/lit/ - Literature

Destroying technology and returning to hunter-gatherer lifestyle is a pipe dream.

>>13199380
>the fucking feeling of wanting to headbutt an icepick while shopping for food
Sounds like a personal problem, anon. I'm pretty happy that I can just go to the store and get food without having to worry about whether I'll die on this outing.

>>13199406
>I'm pretty happy that I can just go to the store and get food without having to worry about whether I'll die on this outing
You wouldn't be if you ever felt the satisfaction of starving for 3 days, then killing a deer with your knife and spear and biting into it's succulent flesh after you roasted it over a fire all evening.

>>13199415
Actually, I regularly starve myself for long periods so eating will be more pleasurable later. Roughly an equivalent experience. And anyway, that's a pretty eccentric thing to do; most people would rather not starve for 3 days for the reward of a roasted deer that they may or may not actually see.

>>13199463
I don't eat well at all and starve myself all the time and it's only harder to eat after starving.

>>13199482
So why would starving involuntarily in a hunter-gatherer society be preferable to starving voluntarily amid all this plenty?

>>13199380
You don't need to destroy everything. Optimally, one would hope to keep something like modern medicine while removing harmful technologies. The only way I see of doing this is by controlling technology through a theocratic government, and distributing technology like a public resource. The era of technology being shared across the planet needs to end. People have this assumption that science and technology needs to be a global effort, but I don't see why. All that happens as a result of this is that any technology developed becomes uncontrolled and globally integrated, making it harder to keep technology controlled like it should.

>>13199463
>that's a pretty eccentric thing to do
based

>>13199463
>Roughly an equivalent experience
No, it's not even close.

>>13199564
True, it cuts out most the unpleasant parts, e.g. my life genuinely being in danger.

Civilisation trends towards a boring, dull, safe, uneventful, comfortable way of life because that's what the masses want.

The people able to spot the problem with civilisation let alone think of and be willing to implement radical change are in the severe minority, smaller than 1%. Civilisation is a snowball rolling down a hill, and the people trying to stop it are like microscopic pebbles sticking to the edge.

>>13199498
It’s like getting a mod that forces you to eat, sleep, wear clothes, etc. in a video game versus pretending you have to do all those things. One is more immersive and real

>>13199597
and that's why the satisfaction isn't even remotely comparable. don't be the last man.

>>13199506
On the right track here. We can’t become primitive again, and even if we could, we’d still advance in the future. We just have to use our technology intelligently. Just because we have certain technologies doesn’t mean we should use them at all. If only the world did not revolve around competition, then we could have so many different strategies for incorporating technology into the lifestyles of the masses. We could set up various isolated settlements and use varying amounts and types of technologies to see what produces the happiest population. We could still have a relatively small group of people researching STEM because knowledge is always useful, but we shouldn’t impulsively use that knowledge to make money and cause unintended consequences.

>>13199498
I don't support OP's post I'm just a wandering shitposter who needed to contradict what you said about starving.

Have you read anti-tech revolution?

>>13199706
>>13199506
please read Kaczynski

>>13199759
Oh stop. If everyone saw the world as Kaczynski did, creating a safe world with technology would be easy. It’s improbable but not impossible.

>>13199759
Yes, I've read Kaczynski. Yes, I've read the part where he argues that the entire system needs to be destroyed and that some parts of it can't be saved, I just disagree with him. Even if we did follow his revolution exactly as he laid out, it would only be a matter of time before society arrives in a similar situation. The only of overcoming this cycle would be to fundamentally change how society views its use of technology, and even the purpose of society itself. If the purpose and fundamental structure of society itself changes, then so too does the outcome of developing technology. Now you could argue that any technology being developed needs increasing amounts of centralization and that fundamental changes do not overcome this fact, but there definitely are ways of developing technology in a way that is decentralized.

>>13199774
what? you haven't read kaczynski
>if everyone saw the world as kaczynski did
they'd knew you can't have the good parts of technology without the bad ones.

>>13199498
Bcz its not about starving, numskull

>>13199789
how do you not understand the most basic line of reasoning in the entire manifesto?

Do you get to chose which discoveries come first? Do you get to pick whether you develop the atomic bomb first then MRI scan second? Nah, you don't. Technology builds upon itself. Discoveries are exactly this, discoveries. They're not consciously sought after.

>but there definitely are ways of developing technology in a way that is decentralized.
then tell me why it doesn't happen, and never has in 200years of industrialisation. it's inefficient, so it will not work. the entire point of technology is to increase efficiency so why would you expect the development of technology not to follow its own conclusion??

Nature does not ''dissolve'' because of civilization. Drag your tail through the mud in the midst of chaos, i believe it's possible.

>>13199801
>Kaczynski wasn’t wrong about anything
I can literally imagine a society with tons of technology without the negative effects. It requires planning and foresight, a world not driven by the economy and growing populations.

>>13199835
>I can literally imagine a society
kek, me too. quit posting

>>13199823
That's why I advocate for a partially authoritarian government to control technology. In which case the technology you choose to develop is controlled. I don't know what exact type of government would be the best, but I suspect a theological one would be the least likely abuse technology.

>but there definitely are ways of developing technology in a way that is decentralized.
The only reason you think this is because technology and capitalism are basically one in the same. You are correct that it would be more inefficient to develop technology in a decentralized manner, but that doesn't mean society can impose rules that make it so.

>>13199835
also, technology doesn't exist in a vacuum
economy and growing populations are both technological, as much as technology is econimical and dependent of demographics. which is why TK called it 'industrial society' and not 'technology'

>>13199843
People can be controlled and prevented from mindlessly advancing technology. You’re pessimistic

>>13199856
I meant can't impose rules

>>13199861
>You’re pessimistic
And you are retarded

>>13199856
doesn't matter because the chinese will develop the dangerous technologies and run you over. so what you're aiming for is a world government, completely antithetical to TK's stance of freedom and human dignity (which is the point of the manifesto, anti-tech is an euphemism for anarchism)

>>13199858
Right, and you seem to be pretending we’re not advocating a reconstruction of how society operates. It’s not just about the technology

>>13199874
Do you mindlessly just agree with whatever Teddy said? Hopefully not, as technology can be controlled, it just requires a new, unified way of thinking about how the economy, society, and technology come together as one entity.

>>13199879
YOU CAN HAVE A WORLD GOVERNMENT AND STILL PRESERVE HUMAN FREEDOM

not him btw

>>13199861
Yes, it's true. I'm french and we have laws against genetic testings, cloning, ART etc.. but what they didn't think through is that the rest of the world doesn't and will surpass us because they don't have these laws. Generally, catholics and muslim countries will be left behind.

>>13199879
The Chinese definitely are a big problem, but their power is drawn largely from globalism, and wouldn't be as big a threat in an independent world. Also, history is nothing but a cycle of authoritarianism coming and going as societies become chaotic and orderly. After an authoritarian period, humanity will eventually learn how to implement technology in a compatible manner and wouldn't require authoritarianism anymore.

>>13199889
No. The existence of institutions is against human freedom. The existence of a government is against human freedom. You simply have a higher treshold of what you consider 'freedom', certainly because you were born and raised in an urban environment, so you don't have a clear idea of what freedom really entails. Also; learned helplessness.

>>13199886
Do you ever spend time with human beings? Do you ever see people who enjoy a hobby as they practice it? Your notion of "controlling technology" is not new, it's been done countless times in human history where people are directly controlled under threat of death or exile. That is the only way to control the advance of any technology or new idea, you have to kill anyone who even once shows dissatisfaction with status quo. If you have the naive belief to want to reduce every human being to one hivemind that absolutely agrees on every issue you are going to have to simply get rid of a LOT of people.

>>13199924
First I would argue that throughout history, people have sought to control technology with a specific purpose in mind, but never has a society controlled technology for the sake of controlling technology and reducing its negative impacts. And yes, I know what I'm saying is hopelessly idealistic, but I'm just trying to argue the idea on paper. My hope is that society collapses one more time, before technology allows it to enter a take-off phase where no one is in control of anything anymore, and the inevitable authoritarian government will rise out of the ashes, as it always does when society collapses.

Read some Schumacher or Bookchin. Bookchin is kind of hard to stomach if you are not a lefty, but he lays out really simple visions of an appropriate technological society that appeal to any one with a vaguely libertarian bent. He offers no sense of "how" though.

>>13199919
>The existence of institutions is against human freedom. The existence of a government is against human freedom.
Maybe in most cases. You can have a collection of autonomous villages, where people live off nature and work manually, etc. while having a large, central government to PRESERVE this lifestyle. You’re pessimistically viewing all institutions as oppressive and bent on eliminating freedom for the sake of it.

>>13199959
>throughout history, people have sought to control technology with a specific purpose in mind, but never has a society controlled technology for the sake of controlling technology
Hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to look at failures of the past and understand exactly what went wrong, but when you are in the middle of the shit there is no obvious way out. Look at Anti-Depressants/Psychological issues in wealthy nations around the world.

>>13199993
>autonomous villages
>with a large central government
What purpose would a centralized gov serve for autonomous villages?

>>13199380
Nothing stopping you from larping in the woods nigga

>>13200026
Without porn? Ya right.

>>13200012
To prevent one village from dying from a plague, or preventing one member from trying to rise up and control the whole village. Without that authority, the world would just go to shit in decades

>>13199993
History proves you wrong on all cases, you're an idealist.

>>13200035
So why call them villages if your idea is really just large centralized government that operates it's authority with the barrel of a gun?

>>13199380
> we live in a society: the post
Also, why haven't I seen a picture of Uncle Ted with the Joker makeup yet?

>>13200035
>Without that authority, the world would just go to shit in decades
Yes because governance is impossible without the use of violence. Hence institutions hurting freedom. You mistake lack of institutions for violence required to maintain institutions. You see how that's wrong?
>one member from trying to rise up and control the whole village
how is this different from a government?

>>13200053
These villages won’t be exactly like villages in our history. They may have some advanced technologies for educational or medicinal purposes, but they won’t have industrial technology and they will have absolutely no incentive to grow. Preferably all people will be devout Christians, contributing to a more moral society. Only in extreme cases would the government have to intervene, and they wouldn’t have to kill anyone necessarily. If Tommy Joe decides to start pillaging another village, the government can take him to the City, have him view the whole globe with all its villages, and send Tommy back to his little village where can have a beautiful wife and work good hours and have nice autonomy for the rest of his life. He shouldn’t have any motivation to upset the perfect world

>>13200111
>Yes because governance is impossible without the use of violence
The government can design a world that doesn’t require much governance. A world where there aren’t any major troubles, but enough freedom and autonomy that everyone can be happy as the native Americans. And it doesn’t necessarily need violence in extreme cases, only the threat of it.

>how is this different from a government?
The man is greedy and doesn’t know what’s best for everyone

>>13200118
You've essentially described a world populated entirely by mindless chattel that does exactly what you think it should do when you think it should do it. I'm sure you're making your old man proud

>>13200148
If people are allowed to benefit themselves the most and be happy, then they are as free as they can be. No one wants the freedom to harm himself

>>13200026
the latter part looks comfy

>>13200137
>The man is greedy and doesn’t know what’s best for everyone
unlike our good chairman Mao, right?

>>13200026
My inferior genes sure are. I should be dead.

>>13200158
>If people are allowed to benefit themselves the most and be happy, then they are as free as they can be. No one wants the freedom to harm himself
Please tell me you have no plans to participate in politics

>>13200222
>I should be dead.
You will be one day.

>>13200242
What is the relation of know thyself to death?

>>13199713
Based shitposter errant.

But seriously folks, intermittent fasting is scientifically proven panacea.

>>13200242
> GNOTHICAUTON
what did he mean by this

>>13200228
no argument? Ok then

>>13200305
I want the freedom to harm myself

>>13200397
Which somehow indirectly benefits yourself. I’m not advocating the removal of all pain and suffering. There exists a world that is most beneficial to a human’s state of mind. And in that world, he is most free.

>>13199380
Imagine being this retarded

>>13199380
I recommend living in the wilderness for a year. You've undoubtedly lived your whole life in civilization but you should have the means to explore what life is like outside of it. Try that first yourself, and then consider if that's what you really want for everyone else. It would be a mistake to call for violent revolution before committing to the lifestyle first.

>>13199380
#ACCELERATE
RETARDED NIGGER FAGGOT

>>13199380
It's not that WE can't be trusted, it's that the psychopathic ruling elite won't let anything good, fair, or SANE be completed in in civilization.

You are conflating the folk with the literal worst of our kind and, I'm not even sure they are human anymore. They must be stopped. tHEY MUST BE KILLED A THOUSAND CURSES UPON THOSE INFERNAL BEINGS

>>13199380
You people are so damn severe. Just get a fucking job, work, come home, sleep to TV and shut up. You're not that special, get over it.

>>13199380
ARRAGE OF MEDIATIC DEFAMATION OF WHICH “MILLENNIALS” ARE VICTIMS IS TACTICAL REACTION FROM THE VILLAINS WHO HAVE USURPED AUTHORITY OF THE WORLD AGAINST THEIR PERCEIVED THREAT TO THEIR ILLEGITIMACY THAT IS POSED BY THE “HERO” GENERATION, INTENDED TO UNDERMINE CARDINAL OPTIMISM THAT CHARACTERIZES MOST “MILLENNIALS”, BY PERVERTING THEIR IMPULSE TOWARD PESSIMISM, FATALISM, HEDONISM, MATERIALISM.

MONSTERS ATTEMPT TO CORRUPT HEROES BY SENDING ABOMINATIONS AT THEM, BUT SHIELD OF HERO IS SOLAR, AND SWORD OF HERO IS THUNDERBOLT.

“MILLENNIALS” WERE CONCEIVED, BEGOTTEN, AND REARED, WITH THE PURPOSE OF FORMING HEROES THAT WOULD SAVE THEIR PARENTS' UGLY AND CORRUPT WORLD FROM THEMSELVES, BUT, INADVERTENTLY, PARENTS OF “MILLENNIALS” CONCEIVED, BEGAT, AND REARED, HEROES THAT WILL RAZE THEIR WORLD FROM ITS FOUNDATIONS, TO BUILD A NEW NOBLE ORDER OF BEAUTY, AND OF PURITY —THE MILLENNIAL WORLD.

EXPECTATION WAS: HEROES THAT WOULD SAVE THE WORLD; REALITY IS: HEROES THAT WILL DESTROY THE WORLD.

THE HERO'S PURPOSE IS TO REVOLUTIONIZE, NOT TO PRESERVE.

R A D O · D E P V R O · E L E V O · E M V N D O

- REI KOZ

>>13199380
If you destroy industrial society you only reset the clock on the technological march.

Your post technology society will have no power to prevent others from pursuing technology.

>we won't be able to re-industrialise because we've depleted surface coal
Far, far from it

This is all a pipe dream. The only option for you to control technology instead of letting technology control you - is to literally imperialise and surveil anyone who can threaten your imposed status quo. Aside from that best you can ask for is to be left alone, out of the kindness of their hearts

>>13199380
Read The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan

>>13199380
>it’s EVERYTHING else’s fault

Losers who have the world at their fingertips yet still fail to succeed in life wish to go back to a time where it would seem everyone is one equal footing but that couldn't be farther from the truth.
So pathetic.

>>13201091
Wtf I love autism now

>>13199380
>but how do you kill billions without someone stopping you?

>make loads of money
>hire a boat and crew
>go to the the pacific ocean
>hunt for the remains of the A-4E Skyhawk that rolled off the deck of USS Ticonderoga in 1965 loaded with a B43 nuclear weapon or
>find the soviet submarine lost in 1968 which was carrying nuclear-armed ballistic missiles
>transport at least one weapon to Russia and one to the US
>put it on top of some rockets
>shoot it at each country instigating a nuclear exchange
>profit?

yeah it's probably a shit plan but whatever, I'm not gonna defend it

>>13201091
suck my dick and balls

>>13199380
Agreed

>>13200038
History has always had surrounding asshole countries destroying any that try to minimize government interference. It's too dissimilar to say anything about his hypothetical scenario's sustainability.

>>13199380
Hey acolytes, it's not about you. Humanity could have a thousand years of suffering globohomo panopticon totalitarianism ahead of it and it's not about them either. The universe must be known. Sapience must experience the billion years of future in a trillion parsecs in all directions. Beyond our suffering they will have the perfected ecstatic union we do not. The universe must know itself, and it only can through us.

>>13200026
The government owns the woods and doesn't want you touching their deer without a loicense

>>13200404
in the world most beneficial to my happiness the rest of you are slaves. how can such worlds say anything about a widely accepted system of government?

>>13201657
Actually, it is about us. It is about them. The universe can only be known when all life has been optimized and is in synergistic harmony with itself and the world. Therefore, you can't have the grey-scale, totalitarian transhumanist dilution.

You've been deceived..

>>13201657
>>13201683
God is real

>>13199380
>wow technology is so evil, I better use it aggressively to tell others how bad technology is
>who me? nah I I'm not cut out to be a hunter gatherer, I'll just continue abusing decade long infrastructures like the internet and computer to my liking and for my own pleasure, 'it's society that has to change'

>>13201726
>God is real
>God isreal
>God Israel

>>13201657
>The universe must know itself, and it only can through us.
No?

>>13201657
>universe
You mean God. And yes, God wants to know Himself but He already knows everything else about existence. Our only obligation is to devote our lives to God.

>>13201754
Mashallah brother

>>One man can't topple the earth, it's just not possible
*blocks your path*

Read Gonzalo Thought.

The Peruvian Shining Path wanted to demolish the entire global socio-economic system and basically start from scratch, relying primarily on environmentally sustainable ancient Inca technology.

We can't go back. We can only go forward and incorporate the hunter-gatherer ethos into the new order.

>>13199380
Fuck you. Modern technology is useful. Speak for yourself. There's no "we".

>>13199706
>We can’t become primitive again
this is correct, but at least, under sertain conditions, we could go back to pre industrial revolution. It's not easy or probable but it's possible.
>If only the world did not revolve around competition
this will always be the case, competition is part of human nature.

>>13199380
Technology is good, it's the way it's produced and applied in the late stage capitalism that is bad. Medicine saves lives of loved ones, communications can help us talk to our friends overseas and access knowledge, food can be produced constantly regardless of seasons, nullifying risks of starvation, etc. But capitalists produce useless solutionism crap that turns humans into sheep.

>>13202391
Technology is capitalism is technology.

Everyone in this thread is an idealist. Thinking you can control technology or decide how society evolves has been proven wrong on every account of historical development. Face the facts. Kaczynski is right about everything. Your half baked ideas about perfect society or the elite being evil and responsible for evil technological growth is delusional. Technology never asked anyone their feelings, nor did it ever submit to anyone's will. Never. Not once in 12,000 years of agriculture.

At this point you're either a tech apologist, with everything that entails, or anti-tech. Any other position is childish, misguided, idealistic.

>>13201683
The thousand year reign does end. The faithful still brought to perfection.

>>13201726
>>13201754
Be fruitful and multiply. We are no longer meant for the garden.

>>13201741
Does the world end at heaven's edge?
The Son of Man has not another like him

>>13199387
>pipe-bomb dream
ftfy m8 yw

>>13199380
ITT:
- people intelligent enough to understand and extrapolate on Kaczynski's work
- the rest

>>13199380
>I want to kill billions so that society collapses
>I just don't want evil to exist
Do you hear yourself?

>>13199380
>I don't want to let this evil continue but I don't want to waste my life pissing in the wind either.

What are you doing about it? Are you organizing for action? Are you taking any practical steps?

If not, then stopping "this evil" really isn't that important to you. Which is to say, you probably don't really care at all...

>>13204453
That would be "pissing into the wind".

>>13204625
:( Then stop talking about it. Leave the talking about it to the real men and women who will work to do something about it. Children who want to self-therapy "whoa whoa the world is ending! so sad so sad!" should shut the hell up.

>>13204682
you're a fucking faggot. what is this bullshit?

>>13204831
I think it's one of them "memes" the kids are all hyped up about. Not for me though, give me a yellow newspaper like God intended!

>>13204831
someone's been triggered...

Reminder the CIA broke Ted and drove him into violent insanity
>The study was run by Dr. Henry Murray, who had each of his 22 subjects write an essay detailing their dreams and aspirations. The students were then taken to a room where electrodes were attached to them to monitor their vitals as they were subjected to extremely personal, stressful, and brutal critiques about the essays they had written. Following the psychological attacks, the participants were forced to watch the videos of themselves being verbally and psychologically assaulted multiple times. Kaczynski is claimed to have had the worst physiological reaction to being interrogated. These experiments, paired with his lack of social skills and memories of being bullied as a child, caused Kaczynski to suffer from horrible nightmares that eventually drove him to move into isolation outside Lincoln, Montana.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/

We can never go back anon, it will keep getting worse as the population rises and cities spread and shithole countries like china industrialize and fuck up the environment.

>>13205569
you're such a normie...