/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13912696]

Civilsation brainwashes you.

Any man who's spent more than 6 hours just sat in an empty room with nothing to do but think realises this. The moment you step foot back into the chaos it's overbearing, it's like your mind is being beaten into submission. So you go running for comfort. Food, video games, books, sex, careers, wives, children, holidays, money, money, money. Anything that will relieve the feeling of helplessness, anything that makes you forget your life is no longer your own in this world because the system owns you and you know no other existence. Laugh, smirk, mock all you like, it's just how you get through the day. Anyone who isn't parroting smalltalk or accepted topics of discussion is worthy of nothing but scorn, right? Because they remind you of the vague uneasiness that pervades your every waking moment.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but can we at least agree the industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race?

[Anonymous No.13912706]

>>13912696
>The moment you step foot back into the chaos it's overbearing,
It isn't really that bad and you don't have to feel uneasy all the time.

[Anonymous No.13912713]

>>13912696
Will kazscinsky fags ever stop crying? Life was way worse before the industrial revolution and it’s still shit now. So what. Until all labour is automated this will continue to be the case. Stop projecting your depression onto society.

[Anonymous No.13912721]

It was over the moment the man made a fire. To turn back is to simply use different technology, not to escape it.

Ted lived in a house. That's a technology.

[Anonymous No.13912723]

>>13912713
>Life was way worse before the industrial revolution
Ever since the discovery of agriculture we've been on a downward trend, industrial revolution was just a sharp dive off the cliff.

[Anonymous No.13912725]

Posting in a legendary bread. Uncle Ted did nothing wrong whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.13912728]

>>13912713
>Stop projecting your depression onto society.
https://time.com/5550803/depression-suicide-rates-youth/
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/03/trends-suicide
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/depression-rise-us-especially-among-young-teens

[Anonymous No.13912731]

>>13912713
I dont like teddyk fanboys either like this retard >>13912721 but you cant deny that the machine is a demonic thing. every man has felt that. what do you think perpetuum mobile was? only a internal monologue having NPC is ok with the level of noise in today's world

[Anonymous No.13912732]

>>13912721
The point is technology becomes a force for evil when it spawns excess, excess leads to idleness and we freefall into chaso like the current age.

Fire is good, gas heated homes that you can dictate the exact degree of temperature you want is excess.

[Anonymous No.13912735]

>>13912723
Yeah I’m fucking sure being chased around by leopards and sacrificing people to appease the gods was such a blast bro

[Anonymous No.13912739]

>>13912713
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oJqJkfTdAg

[Anonymous No.13912742]

>>13912735
Ignorance speaks, its name is Anonymous

[Anonymous No.13912743]

>>13912696

try living in a desert because even roads or just an object or vegetation emantes some form of energy, so when you're in the desert then you get some of the purest form

[Anonymous No.13912744]

>>13912742
Oh, so you're ignorant then?

[Anonymous No.13912750]

>>13912728
So strange it took hundreds of years for the industrial revolution to cause an increase in depression (still nowhere near societal level). It’s almost like this has nothing to do with the industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.13912754]

if you don't understand the difference between technology and technique you need to read more. the problem isn't that we have cool computers and air conditioning and medicine, the problem is that its turning all of us into slavish robots

[Anonymous No.13912756]

>>13912735
it was

>Observing a prisoner exchange between the Iroquois and the French in upper New York in 1699, Cadwallader Colden is blunt: ". . . notwithstanding the French Commissioners took all the Pains possible to carry Home the French, that were Prisoners with the Five Nations, and they had full Liberty from the Indians, few of them could be persuaded to return." Nor, he has to admit, is this merely a reflection on the quality of French colonial life, "for the English had as much Difficulty" in persuading their redeemed to come home, despite what Golden would claim were the obvious superiority of English ways:

>No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and Relations, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian Friends and Acquaintance; several of them that were by the Caressings of their Relations persuaded to come Home, in a little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away again to the Indians, and ended their Days with them. On the other Hand, Indian Children have been carefully educated among the English, cloathed and taught, yet, I think, there is not one Instance, that any of these, after they had Liberty to go among their own People, and were come to Age, would remain with the English, but returned to their own Nations, and became as fond of the Indian Manner of Life as those that knew nothing of a civilized Manner of Living.

>And, he concludes, what he says of this particular prisoner exchange "has been found true on many other Occasions."

>Benjamin Franklin was even more pointed: When an Indian child is raised in white civilization, he remarks, the civilizing somehow does not stick, and at the first opportunity he will go back to his red relations, from whence there is no hope whatever of redeeming him. But when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and have lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.

[Anonymous No.13912775]

>>13912756


added this to my reading list, thanks

[Anonymous No.13912776]

>>13912696
>I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but can we at least agree the industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race?
Get off your computer then, pussy. Oh? You're addicted to 4channel? Omg, pathetic.

[Anonymous No.13912777]

>>13912742
You know the famous story of narcissus who looked into a pool and being entranced by his beauty stood there gawping at himself until he starved to death and turned into a flower? Well that comes from when primitive peoples would be having a bad time getting food and would take young boys out to a field and slit their throats as an offering to the gods who, they hoped, would bring them food. When they came back to the place and saw a flower growing they assumed this meant the gods had accepted their sacrifice. This story was turned into something beautiful by the Greeks when they broke free from their primitive roots and turned into a civilisation. Human sacrifice and similar superstitions were common among primitive peoples. Not something I want a part in.

[Anonymous No.13912778]

>>13912713
>Life was way worse before the industrial revolution
I disagree. It's still shit if you're born with genetic diseases, but it can no longer be great even if you are a king.

[Anonymous No.13912785]

>>13912696
Based thread.

>>13912713
Absolutely wrong. Read Rousseau.

[Anonymous No.13912791]

>>13912756
b ased

[Anonymous No.13912809]

>>13912739
So you’re against facial recognition software, not technology.

[Anonymous No.13912812]

>>13912776
You think it's that easy to escape this system? Since I'm stuck here, I may as well spread the word. Besides, nobody can hear me in the woods.

[Anonymous No.13912820]

>>13912723
>>13912725
>>13912732
>>13912739
>>13912742
>>13912743
>>13912744
>>13912756
>>13912754
>>13912775
>>13912778
>>13912785
>>13912791
get off your computers then pussies. destroy your tech. or wait?? you won't??? why???? hm????? oh cuz you're a hypocrite pussy???????? you don't need a computer to live ;) go out to the wilderness, and stfu, stop complaining about tech while being addicted to tech and constantly using tech to benefit your lives, if you've ever ordered from amazon . com while also complaining about the tech then u should off urself. stop reaping the benefits of tech while larping online as anti-tech, stfuuuuuuuuu I HATE YOU

[Anonymous No.13912823]

>> Any man who's spent more than 6 hours just sat in an empty room with nothing to do but think

Not something you could do without civilization.

[Anonymous No.13912832]

>>13912820
shut up mongo

[Anonymous No.13912844]

>>13912820
buttmad normie retard

[Anonymous No.13912848]

>>13912820
Going out into the wilderness won't stop the industrial system you complete fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.13912854]

>>13912820
Ted doesn't care if you use technology as long as the ultimate goal is destruction of the industrial system retard, you know nothing about those you claim to hate

[Anonymous No.13912859]

>>13912809
you cant separate the "good" parts of advanced tech from the "bad" parts. the more advanced technology becomes the more control it requires and the less its permits chance.

you cant understand anything about our society without thinking of technology as a system rather then this or that particular technology. biometric data, ever precise means of surveillance. the militarization of the police are all INEVITABLE outcomes of the growth in technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA

[Anonymous No.13912862]

>>13912823
It's called a forest

[Anonymous No.13912864]

>>13912739
hahaha the paradox is, you wouldn't even know about that facial recog software if you weren't on your computer, so you literally get trolled by tech around the world via other tech. lmaoooo maybe get off your computer for once ;) you be like "hmmmmm let me open my tech to watching videos made by tech about tech on the other side of the globe" like, do you know how fucking retarded you are? tech is cucking you soooo hard lmaooooo GET OFF UR COMPUTER FAGGOT AND MAYBE STOP BITCHING ONLINE ABOUT UR COMPUTER

[Anonymous No.13912872]

>>13912832
>>13912844
>>13912848
>>13912854
"uwu my bussy hurts cuz tech got me cucked hard, uwu i wanna live like n*ggers in africa in mudhut tier civilization because im addicted to my computer and it trolls me and makes my bussy hurt constantly" hahahahaha shut up retards, get off ur computers or stfu

[Anonymous No.13912886]

>>13912848
>Going out into the wilderness won't stop the industrial system you complete fucking retard.

Reminds me of a day walking with a friend to meet another friend, I said suppose that she does not exist simply because you don't see her at this moment but you know she will be where we meet.
that moment when we saw her together. she didn't exist and just appeared

[Anonymous No.13912900]

>>13912864
of course tech dominates me as much as you. my most basic gestures are technological ones. when i turn my water faucet, when i eat, when i wipe my ass with toilet paper.

but this is like saying to a slave in a plantation slave. "ohhh look at you, your'e a plantation slave. you are being dominated by slavery hahahahah. stop being a slave bro get off the plantation!!!!"

[Anonymous No.13912904]

>>13912886
she always existed because she was always appearing to God even when you couldnt see her

[Anonymous No.13912910]

>>13912900
It's not the same because slaves would try to escape into the wilderness rather than be slaves. You could go into the wilderness of your own volition, it would just be very hard to survive there on your own.

[Anonymous No.13912919]

>>13912859
Not really. Facial recognition software has been banned.

[Anonymous No.13912926]

>>13912785
Explain the Rousseau part. The Good Savage is a big ass fucking spook.

[Anonymous No.13912935]

>>13912900
>stop being a slave bro get off the plantation!!!!"
EXACTLY YOU FUCKING CLOWN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT LEAVE. buy a ticket to africa or brazil or go live in alaskan mountains, there are places UNTOUCHED, LEAVE THE PLANTATION OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

also ur analogy isn't good because slaves didn't reap many benefits from being slaves except food and housing. tech benefits you way more than that, and more importantly it has the potential to benefit you more and the potential to improve on the things that have negative consequences. maybe the tap is shit, we could clean up our water easily but we have incompetent leaders.

i truly think once boomers who don't understand tech are out of power, then we will get leaders who are more capable of wielding technological power better. boomers literally just wait around oblivious to what the tech world is coming up with. someone must actively take possession of our technological situation to improve on the shit stuff like bad water, pollution, etc and it's possible.

[Anonymous No.13912942]

>>13912910
you really cant go into the wilderness, if that was possible then we wouldn't had a "unabomber" and it is much less possible in 2029 then in the 70's when K tried doing it, as tech grows wilderness shrinks, this is inevitable. one can live a marginal existence but freedom is impossible.

https://www.gq.com/story/the-last-true-hermit?fbclid=IwAR31CDedE6OwJaLTQNXs72D7tFWii9l6--NXEtgtU694kHyKAtWlGKFQX_Y

[Anonymous No.13912946]

>>13912859
>you cant separate the "good" parts of advanced tech from the "bad" parts.
um actually you literally can do that via the law retard, it's called controlling manufacturing, are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.13912960]

>>13912942
There are vast amounts of untouched land in the world still. Canada and Russia have huge tracts of it, and it's not all tundral waste, a lot of it is perfectly inhabitable Boreal forest. I'm sure there are other places too, I just don't know about them as much as Canada/Russia.

The unabomber lived right next to a town

[Anonymous No.13912963]

>>13912919
in some places and most importantly FOR NOW. the technology still exist, and the more the system advances the more "bugs" it creates the more urgent will be the implementation of this particular technology even in places that previously banned them. its absolutely inevitable (short of the collapse of the entire system)

[Anonymous No.13912979]

>>13912963
I don’t agree with you but even if you’re right, I’d take that over human sacrifice and dying from easily curable diseases.

[Anonymous No.13912989]

>>13912960
>The unabomber lived right next to a town
lmao he was so dumb

>move literally right next to town
>continually access the town's grocery store and benefit from people who could give him rides and such
>get made when the town to whose economy he contributed gets a little bigger
>start killing random innocent people
>beg to have his gay manifesto published or else he will kill more innocent people
>gets published
>nothing changes
>cope eternally in prison

lmaooooo dude was an embarrassment and he was literally transgender hahahaha and retards who are too weak to not be addicted to their phones/computers sympathize with him, but they're not serious people, they just wanna bitch online, they'll never actually do what is still possible to do: live in the wilderness and ditch tech. not even ted k could fully do it. these people are jokes. IQ 60 amazon indios are more respectable than them, they actually do what these soft-handed pussies constantly fantasize about doing because they're autistic about tech, but can't due to weakness

[Anonymous No.13912991]

>>13912946
nobody controls manufacturing, silly.

>There is no personal choice, in respect to magnitude, between, say, 3 and 4; 4 is greater than 3; this is a fact which has no personal reference. No one can change it or assert the contrary or personally escape it. Similarly, there is no choice between two technical methods. One of them asserts itself inescapably: its results are calculated, measured, obvious, and indisputable. A surgical operation which was formerly not feasible but can now be performed is not an object of choice. It simply is. Here we see the prime aspect of technical automatism. Technique itself, ipso facto and without indulgence or possible discussion, selects among the means to be employed. The human being is no longer in any sense the agent of choice. Let no one say that man is the agent of technical progress (a question I shall discuss later) and that it is he who chooses among possible techniques. In reality, he neither is nor does anything of the sort. He is a device for recording effects and results obtained by various techniques. He does not make a choice of complex and, in some way, human motives. He can decide only in favor of the technique that gives the maximum efficiency. But this is not choice. A machine could effect the same operation, Man still appears to be choosing when he abandons a given method that has proved excellent from some point of view. But his action comes solely from the fact that he has thoroughly analyzed the results and determined that from another point of view the method in question is less efficient. A good example is furnished by the attemnts to deconcentrate our industrial plants after we had concentrated them to the maximum possible degree. Another example would be the decision to abandon certain systems of high production in order to obtain a more constant productivity, although it might be less per capita. It is always a question of the improvement of the method in itself.

[Anonymous No.13912996]

>>13912963
>its absolutely inevitable (short of the collapse of the entire system)
in your dreams, hahahaha

[Anonymous No.13912997]

>>13912946
>he worst reproach modem society can level is the charge that some person or system is impeding this technical automatism. When a labor union leader says: "In a period of recession, productivity is a social scourge,’* his declaration stirs up a storm of protest and condemnation, because he is putting a personal judgment before the technical axiom that what can he produced must be produced. If a machine can yield a given result, it must be used to capacity, and it is considered criminal and antisocial not to do so. Technical automatism may not be judged or questioned; immediate use must be found for the most recent, efficient, and technical process. Communism’s fundamental criticism of capitalism is that financial capitalism checks technical progress that produces no profits; or that it promotes technical progress only in order to reserve for itself a monopoly. In any case, as Rubinstein points out, technical progress occurs under capitalism for reasons which have nothing to do with technique, and it is this fact which is to be criticized. Since the Communist regime is oriented toward technical progress, the mark of the superiority of Communism is that it adopts all technical progress. Rubinstein concludes his study by remarking that this progress is the goal of all efforts in the Soviet Union, where it is said to be possible to allow free play to technical automatism without checking it in any way

[Anonymous No.13913005]

>>13912996
"my" dreams are not so far fetched

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_wgTXI5dA

[Anonymous No.13913006]

>>13912991
tl;dr
>nobody controls manufacturing, silly.
our boomer leaders are technologically illiterate, there are already younger people coming up who want to limit manufacturing. we just need technologically literate people to fully wield technological power, use it for good and improve on it. that's the solution, not going back to african mudhut tier anti-societies

[Anonymous No.13913008]

>>13912989
wait, he bought groceries from a shop in town? what the fuck? wtf is with all these guys claiming to live authentically with nature when actually their being able to live in nature depends on other people and civilization, Thoreau did this shit as well

[Anonymous No.13913011]

>>13913005
no one cares about soros/jewish-american funded chinks destroying some random tech, that won't change shit and they only get sympathy from retarded boomers cuz >muh freedom

[Anonymous No.13913023]

>>13912991
>Similarly, there is no choice between two technical methods. One of them asserts itself inescapably
>The human being is no longer in any sense the agent of choice.
The human agent was *never* in control. It has been a darwninian power struggle of complex social/technological interactions the entire time. modern capitalism is just the latest version of this.

[Anonymous No.13913026]

>>13912997
tl;dr
>>13913008
yeah it's embarrassing. the only respectable one of these guys that i know of is linkola and linkola never suggested destroying tech, he just wanted to limit manufacturing, which i would support too. linkola actually talks the talk too, follows his own ideal which is technologically limited, though not devoid of tech

[Anonymous No.13913027]

>>13913008
It's called being American. These folks are permanently stuck in liberal ideological framework and refuse to accept that humans are not meant to live alone.

[Anonymous No.13913057]

>>13913006
listen, nobody is in charge of technology, there is nobody "on top". you get me? you dont give the impression of a person who even read the manifesto. maybe you should.

We are today at the stage of historical evolution in which everything that is not technique is being eliminated. The challenge to a country, an individual, or a system is solely a technical challenge. Only a technical force can be opposed to a technical force. All else is swept away. Serge Tchakotin reminds us of this constantly. In the face of the psychological outrages of propaganda, what reply can there be? It is useless to appeal to culture or religion. It is useless to educate the populace. Only propaganda can retort to propaganda, or psychological rape to psychological rape.

[Anonymous No.13913060]

>>13913027
yeah, this is basic greek philosophy. humans are inherently social, and also inherently technological. humanity has never existed without tech not even a single day. we've been without industrial tech, but never without tech. even chimpanzees use tech. these people don't get it. they're just anti-human in the worst of ways

[Anonymous No.13913063]

>>13913023
that's not quite correct, other modes of being in the world were possible.

[a_poor_sinner !!eiHxl4pZe1i No.13913064]

>>13912696
>I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but can we at least agree the industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race?
Yup. Catastrophe and holocaust became inevitable then.

[Anonymous No.13913069]

>>13912820

[Anonymous No.13913071]

>>13913057
>listen, nobody is in charge of technology, there is nobody "on top".
gov could easily take control of it and improve it if we had competent and technologically literate leaders, shut up. until then tech is basically synonymous in its trajectory with capital, which makes it less tame i'll admit, but still nonetheless it can be wielded by appropriate leaders

[Anonymous No.13913076]

>>13912696
This is based. I sympathize with techno-skepticism even though I'm majoring in CS.

[Anonymous No.13913077]

>>13913011
what about the Yellow Vests? are you denying that the system it entering a severe crises mode? look at the "disorders" all around the globe. this is a fine opportunity to kill the system ones and for all.

[Anonymous No.13913084]

>>13912696
civilisation doesn't always mean capitalist shithole like we live in now

[Anonymous No.13913086]

>>13912696
It's going to be a disaster, but not quite yet.
We're steadily working our way there.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
We're making the boot as we speak, and strengthening the leg.
Once the boot is in place, only a solar storm or other cosmological event that destroys electronics will save humanity from it's creation.

[Anonymous No.13913089]

>>13913069
read what i've said here >>13913071
and >>13912935 that's literally what i've been saying
i want to improve upon society, kaznyski fags want to destroy it. i suggest improving tech (which i think will happen once boomers start dying off), not going back to the N word tier lifestyles of africa

[Anonymous No.13913094]

>>13913084
>Brutalism is so much better bro

[Anonymous No.13913096]

>>13913077
>this is a fine opportunity to kill the system ones and for all.
man i can't believe how fucking delusional you are. probably one in a million people want to destroy all tech and retreat to N word tier civilizational modes. it's not going to happen. yellow vests aren't trying to reduce france to a non-industrial country devoid of tech. you have to be stupid to think that

[Anonymous No.13913108]

>>13913089
I think you're too optimistic desu, techno-illiterate boomers have given us large scale drone strikes and big brother tier surveillance states. Once the boomers die off you'll just get people who are even more creative with the authoritarian utilization of technology. I think it could be harnessed for good but leaders of industry or nations will likely do more harm than good. Maybe more Richard Stallman-esque open software type figures will bear their faces in the future idk.

[Anonymous No.13913110]

>>13913077
also do you think hong kong retards would give up their computers, cars, phones, electricity, washing machines/dryers, AC, etc etc etc just because they don't like facial recognition software? you're out of your mind dude. not everyone who rejects some negative aspects of tech wants to completely destroy it all and live like primitive fucking animals

[Anonymous No.13913112]

>>13913096
>N word
Imagine being this much of a fucking vagina

[Anonymous No.13913113]

>>13913094

[Anonymous No.13913117]

>>13913071
no, each technological "step forward" , each technology introduced to the society is introduced to correct "errors", errors that themselves came about from the introduction of previous technologies, and each technology introduced creates new errors, so its tech-error-tech-error-tech-error till infinity. any manager of a society - whatever his ideological school - MUST employ technological means as a way to steer the society from the errors the society inherited. if the manager fails at this the society will suffer and it will replace this incompetent manager.

in other words, if a pilot sees a button flickering on the control panel of the plane he has to respond as he must, the pilot is not in charge of the plane, he only responds to it, he is captive of the technology, he only proves himself free of technology if he crashes the plane in which case he cannot be said a "pilot" any more but a "terrorist"

[Anonymous No.13913119]

>>13913060
>So long as men remained content with their rustic huts, so long as they were satisfied with clothes made of the skins of animals and sewn together with thorns and fish-bones, adorned themselves only with feathers and shells, and continued to paint their bodies different colours, to improve and beautify their bows and arrows and to make with sharp-edged stones fishing boats or clumsy musical instruments; in a word, so long as they undertook only what a single person could accomplish, and confined themselves to such arts as did not require the joint labour of several hands, they lived free, healthy, honest and happy lives, so long as their nature allowed, and as they continued to enjoy the pleasures of mutual and independent intercourse. But from the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests became smiling fields, which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate and grow up with the crops.
- Rousseau

[Anonymous No.13913120]

>>13913096
>retreat to N word tier civilizational modes
the act of censoring the word nigger on 4chan while using niggers as an example of a low state of humanity is a very bizarre mix of social conventions

[Anonymous No.13913128]

>>13913060
It's not that simple. We are social, yes, but only in small groups. We like technology, yes, but there comes time when it will be too much. Essentially if you are alone and naked you are weak, powerless and in generally undesirable state. Just as a person in incomprehensibly large and complex society with incomprehensibly pervasive and complex tech. However it's possible to build civilization out of barbarism, way back is much harder.

[Anonymous No.13913131]

>>13913113
I'm Canadian, you stupid euroshart.

[Anonymous No.13913136]

>>13913131
canadians are just northern burgers

[Anonymous No.13913142]

>>13913108
that's certainly a possibility too. i don't want to deny any negative aspects of tech. i just think that tech's value lies in how it's used. it's not inherently bad. up to this point, we've seen both negative and positive aspects of it. even if we saw mostly negative aspects of it, i'd still say the answer is to use it for good instead of retreating to primitive society (one because that'll never happen and two because even if it did happen, you wouldn't be able to destroy human nature and soon the tech would all come back, even if it took thousands of years and three because i don't think it's desirable and natural for humans to live like animals, we are clearly inherently technical and more social than all other species). it would be lamentable to see tech used for evil, but this moral dimension applies to all tech, industrial or pre-industrial, just like it extends to all human action.

one could use a hand to choke babies to death, should the entirety of humanity start cutting off their hands? ah but hands too are tech, inherent tech.

[Anonymous No.13913143]

>>13913136
Our education isn't as bad
We're not controlled by corporations
We don't have an orange baboon running the country
Etc..

[Anonymous No.13913146]

>>13913096
they may be unconscious of this but this is exactly what they want. they are being irrational. technology is the epitome of rationality. resistance to technology is irrational by definition. Panic is our bast asset in combating the system

Panic makes the cyberneticians panic. It represents absolute risk, the permanent potential threat that the intensification of relations between lifestyles/forms-of-life presents. Because of this, it should be made as terrifying as the appointed cybernetician himself endeavors to show it being: “panic is dangerous for populations; it increases the number of victims resulting from an accident by causing inappropriate flight reactions, which may indeed be the only real reason for deaths and injuries; every time it’s the same scenario: acts of blind rage, trampling, crushing...” the lie in that description of course is that it imagines panic phenomena exclusively from a sealed environment: as a liberation of bodies, panic self-destructs because everyone tries to get out through an exit that’s too narrow.

But it is possible to envision that there could be, as happened in Genoa in July 2001, panic to a degree sufficient to fuck up the cybernetic programming and pass through various social groups/milieus, panic that would go beyond the annihilation stage, as Canetti suggests in Mass and Power : “If we weren’t in a theater we could all run away together like a flock of threatened animals, and increase the energy of our escape with our movement in the same direction. An active mass fear of this kind is the great collective event lived by all herd animals and who save themselves together because they are good runners.” In this sense I see as political fact of the greatest importance the panic involving more than a million persons that Orson Welles provoked in 1938 when he made his announcement over the airwaves in New Jersey, at a time when radiophonics were still in early enough a state that people gave its broadcasts a certain truth value. Because “the more we fight for our own lives the more it becomes obvious that we are fighting against the others hemming us in on all sides,” and alongside an unheard of and uncontrollable expenditure, panic also reveals the naked civil war going on: it is “a disintegration of the mass within the mass.”

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tiqqun-the-cybernetic-hypothesis

[Anonymous No.13913151]

>>13913143
>We're not controlled by corporations
lol

[Anonymous No.13913152]

>>13913142
>what is tech

Read this:
>>13913119

[Anonymous No.13913161]

Don't worry lads. Soon there will be happiness pills, brain-chips that give you purpose in life and VR porn indistinguishable from real sex.

That's what you want, right? Happiness, purpose and a good fuck.

[Anonymous No.13913170]

>>13913151

[Anonymous No.13913175]

>>13913161
Unironically yeah, I'll take it at this point. I assume most people will.

[Anonymous No.13913184]

>>13913117
just simply wrong dude. your view of tech is weird, you seem to think it is alive or something and has a will.
>>13913119
rousseau was a fucking retard dude. stop reading that brainlet. de maistre BTFO'd him hard. literally just read aristotle to BTFO rousseau. all of his ideas were retroactively pillaged and left for dead by the greeks. i can't believe we're still arguing barbarian talking points from pseuds like rousseau.
>>13913128
i mean, i support limiting tech in several ways, esp manufacturing, i agree with you though. one negative aspect of tech i think is that brainlets get over-stimulated by information and this can cause social/political disorder. key in my opinion is to control manufacturing.

[Anonymous No.13913201]

>>13913184
I don't think you've ever read Rousseau.

[Anonymous No.13913204]

>>13913152
learn greek, word comes from them. i say that hands are tech because i believe we have a creator. our whole bodies are literally tech, we were crafted by God. you might not believe but that's fine, nonetheless humans exhibit the technological features that kazynkians hate in inanimate objects.
>>13913146
man, that's just too long, but your first point is interesting. even if irrational though, i don't think any of them will give up cars, phone, electricity, etc. sorry dude. hong kong is one of the most advanced cities in the world, abolishing tech would mean most of them would die or else rely on foreigners for support. doubt they want to completely renounce all tech bro

[Anonymous No.13913222]

>>13913184
>social/political disorder.
Why do you consider disorder to be negative? Disorder is manifestation of our humanity. The more you optimize society towards "order", the less wiggle room will there be for human freedom.

>key in my opinion is to control manufacturing.
That is a realistic proposal. Ultimately however any such regulation will be kinetic in nature, while domination of technology/capital is the thermodynamic result.

[Anonymous No.13913224]

>>13913201
i've read some of his stuff. his linguistic theory was a joke. his idea of the general will is laughably stupid. his ideas on property are also jokes. he is only good to read to see his influence on marx but he was really dumb. most liberal ideas on society are literally brainlet tier nonsense and seriously the greeks, esp aristotle, are all you need to BTFO those dudes. plato helps too. read de maistre too for a contemporary refutation

[Anonymous No.13913229]

I was on the train today and it occurred to me, why are there advertisements here when there could be facsimiles of renaissance paintings? Or anything of inherent value? And then as I was in a car going through the city, I saw endless rows of advertisements and chain store signs, an ugly conflicting morass of competing signals all writhing together without unity or plan. I asked myself, why does it have to be like this? Why should this be the primary mode through which the culture expresses itself, and thereby, teaches what social reality is? Images matter, representation matters. Your environment feeds your soul, or poisons it.

This is exactly what the Soviets, and yes, the Nazis, wanted to wipe out. The aggrandizement of petty values. Instead in their own ways they stressed a classical nobility in public aesthetics, the half brutalist half romanesque architecture of the fascists, the half brutalist half elevated everyman aesthetic of the communists. The ideologies themselves had an aesthetic theme, while what we have here is a vomit of forms.
The advertisers want you to think a certain way, ignorant or uncaring that this influences how you see everything.

[Anonymous No.13913234]

>>13913204
I've very clearly explained what constitutes dangerous tech and this should show why the body is not tech. Maybe you should read the Rousseau quote I spent time to dig up, instead of just dismissing it.

[Anonymous No.13913242]

>>13913229
>Or anything of inherent value?
Or even how about nothing at all. I'm content for my train ride to be a purely bland, functional affair without any attempt to color in the steel and plastic surfaces.

[Anonymous No.13913253]

>>13913204
not consciously. but i have no doubt that they wish "the plane to crash". they find themselves trapped but this is our situation all over the world. even if they're (conscious) demands will be met ("democracy" etc...) they will still go on rioting after some time becouse their real (unconscious) demand were not met (the abolishen of the system). so each time that people engage in irrational activity their unconscious is trying to tell them something.. maybe its too hard of a massage (the system must fall, disaster must be unleashed) so it remains unconscious, but actions speak louder then words, they are attacking surveillance posts, they are attacking police, they are attacking and destroying all types of machines and they are destroying themselves as machines (sabotaging ones identity by wearing masks) and this will go on as time goes on all over the world. the system is very sick, the time to attack is now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ASYPmLvcjQ

[Anonymous No.13913255]

>>13913224
The problem is, the things you mentioned are on the periphery of his worldview and barely important at all. His central thesis is around the formation of civilisation and the resulting inherent inequalities, suffering and slavery.

I wouldn't even call him liberal at all. I am extremely conservative and his views are barely different at all. He strongly values the family and (NATURAL) traditions.

[Anonymous No.13913257]

>>13913222
yes, i consider disorder to be negative. order is a prerequisite for beauty and justice. beauty and justice are perhaps the most important things humans should be focused on. disorder comes from Satan, the diabolic (which etymologically means "to tear apart" in greek) anything that is disorderly and destroys unity is satanic in nature. You can disagree with me here. i also think freedom is important for moral reasons, but that ultimately i would support limiting freedom in order to create a more beautiful and just world
>Ultimately however any such regulation will be kinetic in nature, while domination of technology/capital is the thermodynamic result.
can you elaborate on this?

[Anonymous No.13913271]

>>13913234
i'm using the etymological meaning of tech that comes from the greeks and if you're a creationist like me, then you must accept that mankind is the divine product of God's techne, we are essentially tech. but i don't think you'd agree with that since most people who like rousseau are atheist brainlets lmao

[Anonymous No.13913284]

>>13913271
Rousseau was a Christian and this is very apparent in his writings. He alludes to it very frequently. Again, just read his work. 99% of the people shitting on him have never even touched it and that kind of upsets me.

[Anonymous No.13913303]

>>13913255
>formation of civilisation and the resulting inherent inequalities, suffering and slavery.
civilization is the inherent condition of humanity, it was never formed by humans, it existed concomitantly with humanity. and of course rousseau is a liberal, come on dude. he was one of the first big liberal thinkers, he is liberalism 101 and helped bring about the first liberal government in the world in france with his ideas. if you're not a monarchist, you're leftwing. don't you know where the leftwing/rightwing dichotomy comes from?
>He strongly values the family and (NATURAL) traditions.
uh yeah dude, didn't you hear about all his random kids he left around europe? fuck that guy, didn't value the family at all, maybe just to larp in his books but that's it

[Anonymous No.13913311]

>>13913257
>i would support limiting freedom in order to create a more beautiful and just world
That's the traditional view of things perfectly understandable for situations before the 3rd millenium. But what if the justice meant simply castrating us of the ability to do harm ala The clockwork orange? Or that beauty simply meant that everything will be plastered with beauty to the point of beauty being banal?

>can you elaborate on this?
Do you know what does the kinetic/thermodynamic dichotomy mean? Not everyone is a chemist.

[Anonymous No.13913315]

>>13913271
Totally wrong. Technology is the anti-Christ. It's man trying to become godlike by placing his own will above God's. The fall is the beginning of civilisation. Literally just read Genesis again.

[Anonymous No.13913321]

>>13913303
>civilization is the inherent condition of humanity
What does civilization mean according to you? Are Sentilese civilized?

[Anonymous No.13913331]

>>13913303
>he was one of the first big liberal thinkers, he is liberalism 101 and helped bring about the first liberal government in the world in france with his ideas

TOTALLY wrong. Rousseau was 100% against the enlightenment and one of its earliest critics. Robespierre didn't know shit about him, it was all just a smear.

FUCKING READ HIM FUCKING READ HIM.

STOP JUST REPEATING BULLSHIT YOU READ ABOUT HIM. I'M FUCKING SICK OF IT.

[Anonymous No.13913336]

>>13913284
he was not christian, his social theory contradicts the teaching of the Bible in literally every way. his ideas on religion contradict biblical and church teaching. calling yourself a christian isn't enough to be a christian. he even rejected the idea of original sin. he rejected the idea of a personal god, which is a prerequisite for christianity. he was a deist. he was influenced by calvinist heresy. he even said that christians don't make good citizens in his stupid idea of the republic, which once again has as its basis a non-christian social theory.

[Anonymous No.13913342]

>>13913336
Read. The. Fucking. Books.

He mentions it constantly.

[Anonymous No.13913352]

>>13913336
>he rejected the idea of a personal god, which is a prerequisite for christianity. he was a deist
No. You're thinking of Voltaire. They are not the same at all.

[Anonymous No.13913358]

>>13913331
he was a republican, which is liberal. sorry retard. if you're not a monarchist, you're a liberal!
>>13913321
to a slight extent, i think certain peoples are capable of differing levels of civilization. sentilese are likely degenerated offshoots of more civilized peoples.
>>13913315
this is probably the only interesting argument against CERTAIN FORMS of tech, the more egregious ones like eugenics or something.
>>13913311
>That's the traditional view of things perfectly understandable for situations before the 3rd millenium.
>muh progress
good points tho, i don't have an answer. as i said, i think freedom is pretty important and i would rather have a beauty world because people willed it, than a world made beautiful through brute force.

[Anonymous No.13913374]

>>13913352
he was a deist and he shits all over christianity in the social contract. when it came out people were upset with him because he claimed christians couldn't be good citizens of the republic and couldn't be patriotic. rejecting original sin is also basically enough to make you not a true christian.

[Anonymous No.13913378]

>>13912723
All that's changed due to technology is population count. There are more losers alive today because there's less ways for them to be killed now.

[Anonymous No.13913380]

>>13913358
>if you're not a monarchist, you're a liberal!
What a fucking asinine definition. But guess what, I'm also a Monarchist. Monarchy is the most stable form of primitive society and a necessary concession in a world of post-industrial aggressors. So I guess you are going to tell me how I am a liberal now too.

[Anonymous No.13913385]

>>13913374
Original sin isn't even an Orthodox position.

[Anonymous No.13913397]

we need to attack power plants

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8O2T9eKTi8

[Anonymous No.13913400]

>>13912713
life was pretty solid for your average european peasant in the high gothic era provided there were no plagues. ate a wholesome diet, /fit/ from manual labor, lived the same place your entire life with kin you grew up with, married a young girl and impregnated her immediately, almost a third of the year off for feast days, your career was already chosen by your father and protected by the guild, earth was the center of the universe, god looked down on you from heaven, and jews had to wear a special hat so you knew when you were dealing with one

[Anonymous No.13913406]

>>13912820
it's impossible to opt out of the system, even by hermitage

[Anonymous No.13913413]

attack the power grid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d803YJg7_58

[Anonymous No.13913414]

>>13913378
>All that's changed due to technology is population count

[Anonymous No.13913421]

>>13913006
Are you so shortsighted as to think those proposed changes would be permanent or always keep in proportion to the necessary political or societal climates, whilst technology continues improving and offering means of increased effectivity across all fields?

Ultimately, as technology continues it's march ahead, our own autonomy--our ability to control our own lives--will shrink to naught. Cars were first a luxury and a convenience, now they are essential to the ebb and flow of society. The internet was at first a tool and a convenience, now it bears the weight of all society on it's back. Cash money was once in the hands of those who owned it, but now plastic cards act as that gateway, with arbitrators far removed from any of us capable of cutting access to our own money, not to mention seeing what, where, and when we purchased.

The point is that technology starts as convenience, becomes a crutch or pillar, and finally becomes the baseline of society. We cannot escape the effects of it. We cannot control our own lives; technological progress has already decided what we can and cannot take control of. The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.13913423]

destroy the system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uduz2CdJfqU

[Anonymous No.13913425]

>>13913400
>and jews had to wear a special hat
lmao

[Anonymous No.13913426]

>>13913380
it's just true, bro doesn't even take much more than a wikipedia search to find out the origin of the left-right dichotomy

"The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left"

monarchists are the only true right, the hodgepodge mess of everyone else goes on the left!

also, monarchy was never primitive, to get a multitude to react to the will of one requires socialization, civilization, and great advancement of mind and spirit. primitive societies are more chaotic with less rigid power structures, such as are seen in liberal societies. the greatest civilizations were all monarchical: aryan india, ancient persia, ancient greece and rome. all were heavily advanced and the opposite of primitive.

[Anonymous No.13913428]

>>13913358
>i think freedom is pretty important and i would rather have a beauty world because people willed it, than a world made beautiful through brute force.
Personally I've been toying with he idea that the world must be ugly and unjust so that one might authentically pursue justice and beauty and that the story of pursuing justice and beauty is more important than it's result. Plus as you pursue justice and beauty in one way the institutions in place choke any other attempt of pursuing desires of other people, eventually failing to attain perfect justice and beauty until the system falls apart. With each new cycle the amplitude of "civilization" increases and so does the ability of institutions to suppress cataclysmic forces that could start a new cycle.

It's understandable that one might consider the creative force good and the destructive bad, but personally I'm in favour of keeping the cycle running as long as possible before we "advance" past our humanity, since a good story beats an utopia.

[Anonymous No.13913436]

>>13913421
>We cannot control our own lives; technological progress has already decided what we can and cannot take control of. The industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
1. you can control your life
2. you sound like a defeatist pussy
3. you approach tech from a gay defeatist, negative attitude in which it is inherently bad, instead of realizing that we COULD control it and use it for good and control our own destiny

just cuz you're a slave to tech now doesn't mean you couldn't master tech if only you had some fucking wits and willpower, man you sound like such a pussy, no wonder you sympathize with a mentally ill tranny like ted k

[Anonymous No.13913441]

>>13913414
t. one of the losers who would have been 1 dead nigga at birth prior to modern science

[Anonymous No.13913451]

>>13913428
hmmm i disagree with some of what you say (for example i'm not sure how i feel how cyclical theories anymore, or at least i don't know if i can endorse them from my own personal shortsighted existence; it'd take a god or a prophet to endorse a cyclical theory) but i'm also intrigued. you sound like an anon i'd grab a beer with. you sound an anon with some fight still in you

[Anonymous No.13913454]

>>13913436
>attitude in which it is inherently bad
Calling it "Inherently bad" doesn't make it any less true.

[Anonymous No.13913460]

>>13913426
If you want to use those definitions, Rousseau wrote before that even existed. How can he possibly be defined by something that wasn't even defined yet.

Also, those are historic definitions and they aren't ones I care about or see as relevant. It's very clear that the left pushes the hardest against nature, and the right less so. That's what really matters, is it against God (Nature is His divine will and creation).

It's natural for people to gather around a strong and powerful leader. Monarchy is an imitation of that. Yes, monarchies existed in every ancient civilisation, they ARE more natural than (Therefore preferable to) the current state of affairs.

[Anonymous No.13913467]

>>13913436
>you can control your life!!!
>is subject to an infinite organizations on which he has no control.

buy would i want to see how you control your life when hyperinflation hits, when the bank takes away your house, when your'e son is depressed and seeks to numb himself in drugs (legal or otherwise) or when the water you drink gets contaminated or a fraking company poisons the land you live on.

you control nothing my friend. you are as denuded as a chicken in a chicken coup

[Anonymous No.13913470]

>>13913441
I fucking wish

[Anonymous No.13913482]

>>13913436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jiezc1mzfFo

[Anonymous No.13913491]

>>13913454
not what i wanted to say, i said you view tech as inherently bad, but i'm getting tired and writing lazier now, sorry
>>13913460
the ideas of the revolutionaries existed before the assembly that divided them up, no shit. liberals existed before they decided to go to the left of the assembly meeting and it couldn't be otherwise, but as of that moment they were leftists. anyways i agree with what you say after that
>>13913467
none of that has too happen tho, humans could limit, restrict, improve tech in many ways. it doesn't have to be negative is my point, dude.

[Anonymous No.13913493]

they chased him hard because he represents everything they fear

[Anonymous No.13913501]

>>13913482
it's just not true that machines are in control, we choose how we construct machines, what they do, how they do it, etc. the only exception might be a crazy situation of AI somehow gaining consciousness or some sci-fi shit like that where they really will be more powerful than humans, until then, no your microwave doesn't rule your will, you retard

[Anonymous No.13913502]

>>13913436
>just cuz you're a slave to tech now doesn't mean you couldn't master tech if
Ted is a mathematical genius and served as a professor. Some of the best computer programmers in the world also agree with him. It has fuck all to do with "mastering" the technology, idiot.

[Anonymous No.13913510]

>>13913493
gender dysphoria and an inability to buy a plane ticket to live with african pygmies instead of crying like a bitch his whole life? hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.13913517]

>>13913491
Great, well have a nice day anon. Thanks for your patience.

[Anonymous No.13913529]

>>13913502
>muh argument from authority
ironic how ur a literal slave to some retardniggas's ideas, and you wanna talk about tech but can't even stop letting these brainlets dominate ur mind

[Anonymous No.13913530]

>>13912713
>Life was way worse before the industrial revolution

OH SWEET CHILD O' MINE

[Anonymous No.13913536]

>>13913501
>we choose

No sweaty, it's corporations which choose and they care about nothing but exponential profits. It doesn't matter who gets hurt, if they make more money and they can get away with it.

[Anonymous No.13913542]

>>13913502
If appeal to authority meant anything, I could just as well say that some of the best computer programmers disagree with him. What now?

[Anonymous No.13913551]

>>13913501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arIhuDWaz-A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTTpIt-fKM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0tcu4OF_30

[Anonymous No.13913562]

What are some movies that make Tedfags piss themselves in fear?

[Anonymous No.13913566]

>>13913536
true but i support subjecting corporations and limiting their power, forcing them to be less heinous and i would even support executing some of the more disgusting among them like those selling opioids knowing that they're addictive and life threatening. i think big tech must be broken up and regulated, and this idea is getting more mainstream now. i want tech to work for humans, not the other way around and i think this is possible

[Anonymous No.13913577]

>>13913551
you tryna ellul-pill me, anon? maybe i'll read him someday and see what he is all about, at least he wasn't a murderer tranny like ted k. i'm pretty sympathetic to guys like linkola tho. linkola and ted k both saw problems with tech but linkola is much more reasonable and fun to read too

[Anonymous No.13913581]

>>13913542
I wasn't appealing to authority, I was just demonstrating that you don't have to be tech illiterate to agree with him. It's got nothing to do with sour grapes.

[Anonymous No.13913589]

>>13913501
>microwave doesn't rule your will
Yet when you hear a *BEEP* you run and check it.
>we choose how we construct machines
No, we don't. We try to find the optimal way. Once the optimal way has been found, we don't go for the sub-optimal anymore. Besides it's only a handful of CEOs and engineers that "choose". You are shitposting on a machine you have no chance in hell of reproducing and most likely even fully comprehending.

There's simply certain way how to produce and operate machines in the optimal way and we optimize to that way. We also use machines to optimize ourself like alarm clock, smartphone, or car. As society progresses it demands of us to operate more and more technology to keep up with the "optimal way of living". If you choose the sub-optimal way you suffer will suffer in attaining power, status and relationships. In words of Rick Roderick: "You can't make the TV disappear, but it can make you disappear".

The "optimal way" is pre-existing, it isn't really chosen by the subject of human. The freedom is in the margin where one can deviate from it.

[Anonymous No.13913595]

>>13913577
read him sometime. im reading his
"Perspectives on Our Age : Jacques Ellul Speaks on His Life and Work"

its a very good introduction to him. find it on b-ok.org


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mZfqpmok8Q

[Anonymous No.13913621]

>>13913589
the optimal way is that which avoids the most negative aspects of tech now, so if you're right, then i hope we find the optimal way
>>13913595
okay, i'll check him out. i know he influenced ted, but i suspect he is probably smarter than ted simply by fact of him being christian and ted k being an atheist tranny lol if i were to read ellul i think i'd start with his non-tech works like his book on propaganda or a christian work of his

[Anonymous No.13913639]

>>13913581
I see what your point was now, but the problem is that programmers aren't necessary masters of tech anyway. In most cases, they are just code monkeys employed by large enterprises.

[Anonymous No.13913642]

>>13913621
he wasn't an atheist. he warshipped a rabit

>"This is kind of personal," he begins by saying, and I ask if he wants me to turn off the tape. He says "no, I can tell you about it. While I was living in the woods I sort of invented some gods for myself" and he laughs. "Not that I believed in these things intellectually, but they were ideas that sort of corresponded with some of the feelings I had. I think the first one I invented was Grandfather Rabbit. You know the snowshoe rabbits were my main source of meat during the winters. I had spent a lot of time learning what they do and following their tracks all around before I could get close enough to shoot them. Sometimes you would track a rabbit around and around and then the tracks disappear. You can't figure out where that rabbit went and lose the trail. I invented a myth for myself, that this was the Grandfather Rabbit, the grandfather who was responsible for the existence of all other rabbits. He was able to disappear, that is why you couldn't catch him and why you would never see him... Every time I shot a snowshoe rabbit, I would always say 'thank you Grandfather Rabbit.' After a while I acquired an urge to draw snowshoe rabbits. I sort of got involved with them to the extent that they would occupy a great deal of my thought. I actually did have a wooden object that, among other things, I carved a snowshoe rabbit in. I planned to do a better one, just for the snowshoe rabbits, but I never did get it done.

http://www.primitivism.com/kaczynski

[Anonymous No.13913659]

>>13913621
>the optimal way is that which avoids the most negative aspects of tech now,
No, it's the one that reproduces the best. Which means it's either best at reproducing capital or crushing your enemies. Negative aspects can be mostly dealt with other way: Does it cause pollution? Solution is dilution! Does it cause depression? Someone will make money of self-help books and antidepressant. Does it cause social unrest? Let's sell them toys, confuse them with entertainment or suppress them through surveillance.

[Anonymous No.13913672]

>>13913595
>all those self-help books on the "popular" page
grim

[Anonymous No.13913700]

>>13912696
Being depressed doesn't make the world around you a disaster.
Seek help.

[Anonymous No.13913730]

Lmao, all these retarded Tedfags BTFOing themselves just by posting

[Anonymous No.13913736]

>>13913700
The concept of depression and "seeking help" for mental problems was spawned by civilisation

[Anonymous No.13913822]

>>13913184
I don’t understand how people can’t see some systems as “willful.” Maybe they’re just being persnickety, pedantic definition-humpers, but it’s easy to walk back from Darwin to Schopenhauer and see how a dumb system like evolution can appear to be an active agent, to have some kind of will or Will. Same can be seen in the “invisible hand” of Capital, or prions, or China. Emergent properties! The whole is greater than the sum of its parts!