>9747715
>Of course it isn´t what you strawman it to be,
When did I stawman?
Anon (you?) said:
>>9747483
>longevity and safety has its trade-offs, such as vast concessions to personal liberty.
I'm not the one claiming the past had greater personal liberty.
Or are you misusing the term "strawman"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I'm not presenting a flawed argument on your behalf in an effort to undermine your position.

> A hunter-gatherer society is what Ted uses for comparison.
Regardless, it's pretty safe to say the average American, Brit, German, etc has more freedom than at any point in time, even if you back before the earliest hominids.
We've always been slaves to our own bellies, but that's really started to change in the last century or two.

And wait...
>Ted.
Really? "Ted". Wow.

>> No.9747827

>>9747715
>What you describe is an agrarian society, which is only a slightly less effective version of industrial society.
So, the good-old-days are pre-agriculture?
About 12,000 years ago people had to choose between berry-picking, hunting, and starving to death.
Wow, that's so different.
>>9747715
>Of course it isn´t what you strawman it to be,
When did I stawman?
Anon (you?) said:
>>9747483
>longevity and safety has its trade-offs, such as vast concessions to personal liberty.
I'm not the one claiming the past had greater personal liberty.
Or are you misusing the term "strawman"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I'm not presenting a flawed argument on your behalf in an effort to undermine your position.

> A hunter-gatherer society is what Ted uses for comparison.
Regardless, it's pretty safe to say the average American, Brit, German, etc has more freedom than at any point in time, even if you go back before the earliest hominids.
We've always been slaves to our own bellies, but that's really started to change in the last century or two.

And wait...
>Ted.
Really? "Ted". Wow.