Read Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.16278388]

Read him now

[Anonymous No.16278393]

No thank you i‘m comfy phoneposting from my IPHONE

[Anonymous No.16278404]

>>16278388
Is Technological Slavery the one to buy? That one includes ISAIF and the other letters right?

[Anonymous No.16278411]

>>16278388
There are more threads dedicated to this shitty /lit/ meme than to actual literature on this board right now. Creating good threads isn’t even enjoyable anymore

[Anonymous No.16278425]

>>16278388
I used to think that this dude was some esoteric philosopher. I then read his Wiki, and it turned out he's a literal terrorist.

[Anonymous No.16278439]

>a rational mind is on display in this book
>has bombed people
Ok i guess

[Anonymous No.16278448]

>>16278425
He brings up good points and arguments but yeah at some point he just loses his fucking mind making me think hes just a normie that got beaten down hard by truth

[Anonymous No.16278457]

>>16278448
Actually reality is a better word than truth, sorry

[Anonymous No.16278464]

>>16278448
>at some point

which point?

[Anonymous No.16278480]

>>16278448
>normie
He was a math autist before.

[Anonymous No.16278483]

>>16278404
If you haven't read him before, yes, read Technological Slavery first. Here's the run down from the preface to Technological Slavery:

1. Technological progress is carrying us to inevitable disaster.
There may be physical disaster (for example, some form of environmental
catastrophe), or there may be disaster in terms of human dignity (reduction
of the human race to a degraded and servile condition). But disaster of one
kind or another will certainly result from continued technological progress.
This is not an eccentric opinion. Among those frightened by the
probable consequences of technological progress are Bill Joy, whose article
“Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us” is now famous, Martin Rees, author
of the book Our Final Hour, and Richard A. Posner, author of Catastrophe:
Risk and Response.2 None of these three is by any stretch of the imagination
radical or predisposed to find fault with the existing structure of society.
Richard Posner is a conservative judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Bill Joy is a well-known computer wizard,
and Martin Rees is the Astronomer Royal of Britain. These last two men,
having devoted their lives to technology, would hardly be likely to fear it
without having good reason to do so.
Joy, Rees, and Posner are concerned mainly with physical disaster
and with the possibility or indeed the likelihood that human beings will be
supplanted by machines. The disaster that technological progress implies
for human dignity has been discussed by men like Jacques Ellul and Lewis
Mumford, whose books are widely read and respected. Neither man is
considered to be out on the fringe or even close to it.

[Anonymous No.16278493]

>>16278404
2. Only the collapse of modern technological civilization can avert
disaster. Of course, the collapse of technological civilization will itself
bring disaster. But the longer the technoindustrial system continues to
expand, the worse will be the eventual disaster. A lesser disaster now will
avert a greater one later.
The development of the technoindustrial system cannot be
controlled, restrained, or guided, nor can its effects be moderated to any
substantial degree. This, again, is not an eccentric opinion. Many writers,
beginning with Karl Marx, have noted the fundamental importance of
technology in determining the course of society’s development. In effect,
they have recognized that it is technology that rules society, not the other
way around. Ellul especially has emphasized the autonomy of technology,
i.e., the fact that modern technology has taken on a life of its own and is
not subject to human control. Ellul, moreover, was not the first to formulate
this conclusion. Already in 1934 the Mexican thinker Samuel Ramos3
6 Technological Slavery
clearly stated the principle of technological autonomy, and this insight was
adumbrated as early as the 1860s by Samuel Butler.4 Of course, no one
questions the obvious fact that human individuals or groups can control
technology in the sense that at a given point in time they can decide what to
do with a particular item of technology. What the principle of technological
autonomy asserts is that the overall development of technology, and
its long-term consequences for society, are not subject to human control.
Hence, as long as modern technology continues to exist, there is little we
can do to moderate its effects.
A corollary is that nothing short of the collapse of technological
society can avert a greater disaster. Thus, if we want to defend ourselves
against technology, the only action we can take that might prove effective
is an effort to precipitate the collapse of technological society. Though
this conclusion is an obvious consequence of the principle of technological
autonomy, and though it possibly is implied by certain statements
of Ellul, I know of no conventionally published writer who has explicitly
recognized that our only way out is through the collapse of technological
society. This seeming blindness to the obvious can only be explained as
the result of timidity.
If we want to precipitate the collapse of technological society,
then our goal is a revolutionary one under any reasonable definition of
that term. What we are faced with, therefore, is a need for out-and-out
revolution.

[Anonymous No.16278498]

>>16278480
So pic related

[Anonymous No.16278516]

>>16278439
>Nobody rational has ever been violent

[Anonymous No.16278520]

>>16278388
>overpopulation
Go and take a worldwide census and tell me that there's "too many people" You tell me that the west has a fertility crisis but there's going to be too many people? Lol

[Anonymous No.16278532]

>>16278498
Not really. He specialized in geometric function theory, which has nothing to do with beakers, rockets, atoms or mushroom clouds.

[Anonymous No.16278533]

>>16278520
to some extent this is subjective. maybe you like to live packed like sardines relative to your ancestors. i don;t.

also, have you ever travelled?

[Anonymous No.16278545]

>>16278532
this.

>My work was in an area of pure mathematics that had no foreseeable or probable connection with practical applications of any kind.

-Technological Slavery (2019), p. 329.

[Anonymous No.16278563]

>>16278520
The worldwide census came back, eight billion is way too fucking much. Humanity cannot expand infinitely on a finite planet. Nothing can. I really don't understand the delusion that says otherwise.
>the fertility crisis
This just means that proportionally there are too many old retired people to be supported by working young people and it mostly exists as a political excuse to import mulatto near-slaves from third world countries.

[Anonymous No.16278583]

>>16278520
"fertility crisis" is a corporate talking point. Global fertility has been declining each passing decade. It's only an issue for the technological system and passed off as a problem by the same system that, of course, wants eternal expansion.

[Anonymous No.16278768]

>>16278498
No, those people don't publish or even read groundbreaking mathematical papers, they just watch Neil Degrasse Tyson

[Anonymous No.16278769]

>>16278583
What's causing it? Is it vaccines?

[Anonymous No.16278889]

>>16278388
>anti tech revolution
>available on Amazon
>hmmm.mp3

[Anonymous No.16278927]

>>16278769
More countries are advancing their technology which makes the "need" to reproduce less and less since their necessities are being met and the chance of losing kin is lowered.

However, this also increases their consumption rate, as an inverse. Eitherway, fertility rates are a cooked-up issue that are only spouted by persons who have a monetary interest in keeping them above water.