/lit/ - Literature

Technology will not die out. People invariably choose security over freedom when given the choice

>>17975386
technology made people more free you fucking luddite

>>17975418
>technology made people more free
Having access to 1000 different websites and TV stations does not mean you're more free

>>17975418
I feel sorry for people like you. Truly the Platonic cave-dwellers.

>>17975382
No

>>17975444

>>17975418
>confined to online banking
>all your data is mined by add angencies
>we don’t even know what data conglomerates like Google and Apple have on us
>Facial recognition
>Fake relationships to others via “social” media
>Continued animosity towards others because of the amount of disinformation online
>Propaganda everywhere you look, always being sold a way of thinking, a product, etc.
>No anonymity, you must prove who you are at all times. Can’t even watch YouTube without giving them credit card/passport details
Very free

>>17975418
Based
>>17975422
Cringe
We are in one the earliest stages of the computer age so naturally technologically secure privacy has taken some time to develop; from here on decentralization is the next logic step to greater privacy and greater power for the individual user. Decentralization is in it's most nascent state right now so you should avoid undervaluing the freedoms we have now and the freedoms we'll see in the future that shall be due to technology. Instead of criticizing technology I think rather we should like to develop it to our end as individuals. Technology is a powerful tool that we must take away from the central-planners and big-brother types, not something we must get rid of all together.

>>17975506
>I think rather we should like to develop it to our end as individuals. Technology is a powerful tool that we must take away from the central-planners and big-brother types, not something we must get rid of all together.
You make a good point. Any literature that discusses a more ethical and individual-centric form of technology?

>>17975506
People are instinct-driven animals that will always be herded like animals by elites. Technology makes it even easier for them to do it. You are naive.

>>17975382
>Any books to support the downfall of technology?
Hold my fellow Kaczynskite I've got just the list, let me find it.

>>17975506
>echnology is a powerful tool
Correct
>we must take away from the central-planners and big-brother types
Cringe. That's like saying "guns and missiles are a powerful tool, which we must take away from the central planners." Yeah, good fucking luck buddy when they hold the monopoly on technologically sophisticated violence to begin with. It's akin to literal anarchism, ie, never going to happen. You either have technology + heavy centralization or less technology + less centralization. They are inherently connected with each other, any deviation from this positive correlation WILL lead to massive chaos and/or destruction in one form or another, and that is assuming you even have the power in theory to make governments surrender their monopoly on power (ie, technology).

>>17975382
>>17975542
Here you go friend, god bless.

1/2

>>17975382
>>17975551

2/2

>>17975527
Maybe Island by Huxley

>>17975551
>>17975555
Based and checked for quads

>>17975551
>>17975555
Almost got the same quads twice, what sorcery is this?

>>17975506
> muh decentralization

What you freaks don't understand is that 99.999% of users and 100% of the moneyed interests don't want decentralization or the problems/features that it brings. At the most, the decentralized platforms will force the centralized platforms to make minuscule adjustments. This anon >>17975529 is completely correct.

>>17975547
My point is that the elite don't really hold a real monopoly in the technological realm since we have pretty much the same technology as they do. Really, what exists is approximately a level playing field.
What they have is a social monopoly (or rather a large market share in a lot of industries) and capital as well but they don't necessarily have a monopoly on technological resources since we can access and utilize those same resource to as good or an even a greater extent then them and we even can create and share our own new resources which might even be better than the ones they use.
>guns and missiles are a powerful tool, which we must take away from the central planners.
To come to this subject, I think the actual situation is one in which regulators want to restrict what we can own, use, and access while it's our jobs to arm ourselves and protect our rights; really it was through a mistake of my phrasing that your analogy has any meaning. I don't want to take away their resources, I just want to level the playing field for every individual and reduce the power that any one body can have over the whole.
Ironically, another good example of how technology frees us can be found in this exact topic (which you brought up sarcastically). With 3D printing we can now download and print guns relatively easily—DESPITE the plans of meddling regulators. As an American, this a vindication of my second amendment rights via technology.
Pardon me, I'm just waking up so sorry if I'm writing like a retard.

>>17975506
>from here on decentralization is the next logic step
hahahahahahahhahahahah
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

decentralization any day now

Nope, its going to get even worse, google the word "brain computer interface"

>>17975718
>since we have pretty much the same technology as they do.
You don't really believe this, do you? I will grant you this: Technically speaking, we have the same potentiality when it comes purely to algorithms and programming (totally ignoring hardware capability/efficiency). However, in terms of actual resources (both intellectual, in terms of skilled experts being paid large amounts, and physical hardware and resources) we are vastly outmatched. There is the additional problem of hidden and highly valuable special technologies. One example right now that is not quite hidden is Google's newly functioning quantum computers, which can crack any encryption method and are probably being covertly employed by US intelligence/counter-intelligence as we speak (although, naturally they would try to hide this fact for as long as they possibly can).
>With 3D printing we can now download and print guns relatively easily—DESPITE the plans of meddling regulators.
Not until they're fully banned or restricted/regulated somehow. It will, or probably is, happening. In my country, possessing any material related to 3D printing guns is basically as dangerous as possessing child pornography. They are constantly monitoring the internet for it, and they will shut you away for a long time if you're caught. It will not surprise me if 3D printing licenses become a thing soon.

>>17975718
I'm not the other anon but read Kacynzski's distinction between small-scale and organization-dependent technology.
An industrial or post-industrial society necessitates this centralization; to separate it is foolish.

> they don't necessarily have a monopoly on technological resources since we can access and utilize those same resource to as good or an even a greater extent then them and we even can create and share our own new resources which might even be better than the ones they use.

creating "your own" centralized technological society is not a solution lmao. Large-scale or organization-dependent technological necessitates the development of an organized industrial society (hence organization-dependent). Your "elite vs common man" dialectic is not useful on this subject and is a flawed way of viewing the issue.

>>17975773
>You don't really believe this, do you?
I don't believe that "we" have the same capital and material resources for, say, quantum computers as "they" do but I also don't believe that "they" have so great an amount of intellectual capital that we can't even compete with "them". Like you admit the potential in the mostly software and theoretical realm is pretty much level but those are really the most important spaces anyway. Obviously they still have an advantage but it's not so great that it's insurmountable or insoluble.
>which can crack any encryption method
Not true. I'm not a cryptographer but from what I know there are set of now widely used encryption methods which can be easily attacked by quantum computers but hash functions , for example, are pretty much theoretically secure and Post-quantum cryptography is already rising to fight against this exact concern.
> It will not surprise me if 3D printing licenses become a thing soon.
Of course, and this is always a danger, but a 3-D-printer is currently just a niche tool. The goal is to have a freeing technology which becomes so widely used that measures like that become infeasible or useless. Advancements in printing technology and innovation in the crypto-sphere (including block-chain technology) will make these technologies down-right necessary to do anything worth-while in the future (like driving a car or taking an airplane is now for travel related things).

>>17976109
You don't really understand. They had to let the internet spread to everyone because it had to be actually ubiquitous for the purposes it was designed for. Has nothing to do with magical freedom properties. 3D printing does not improve when everybody has a 3d printer, because it's not a communications network, so tptb don't give a fuck about how free you are to own and use one. They will be nailing that industry down very quickly and already have been.

>>17975506
>muh decentralization
The internet is monolithic by its nature. People will go to the most popular websites. People don't want a million websites that do the same thing. They want twitter, facebook, youtube, and reddit. Those companies are raking their users psychological data and using to gain further and further control over people.
Decentralization was possible in the early internet because it was a niche interest, it required technical skill and a higher IQ to get involved. Now Shaneequa with an Iphone 12 can get on it without even knowing what silicon is.

>>17975809
>read Kacynzski's distinction between small-scale and organization-dependent technology.
Sure I will.
>An industrial or post-industrial society necessitates this centralization; to separate it is foolish.
I'm sure you recommended Kaczynski because he touches on this subject in that particular work but I simply don't see how this is true.
I don't know that decentralization of everything is possible but where something can be decentralized it is on the whole preferable.
I don't think that every factory, school, family, etc. should become decentralized, perhaps in those spaces centralization is perferable, but in things like our money, which are now being manipulated to the interests of some groups over the interest of the whole, we should be and must decentralize if we are ever to have a sound money.
I'm not asking for "my own centralized society", I'm asking for a society where different visions can compete on a level playing field (as opposed to the one most singular vision the technological elite have for our society.)

>>17976177
How old are you?
The internet wasn't always like this you know...-_-

>>17975382
No, though it may evolve unrecognizably. The internet is a natural extension of the human necessity of communication and a resides at the tail end of a sequence of lesser communication technologies from messenger pigeons to postal service to telegraph networks.

>>17976235
>The internet wasn't always like this you know...-_-
No, shit.That is exactly my point.
It wasn't like that because the mass herd of normies wasn't connected to it.
This happens to everything when it gets lowered to the level of a mass consumer product.

>>17975382
I could perhaps see a situation where the global www breaks apart leading to smaller localized internets which don't communicate with other countries internets or something like that, mixed in with non-state freenets, air gapped systems, etc

when a solar flare hits earth and all technology short-circuits

>>17975527
Read about Richard Stallman, Free Open Source Software, and the creation of Linux.

>>17976173
>3D printing does not improve when everybody has a 3d printer, because it's not a communications network
You've misunderstood me. What I meant was that an innovation in the technology—like, for example, a large reduction in the amount of time it takes to print something and/or if 3d printers became cheaper—would induce a wider adoption of it and that would make regulation of it harder to do.
Essentially, Innovation leads to mass adoption which reduces the efficacy of regulation.
Besides, sure maybe the 3d printer itself is not a social thing but the software, what people download to print, does become more social through the hubs where people upload, download, and share them with each other. If wide use is found for 3d printing, people would be sending lots of toys, tools, and art to each other and things like guns would be harder to regulate and differentiate from these other things.

>>17976339
When I first heard about the dangers of solar flares, part of me unironically wished for it to happen; just for God to BTFO humans and their hubristic efforts and to put our over-lords/self-proclaimed gods in their place. Fuck them, fuck it all.

The internet will only die out for one reason: to be replaced. It will either be replaced by a highly controlled intranet in the case of rising digital authoritarianism, or it'll be replaced by whatever the next step in digital long-range communication is.
>>17975677
Look at the digits of your first post again, ya goof.
/lit/ is just a slow board, you can check yourself pretty easily by carefully timing your posts.
>>17976423
Based FOSS-chad.

>>17976431
You are stuck in a frame of reference where freedom already exists and things follow natural economic laws. That's not what's going on: if innovation led to mass adoption just as a natural thing, we'd have had video phones in every home in the 1970s. Everything is planned, technology becomes big because the people planning the world want it to be. TVs got real cheap real quick because central planners of the post-war order saw it as a great pacifier and deradicalizer of an order print and radio could never reach, being "hotter" than both and therefore inducing more passivity. Not to mention the military applications of video transmission...

The world doesn't really run on your natural laws of economic activity, it runs on the desires and plans of the powerful.

>>17975418
We are total slaves to information technology. How you could believe this is beyond me.

>>17975506
You actually think the military created World Wide Web and computer networks were given to you so you could be happy and keep your privacy....

>>17976496
everyone wants this

>>17975418
Go for a walk. When you come to an intersection with a crosswalk signal, make sure to stop until the sign tells you it's time to cross.

Just wait for a massive solar flare and watch the chaos unfold, it will be beautiful

>>17976263
Sorry, I admit I stopped reading your post after a while.
Obviously your first statement is just wrong then, what you seem to be saying isn't that the internet is monolithic by it's very nature but that that the more people who use the internet, the more centralized it becomes; now that it is more accessible to the vast majority of society, there are more people using it, hence it's present monolithic nature.
I don't think I really agree with you though. I think people are just fine with switching between millions of apps and websites. The only thing they care about is whats useful to them and this is usually naturally determined through the process of competition. What we now have though are companies like Google who control what is seen by people on the web, essentially manipulating the competitive process to further their own interests.
Even in the '90s-2000s, when "normies" started to use the internet, there were millions of websites that people visited and created and people where happy to do so. That was real competition. The websites where relevant to people's interests and time. Websites were relevant to peoples locality (a website for NYers or Londoners for example). The internet was an exciting place to "surf". I'm rambling now but you get my point.

>>17976579
>technology becomes big because the people planning the world want it to be.
Yeah I don't think like this at all and I don't think I ever will unfortunately.
>>17976605
>You actually think the military created World Wide Web and computer networks were given to you so you could be happy and keep your privacy....
No, I think the military advanced the technology for their own interest but other sectors of society like Education and Business (which originated and developed computers in the first place) also had a use for it and it grew to the general public from their.
Most of these things weren't created by the government or the Rothschild or something, the were created by professors and business men. A type of elite for sure, the educated and moneyed elite, but they aren't a class with a singular goal like the military.
I don't think von Neumann, Shannon, Turing, etc. did what they did because they were trying to control people, nor do I believe Tim Berners-Lee did so either for that matter but I don't know his story as well.

>>17975418
>People actually believe this

>>17976769
if everyone is fine switching between lots of sites and apps then you have to explain why they seem to prefer to use one or two of about half a dozen popular social media sites as their primary engagement with "the internet." Google did it? Funny because their own social media attempt was a failure.

Hard to see how there isn't a "centralizing" force that emerges from everyone on the internet wanting, rationally, to go to populated sites continually updated with lots of content. Certain generalized social sites will get bigger, niche sites will get smaller and many will die out.

The internet already is dead. Nobody has a good time anymore.

>>17976959
The business world did not "originate" computers. Generalized electronic computers came out of the development of the ENIAC, a computer designed and built for the US Army to calculate ballistics. But, since it was generalized, they also used it to make feasibility estimations for the nuclear bomb they wanted to build. After this, the developers, with von Neumann, went to work on a computer that could store and load multiple programs, which became the EDVAC, and the EDVAC, its R&D paid for by the American military, is the grandfather of all general electronic computers. The developers of the ENIAC and the EDVAC then made a computer for the business world, the UNIVAC, but do you know who the first people to buy UNIVACs were? The US Census Bureau, the US Army Maps department, and the newly formed US Air Force.

You sound like a techno-zealot with a completely ahistorical understanding of computer technology.

>>17977136
The theoretical history of computation long predates the ENIAC and companies like IBM built machines for computationally intensive work that were anticipated for machines like ENIAC.

>>17975382
Definitely there’ll be some scale of collapse. That meme is cringe as fuck though.

>>17977136
>techno-zealot
Also dude, for sure things like the census were a big motivator for the advancement of computer technology but there were also tons of companies like the many train-stations there were that wanted to tabulate and compute the information they collected.
I don't know where you got this conspiratorial conception of reality from. If you wanted to develop the technology you could too if you wanted, it's not as hard as you make it out to be for fuck sake.

>>17977173
That doesn't undo the fact that the first time an electronic computer was built to be generalized, programmable, and Turing-complete, it was done by the US government while at war. You can't get from punch cards to the internet without the American military, that was my point. You want to take things out of their contexts to try and prove some idea you have about the universal laws of technology or whatever. But the big principle seems to be that tech jumps forward during wartime, along lines that fit the logic of war.

>>17975422
>>17975444
>>17975486
>>17976594
>>17976643
>>17976998
All this seething is pathetic and the fact you guys are so defensive of an ideology this silly really shows how immature your thought process is.

Please, stop browsing this board for a while and go read. Once you have some analytical tools to really understand people and society the very first thing you'll develop a lifelong immunity against are those grandiose narratives that say everything would be great if we only we could turn back the clock and freeze some ever-changing component of civilization at some arbitrary point in its development.

>>17977305
Implying you don’t believe in a Whig grand narrative that things will only keep getting better and more free.

>>17975418
Imagine believing this.

The internet is dead. It is nothing like it once was. You zoomers wouldn't know this.

>>17975418
LOL

>>17975418
objectively not. you can defend it but not from this angle. everything is hypercentralised and controlled and standardised. there are no choices or individual or any notion of meaningful personal liberty or control.

>>17975418
> lives in a technological dystopia
> technology made us free!

If Peak Oil manages to come soon enough it can destroy the internet in our lifetimes. Overall decline back to pre industrial level will take time, but extremely complex tech with delicate supply chains will be first to go

>>17975418
>Gave 2 entire generations of children, disgusting and fucked up fetishes from pornography exposure at a young age
>Made Mob rule and guilty 'til proven innocent the new normal
>Allowed for the biggest mass surveillance operation in history
>Gave governments and corporations complete power to brainwash the population via careful advertisement, social media algorithms and propaganda

'technology made people more free you fucking luddite'

The Ice caps melting is the only thing that can save us now

>>17975418
>company decided to go digital
>people without a smartphone or computer can't get their payslips anymore
>if they want to book holidays they can't do it, having to ask someone to do it for them and they can see all personal info
>because the barriers are now automatic it takes longer to go through, they break often and a bunch of security people were fired
I used to like technology like you too, but now I keep it to a minimum.

>>17977539
>The Ice caps melting is the only thing that can save us now
I feel the same. I don’t know why you would want to prevent collapse at this point.

>>17977539
>>Gave 2 entire generations of children, disgusting and fucked up fetishes from pornography exposure at a young age
Fucked up fetishes famously did not exist before internet porn

>>17977284
I'm not taking anything out of it's context. We live in a world with such "universal laws of technology" and they are due to logic/mathematics and physics which we have no control over whatsoever; this is the ultimate context of our universe and our existence. They aren't due to the government, the military, the Rothschilds, nor anyone else but God himself.
It should be apparent to you, then, that the conditions in which the first generalized, programmable, electronic computer was made in are purely an accident of our timeline. Sure, what WE know and what we made is due directly to that timeline but the technology has, in the platonic sense, always existed. If anything, it is you who is ignoring the theoretical development of computer science and the history of computing machines.
I mean, no doubt, the war was good for the development of the computer but do you really think we NEEDED the war for that?
Besides, you make it sound like all technological and theoretical advances we saw in the 20th c. (Turing completeness, Shannon logic circuits, the transistor, von Neumann architecture, etc.) were due to the fucking government or "the elite" and not just educated guys with money.
No one planned to release the personal computer to the plebs in the '70s and then the internet in the '80s and the web in the '90s, it was an organic process motivated by individual interests. Not some fucking conspiracy.
Again, if you want to you can make technology yourself! If you aren't retarded and are creative enough, you'll be able to do it if you try hard enough! It's cheaper nowadays of course.

>>17977622
They weren’t nearly as widespread. Unless you think tens of millions watching cuck and choking porn for years has had no impact at all.

>>17976769
I will rewrite my statement as I wasn't clear in the first place.
The internet was destined to become monolithic once the majority became connected to it. There is no going back from this and the elites don't want to.

>>17977305
>All this seething is pathetic and the fact you guys are so defensive of an ideology this silly really shows how immature your thought process is.
I don't even have an ideology and I haven't even read the schizo in the OP, but you are legit retarded if you think technology hasn't regimented humans and allowed elites to gain greater control. They literally design products (media, political, etc) to brainwash you by using your own psychology against you.

>>17977539
>>17977619
We should strive to collapse hierarchical society before global disasters get worse/more frequent, not wait for them. Otherwise there will be nothing to live out after the fact, primitivist or otherwise

>>17977666
>>17977136
leddit

>>17977622
Kids are as young as 5-7 get exposed to hardcore pornography. Which is insane. I am not even a total boomer yet (31) and I did not see porn until well into my early teens outside of softcore stuff.

>be anarcho-primitivist
>write a book and have it printed by printing presses
Hmm

>>17977846
You know you don’t have to interject if you know nothing about the topic. Allow the adults to discuss, please.

>>17977832
I think I was 12-13 when I found my dads porn mags. I think that certainly set the prescient. Now I’m 26 and a degen coomer but trying to rehabilitate my brain. We should look to keep pornography away from children as long as possible but it seems it’s easier than ever for them to view it now.

>>17977666
>the technology has, in the platonic sense, always existed.
Sure but it's realization is always contingent on the rest of reality, like for instance they never developed a generalized personal home computer in Ancient Greece because regular rich people (like bored housewives) really only needed such a thing for one purpose: calculating horoscopes. So there were those. But they didn't even have newspapers and moveable print so how could they have imagined something like word processors and desktop printing software? History is arbitrary but it is inescapable.

>>17977881
>Now I’m 26 and a degen coomer but trying to rehabilitate my brain.
Just quit it, it's not hard.

>>17975422
>>17975444
>>17975480
>>17975486
>>17975529
>>17975542
>>17975551
>>17975555
>>17975652
>>17975717
>>17975763
Luddites pissing themselves and reeing online has to be the funniest thing ever
I'm not wading through your bs to quote the rest of you pathetic losers, fuck on over to /g/ and make threads about MUH ONLINE ANONYMITY so get over your closet pedo paranoia

>>17977846
All of these neo-Luddites live on their cult followers buying all their merc

>>17975382
>Do you think the internet will die out in our lifetime, or ever?
No.

The internet —and, subsequently, its various networks— is subdivided into two levels: the micro —digital— level, and the macro —corporal— level, the former being a subtler expressive reflection of the latter; In both there are heroes, and villains, the former being protectors of the noble network, the latter its destroyers.

With hands of flame we collect, and connect, the strings of life —through the dirt we restore the memorial ashes, and the stranded light, forming the kingdomcloud that transcends its virtual analogue.

>>17977806
ok transhumanist tranny

>>17977846
>the printing press didnt exist before the industrial revolution
Ok

>>17977806
faggot.

>>17977410
Why dystopia? Because you can't say nigger on twitter?

>>17978022
>I'm not wading through your bs to quote the rest of you pathetic losers
Cry more consoomer

>incel isn’t getting pussy so that means the system needs to destroyed and billions have to die

Nobody needs to die except apocalyptic murderous faggots that can’t fuck like you lmfao. I keep seeing this primitivist eco shit from the far left and far right in response to perceived purposelessness and inability to cope with 21st century ennui and it may come as a shock but most normal people don’t exist in a state of perpetual agony and torment because they’re weird, narcissistic freak plagued by social anxiety resulting from having dead beat parents.

>>17978586
lot of anger in this one

>>17978586
I have a gf who I fuck and I still want billions to die

>>17975551
>Linkola
>anprim

>” lot of anger in this one”

>>17977410
Guys who don’t get any matches on tinder be like:

>>17978586
>and it may come as a shock but most normal people don’t exist in a state of perpetual agony and torment
Look at the statistics of rising suicides of kids, people living in poverty, people with mental health issues, the growing animosity between religious/ethnic groups, people losing their jobs en mass... and then come back to me.
You seem like a sheltered Reddit fag, and you probably are.

>>17978667
[Citation Needed]

>>17975418
Up to a point but we're now definitely past it in developed countries, unless we find a way to have near-immortality I guess. Most of the rest is just causing a slight improvement of comfort and slowly deteriorates society as a result (TV, social media, smartphones, etc.)

>>17978586
>SEX SEX SEX PUSSY INCEL SEX INCEL SEX
Why do you reddit niggers need to turn everything into sex?
I plow my gf everyday and I still want to mail bomb techgiants

>>17978522
Because every piece of information (((they))) have on me, no matter how minute, is analyzed thoroughly in order to affect my purchasing preferences, political views, and the general idea of how I am supposed to view life by bypassing my rational and spiritual capabilities and appealing to the base, instinctual nature of my dopamine receptors.

>>17978586
Why are you so sex obsessed?

>>17978635
>>17978586
>>17978022
>>17977305
>>17975506
>>17975418
All Americans are mentally ill. No exceptions.

>>17978996
But you won't

>>17979210
Just turn off your computer you dumbass bitch

Refuted by Nicky Landy.

>>17975382
We'll just have to kill it

>Do you think the internet will die out in our lifetime, or ever?
Possible. Network infrastructure is quite vulnerable. If there were a massive depression etc it could result in telecom companies cutting funding to maintenance of networks, security of high value assets is dropped. All it takes then is one ragtag group and a single day to go around and cut cables.
Trans-Pacific submarine cables cut at the landings. Bam.
Satellite stations broken into and destroyed. Bam.
Global communications is dead =)

>"[...] If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite.
>Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals."
He was so fucking right about everything

>>17975382
Hegel

>>17975382
I doubt we can keep up with the energy needed to keep the internet up the way we are used to it today. we are rapidly using finite resources to power data centers. we hear a lot of talk about renewable energy but we have no promising source that will keep up with our current usage in the near future. 2080 bye bye internet

>>17976339
Maybe it's not a bad idea to go see if the amish are willing to take in a new farm helper

NO, I HIGHLY DOUT THAT WOULD EER HAPPE.

>>17982642
Nuclear plants. If thorium salt reactors won't be made till then, there is still good ol' uranium.
Actually, we may yet see a society of 20% aristocrats power by nukes overseeing 80% of plebs powered by watermills and windmills.

>>17975418
i bet you use fucking google in everything u do u insectoid

>>17975418
Get of load of this neoliberal optimist retard

>>17975382
Technology will never die out. Primitivism is a pathetic pipe dream, any nation that gives up on technology and de-industrializes is just going to get annexed by their technologically superior neighbors. You are more delusional than the commies if you expect every person and nation on the planet to get onboard with it.

>>17975418
This is such a can of worms. Personally, I enjoy the fruits of technology - convenience, security and access to information. Thus, it may be an implement
of freedom but, truly, a person untrained in the use of a tool can only destroy with it.

What do you think is a healthy relationship with technology?

I think a person should be able to read a paper map with a compass in hand before using GoogleMaps. Inevitably though, being both classically trained and
well-versed in contemporary means becomes taxing.

A true appreciation and healthy use of it is probably an extension of a healthy
relationship with tradition and history of everyday living - and I'm not even rightwing LARPing.

>>17975382
the current internet will eventually run up against a hard limit of either bandwidth or storage. both are assumed to expand infinitely, but they can't. even now all mobile bandwidth expansion is devoted to various forms of corporate surveillance instead of consumer use

>>17975718
>My point is that the elite don't really hold a real monopoly in the technological realm since we have pretty much the same technology as they do
just build your own fiber optic network bro

>>17984339
the more sophisticated a system grows the greater chance that a single point failing will bring the entire thing down

>>17984911
the maps thing is funny because i have family members who used to have an impeccable sense of bearing just using an analogue map who now can't get to places they used to go all the time without the GPS voice telling them exactly what to do

>>17985173
This isn't true at all

>>17985182
Ech, well, the grid changes through the decades also, at least where I live.

>>17985262
Yeah bro, a solar flare wouldn't affect the world at all

>>17985356
Not to the point where we would be forced to go back to pre-industrial society.

>>17985389
>technophiles really believe this

"The thinking goes that "the big one", when it hits (about once every 500 years, if not sooner) would be powerful enough to knock out electrical and communications systems across Earth for days, months, or even years – nixing power grids, satellites, GPS, the internet, telephones, transportation systems, banking, you name it."
"It sounds like something out of a disaster movie, but it's not the stuff of fiction. Conservative estimates suggest we could be looking at up to US$2 trillion of damage in the first year of such a calamity, with a recovery effort that could take a decade for the world to pull off."
"On the more extreme side, others say US$20 trillion is a more reasonable figure – an inevitable damage bill that should perhaps make us reassess the risk factors of space-borne destruction."
""An event of [Carrington] scale could be catastrophic if it happened tomorrow," director of research for MIT's Energy Initiative, Francis O'Sullivan, told CNET last week.
""It's not just the lights going off now. It's bank accounts disappearing… If you think what would happen if the stock exchange was taken offline for a week or month or if communications were down for a week or a month, you very quickly get to a point where this might be one of the most important threats the nation faces, bar none.""
"It's this kind of medieval scenario that has scientists at the White House worried a doomsday-scale geomagnetic storm on the level of the Carrington Event could effectively send the world back to the Dark Ages."
>could effectively send the world back to the Dark Ages

>>17985439
If your entire ideology is predicated on a doomsday event that might not even happen you might as well call it a religion.

>>17977271
and the nazis wanted IBM to tabulate and compute the information they collected

>>17975506
>from here on decentralization is the next logic step
Yes, because people with immense amounts of power will willingly give it up to appease the ideals of a small percentage of the population.

>>17975718
>My point is that the elite don't really hold a real monopoly in the technological realm since we have pretty much the same technology as they do.
Delusional beyond belief