/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18937471]

>25 years later
>still not refuted

How did he do it, bros? Was it the STEM autism wherewith he managed to formulate an impeccably shrewd and exhaustive examination of the human nature and its innate relation to technological development?

[Anonymous No.18937601]

pynchie's better

[Anonymous No.18937645]

>>18937471
Reminder that he intentionally wrote the manifesto in simple language so it would be easy to understand.
IIRC they still call upon him in jail because he's that much of an authority on mathematics.
>In 1967, Kaczynski's dissertation Boundary Functions won the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year. [...] Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."

[Anonymous No.18937679]

I've only read the manifesto, is the rest of his work worth reading?

[Anonymous No.18937802]

>>18937679
Technological Slavery is a must read if you've liked his manifesto and want more as it is a supplementary elaboration on ISAIF's main points in which he also develops further assessments of the topic presented in the form of letter correspondences with different people. There is a part in the beginning titled 'The System's Neatest Trick', which imo is one of his finest writings on modern society where he completely nailed it.
Anti-Tech touches more on the practical side of the creation and organization of an anti-tech movement, giving many historical examples of different kinds of revolutionary movements and drawing from their mistakes and accomplishments definitive strategical guidelines that would make such a movement be as successful and practical as possible.

[Anonymous No.18937928]

>>18937645
>Reminder that he intentionally wrote the manifesto in simple language so it would be easy to understand.
it is exceedingly clear and well structured, making so nobody can in good faith dismiss it as the raving of a madman

[Anonymous No.18938121]

>>18937471
We shouldn't doscuss the man but the idea. Technology companies literally reduced the political discourse into separate echo chambers full of memes and people are suffering and dying for it.
How the fuck are we going to escape this? We're fucking sinking and nobody seems to realize.

[Anonymous No.18938234]

>>18938121
Things (concepts, people, and civilizations alike) are like swellings on the skin of the world. Their destruction is like the draining of an abscess. Rise and fall are natural and inevitable - do not go against the process of change. Panta rhei.

[Anonymous No.18938257]

>refuting

[Anonymous No.18938265]

He refuted himself when he built bombs out of metal instead of wood and acorns.

[Anonymous No.18938275]

>>18937802
>'The System's Neatest Trick
That one is excellent desu.

[Anonymous No.18938277]

>>18938265
He did use wood in his bombs. He used whatever scraps he could get from his neighbor/elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.18938299]

i am a brainlet whomst hasn't read his work. where does he refute the notion that tech is merely a tool and be used positively? i saw the moth saying this the other day

[Anonymous No.18938306]

reality refuted him. Not any of his normative ideas will be implemented

[Anonymous No.18938338]

>>18938306
pretty much the only real argument. "everyone needs to revolt at the same time" is simply an impossible plan, but he's still right about everything

[Anonymous No.18938358]

>>18938338
That kind of bullshit really shows the depth of boomerism, they are so uneducated and overly comfortable that they feel fine playing around with stupid fantasies like that. Zoomers tend to look and practical factors and figure out what might actually happen.

[Anonymous No.18938361]

>>18938338
>everyone needs to revolt at the same time
Balderdash. Red his Anti-Tech Revolution to get a basic grasp of what he actually considers a successful 'revolt' against the techno-industrial system. The matter regarding undertaking serious actions in the outside world is more nuanced and multilayered than people think.

[Anonymous No.18938365]

>>18938358
Zoomers are braindead.
>>18938361
I've only read the manifesto.

[Anonymous No.18938369]

>>18938365
then what are you lol

[Anonymous No.18938374]

>mfw want to cruise around in my car, listening to my tunes
>forced to go the speed limit which is faster then a nice cruising speed

CURSED TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEM

[Anonymous No.18938378]

>For a period of several weeks in 1966, Kaczynski experienced intense sexual fantasies of being a female and decided to undergo gender transition.
Uhh Tedchads?

[Anonymous No.18938381]

>>18938358
You see, this group of people be like this, and this other group of people be like that! And that's how I know I be smart, cause I born in my generation! Old people dumb.

[Anonymous No.18938401]

>>18938299
Not sure if I understand your question, but:

>121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of
freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are
dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.
>122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the
technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other
diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the
population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.
>123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much now,
just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of
your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of
genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.[19]
1/2

[Anonymous No.18938406]

>>18938401
>124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics."
But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the
population at large.[20] Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely
democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical"
use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited any genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the
immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and
unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system.
2/2

[Anonymous No.18938411]

>>18938381
Both have a bell curve of IQ, but high IQ boomers are still clueless.

[Anonymous No.18938412]

I picked up a book at the library which tries to refute him in a way. It looked at the positive side of the state of the world. At the time I thought it was very true. Looking back it talked about shipping canals and sim cards for Africans as the positive things to look at. I feel like I got bamboozled.

[Anonymous No.18938423]

>>18937471
Read Zerzan's critique of him.

[Anonymous No.18938445]

>>18938401
>>18938406
thank you

[Anonymous No.18938472]

>>18938411
Your categorization of people by generation is useless, very likely misleading, bigoted, and stupid.

[Anonymous No.18938557]

>>18938401
>>18938406
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeIhrn3HkEo
(I recommend to watch at 1.5x speed since he speaks quite slowly)

[Anonymous No.18938577]

>>18937471
I’ll refute him right now; he places human health and happiness as the priority of his philosophy when in reality evolution should be the priority. Take an example; madam curie, poisoned herself to greatly advance the field of science bringing far reaching benefits to the human race (end of ww2, nuclear power, etc).

Love Teddy with all my heart though

>i know most retards on this board won’t understand this or pretend it isn’t true

[Anonymous No.18938591]

>>18937645
>>Maxwell Reade, a member of his dissertation committee, said, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it."
That says more about the atomization mathematical study than his brilliance as a mathematician.

[Anonymous No.18938606]

>>18938591
lol dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.18938620]

>>18938577
>when in reality evolution should be the priority.
Nice bait, 7/10 made me respond

[Anonymous No.18938653]

>>18938620
>Worthless meme comment
Refute it you can't.

[Anonymous No.18938716]

>>18938606
back to kreddit

[Anonymous No.18938743]

>>18938716
>>Worthless meme comment
Nice comeback you dumb nigger. As somebody who studied math I'll tell you you're statement stinks of a retard that could hack the math at highschool. Next time have some self respect and admit you were wrong.

[Anonymous No.18938777]

>>18938277
errmmmmm you're wrong sweaty and the fact that you don't realize that MY tax dollars are paying for that CIS WHITE MALE to live RENT FREE in jail is a definite refutation of his world view is concerning seek therapy you chud

[Anonymous No.18938797]

>>18938777
Oh you're embodying a grotesque loser IRONICALLY. I see, you're doing something that nobody with a shred of self respect would do but you're doing it IRONICALLY.

[Anonymous No.18938821]

>>18938743
>worthless meme quote from wikipedia followed by worthless attempt to establish credibility and diminish my own
Just quit now

[Anonymous No.18938918]

>>18938653
evolution is a spook

[Anonymous No.18938975]

>>18938358
if this is truth. zoomers dont have nothing to be proud of. their notion of life is the pragmatism of a 40 years old elite salesmen. i prefer an idealist and naive boomer all the way.

[Anonymous No.18938988]

>>18938577
>evolution should be the priority.
see >>18938557
Also, how the fuck was any of the shit that came from that good for humanity? Its just adding shit on top of shit

[Anonymous No.18939005]

>>18938577
what is the final point of evolution?. what is the point where we stop to evolve?. what are the hopes behind this concept?. in darwinist terms the more evolved its the better adapted to the environment, but what happened when you create the environment?.

[Anonymous No.18939041]

>>18938918
>spook
Haha what nonsense! You a bible basher are you?

We've already know eugenics works from our experiments on other animals.

>>18938821
What quote, tard? You're implying that the model doesn't apply? You're implying that arrogance doesn't exist? Ok retard. If you don't put some effort into your next post I won't bother replying. You think you're making credible statements but you're just proving yourself a charlatan and a dunce.

>>18938988
>how the fuck was any of the shit that came from that good for humanity?
Good is subjective. It helps us to survive.
>Its just adding shit on top of shit
Ok doomer.

Also I'm not going to watch your video, if you have a point to make then make it.

>>18939005
How about what's the point of evolution (in relative terms for us)? The answer is survival.

>what is the final point of evolution?. what is the point where we stop to evolve?
Death

>what are the hopes behind this concept?
Survival

>in darwinist terms the more evolved its the better adapted to the environment, but what happened when you create the environment?.
You control the evolution.

[Anonymous No.18939056]

>>18938378
His fetish/gender dysphoria sparked his killing spree. Lol

[Anonymous No.18939081]

>>18939041
>We've already know eugenics works from our experiments on other animals.
that much is obvious, but why would making human "better" by some arbitrary standard be the ultimate good?
If you just mean evolution in the way it actually applies in nature, as in adapting to the environement to achieve stability, than sure it's good for survival. But why would tecnological advencement necessarly be necessary for that goal? Do you think we have to maximise the number of humans?

[Anonymous No.18939086]

>>18939041
>We've already know eugenics works from our experiments on other animals.
am i wrong or are you encouraging eugenics?.
and this is pretty linked to this creepy response
> You control the evolution.

[Anonymous No.18939099]

there is nothing of substance to refute, there is not enough evidence or argumentation to even warrant any attention at all and yes I was stupid enough to fall for the meme and I read both his pieces of crap

[Anonymous No.18939109]

>>18939081
I already answered this you brainlet! Read the full post in which you are replying to.

>Do you think we have to maximise the number of humans?
Lol why would that make any sense. You have to balance resources.

>>18939086
>eugenics
What do you think this work implies. You want to raise parasites? Do you kill fleas? Do you nurse a tapeworm? I'm not advocating genocide but yes I'm advocating eugenics within reason.

[Anonymous No.18939115]

>>18939109
>>18939086
*word

[Anonymous No.18939125]

>>18939041
>>18939109
Read >>18938401 >>18938406

[Anonymous No.18939128]

>>18939109
>I'm not advocating genocide
Lame!

[Anonymous No.18939131]

>>18939109
>I already answered this you brainlet! Read the full post in which you are replying to.
the only reason you brought up was survival, yet in previous post you make reference to nuclear power being a good thing, but why would it necessarly favor survival. The only explanation I could find was that there are more humans now than there have been i the past.

[Anonymous No.18939134]

>>18939041
>doesn't quit
>doubles down instead like the filthy animal he is
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You)
Yeah you like that you little bitch. You get what you wanted mmmmm tastes good doesn't it??

[Anonymous No.18939151]

>>18939109
>within reason.
remember that you now control evolution. and evolution for you is survival. so yes, you are literally advocating genocide. the fact that you put "within reason" in it its just a formality. i know in your mind it probably are way ahead killing fleas to killing people, but like an anon put above, genetical engineering seems like a good destiny to people like you, i disagree for obvious reason i hope you intituively understand.

[Anonymous No.18939152]

>>18938821
>>18939041
>>18939109
>>18939115
>>18939134
>samefagging shizo tranny derailing yet another good thread
I guess there's nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.18939174]

>>18939152
The writing styles are very obviously different, what are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.18939187]

[Anonymous No.18939209]

>>18937471
His life refuted everything he said. Actions speak louder than words. He turned out to be a genetic dead end who couldn't handle reality.

[Anonymous No.18939214]

>>18939151
You're very emotional kid. You use the word genocide to encompass people not being born, which is just absolutely absurd. I don't care what illogical wimps have to say, you fuckers just do whatever you're told.

>>18939134
I guess that's kinda funny, a nice copout.

>>18939131
>but why would it necessarly favor survival
This planet won't last forever. Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. We need energy for our technology to function. We need out technology to survive. You understand now?

[Anonymous No.18939215]

>>18939209
he said that people should do exactly what he did though, kill people to try and start a revolution. this is the reason he is retarded

[Anonymous No.18939216]

>>samefagging shizo tranny derailing yet another good thread
>I guess there's nothing new under the sun.

[Anonymous No.18939222]

>>18938472
yes

[Anonymous No.18939224]

>>18939216
>when you get btfo so bad you throw a tantrum
utterly pathetic

[Anonymous No.18939234]

>>18939215
>he said that people should do exactly what he did though, kill people to try and start a revolution
No he didn't. Where did he say that? Why are you speaking nonsense without even being remotely familiar with his ideas and writings?

[Anonymous No.18939235]

>>18939215
He had the same mentality as a commie tranny (even went for a sex change op but bailed at the last second).

[Anonymous No.18939242]

>>18939234
>No he didn't. Where did he say that? Why are you speaking nonsense without even being remotely familiar with his ideas and writings?
literally the entire second half of Anti-Tech revolution dumbass. kettle, meet pot.

[Anonymous No.18939244]

>>18939125
Yeah he's right, what's your point. We align in our understanding but not our ideals.

[Anonymous No.18939254]

>>18939242
>literally the entire second half of Anti-Tech revolution dumbass
What? Dare to post a screenshot example? Because I've read the book and nowhere does he says anything about murdering. You are delusional.

[Anonymous No.18939260]

Allow me to explain even more simply: Teddy was "wrong" because survival > health and happiness.

Brilliant man though
>>18938577

[Anonymous No.18939270]

Can you imagine if he did transition though and you could just fuck some super smart femboy anarchist bombing people randomly as you support them. Man thatd be the life

Also this captcha really has me feeling some ted vibes

[Anonymous No.18939272]

>>18939254
>Dare to post a screenshot example
haven't read it in months but he literally uses fidel castro and lenin as good examples of how to do a revolution, the kind of revolution he wants, because anything is justified against the technological system that will cause the end of the world according to him. Are you trying to say that he wanted a nonviolent revolution? Or are violent revolutions somehow not killing people? I am confused, and I also don't know why you are so defensive about this.

[Anonymous No.18939275]

>>18937601
fpbp

[Anonymous No.18939278]

>>18939260
>health
There's no denying that modern medicine has brought great benefits to humanity, but unfortunately good technology can't be separated from the bad one, as both are codependent on each other as a whole functioning apparatus. In the long tun, technology proves to cause more adverse effects on nature and humans than positive ones. Refer to >>18938401
>>18938406

>happiness
No, humans are more miserable than ever, read >>18939187

[Anonymous No.18939281]

>>18939260
>survival > health and happiness
why? also it's not like pre industrial society lead to extinction, hell 95% of homo sapien existance was prior to the agricultual revolution

[Anonymous No.18939289]

>>18939260
>>18939281
dead fucking wrong.

it's goals>health>survival>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>happiness

[Anonymous No.18939296]

>>18939289
how are you going to accomplish your goals and be in good health if you aren't surviving you idiot

[Anonymous No.18939301]

>>18939296
you're supposed to be willing to die to achieve your goals you idiot

[Anonymous No.18939304]

>>18939301
you can't die for your goals if you aren't alive in the first place, which requires that your ancestors survived to give birth to you, so more people achieving goals in the future requires the survival of the species, you idiot.

[Anonymous No.18939315]

>>18939304
what the fuck is ">" referring to?

[Anonymous No.18939319]

>>18939289
working toward and achieving goals makes you happy

[Anonymous No.18939325]

>>18939315
Importance, I imagine

[Anonymous No.18939338]

>>18939319
you don't achieve goals for happiness you achieve them for the sake of your goals. healthy people are willing to go through a great deal of unhappiness in pursuit of their goals.
>>18939325
okay then if it's importance I'm still right. for healthy people your goals should be the most important thing in your life and if you're not willing to die and go through hardship for it you will never ever achieve them.

all the great men in history have lived on the edge of death.

[Anonymous No.18939341]

>>18939278
You're not a retard so I'm not going to be rude here but you've completely misunderstood the point of the post. Ted prioritized health and happiness, not me. I prioritize survival which we need tech to do in the long run.

>Tech has done more harm than good
That's subjective but for the sake of argument I'll act like I agree. It's still early days, we're still adjusting, we need to come to terms with the fact we're dangerous stupid monkeys.

>>18939281
>it's not like pre industrial society lead to extinction
It will eventually.

>why?
...because that's what we're programmed to do. That is our core purpose, to survive.

>>18939289
Ok retard.

>>18939315
It's a symbol meaning 'greater than', it's rudimentary.

[Anonymous No.18939345]

>>18939341
>Ok retard.
you're the retard
>It's a symbol meaning 'greater than', it's rudimentary.
and what value is being measured?

[Anonymous No.18939349]

>>18938257
this

[Anonymous No.18939356]

>>18939338
Ironically, you agree with me once you flesh out your ideas. Take what your saying and apply it to a species and you will arrive at my conclusion.

The greatest goal we all have collectively is to survive.

>>18939345
>no u
Calm down a bit and think.

>what value is being measured?
Another anon already answered you; importance.

[Anonymous No.18939357]

>>18939341
>It will eventually.
why? how?
>...because that's what we're programmed to do. That is our core purpose, to survive.
and how does nuclear plant help with that? again for the vast majority of human existance we weren't in any kind of large scale civilisation, much less an industrialise one, it's arrival and domination is historically contingent

[Anonymous No.18939358]

>>18939338
I think by survival he means the survival of humanity as he was earlier talking about evolution so how again how can you LIVE on the edge of death is everybody is fucking dead and you were never born in the first place? You are talking about how individuals should live. And why are any goals worth achieving if they don't achieve the survival of something? Is a goal of "Kill everything alive" one worth willing to die for? In fact goals themselves cannot be the most important thing because what the goal is of is the most important thing, if you have a goal of surviving then surviving is more important than having the goal of surviving. So if goals are most important, you must mean that what the goal is of is most important, and the best goals are for the benefit of others and therefore survival

[Anonymous No.18939369]

>>18939356
>Ironically, you agree with me once you flesh out your ideas. Take what your saying and apply it to a species and you will arrive at my conclusion.
no i don't
>The greatest goal we all have collectively is to survive.
people who think this deserve slavery

no. just no.

[Anonymous No.18939374]

>>18939272
>haven't read it in months but he literally uses fidel castro and lenin as good examples of how to do a revolution, the kind of revolution he wants, because anything is justified against the technological system that will cause the end of the world according to him.
You've either skimmed between whole sentences or have a toddler's reading comprehension. He uses those historical examples in the context of maintaining a coherent organization and influencing the public opinion, you're pretty dense if you can't grasp such a simple book.
Again, I'm asking you to post a screenshot of an example where he openly encourages/condones open violence toward individuals or a group of individuals. I'm still waiting.

[Anonymous No.18939382]

>>18939374
>He uses those historical examples in the context of maintaining a coherent organization and influencing the public opinion
let me get this straight, are you seriously fucking advocating the idea that Ted wanted a nonviolent revolution? Just answer yes or no please, because if you answer yes I will know you are a retard pulling shit out of your ass and not to talk to you, and if you answer no I will know that we actually agree.

[Anonymous No.18939388]

>>18939357
>why? how?
An extinction event.

>and how does nuclear plant help with that?
I already answered this, don't be a fucking retard please.

Humans haven't been around very long relatively.

>>18939369
>no. just no.
>deserve
A grotesquely stupid, emotional, knee-jerk response. You're a passionate moron, there's no point continuing the conversation.

[Anonymous No.18939403]

>>18939358
no my goal is not the survival of "humanity" and the "survial" I am concerned with are a handful of people who make do with themselves just fine and don't need me at all. no the best goals are not for the benefit of others and I don't know what authority you have to give that judgement. the best goals are that which benefits me.
>>18939388
you're already enslaved, moron. i can tell by your post you do wage labor.

[Anonymous No.18939416]

>>18939403
if you have a goal that means you believe what you want is good. Do you think that the definition of good is selfishness? if so then you have a very deep misunderstanding of the world and need to reevaluate your entire worldview.

[Anonymous No.18939431]

>>18939416
the definition of good is whatever the fuck I think is good. selfishness is good. you have shit morality.

[Anonymous No.18939438]

>>18939431
yeah ok you will just wind up in a deep pit where nobody loves you or even remembers you exist and you will turn your life into a living hell because you seem to think the most important thing is justifying your existence with hedonic “achievements.”

[Anonymous No.18939446]

>>18939403
We're all enslaved to something, you're enslaved to your emotions and ideals. I am not a wagie but there's nothing wrong with wage labor for a time, in fact it can be very beneficial to your personal development. God forbid somebody has a job! Even a menial one.

How old are you?
>I'm 27
>Don't tell me you are too cowardly to answer this question

>>18939416
I enjoyed reading your intelligent responses, perhaps the most intelligent thing of all would be not to argue with a moron haha.

[Anonymous No.18939473]

>>18939341
>Ted prioritized health and happiness, not me. I prioritize survival which we need tech to do in the long run.
Ted also prioritizes survival, which is the whole point of his works--the imminent danger of unhinged technological development that can go wrong in many ways (as it has already done) and either completely wipe us off as a species or alter us to such a degree that we will no longer be humans. Happiness is the second most important thing to him, and it is exactly technology that makes us more miserable every day. And why do you think we need tech in order to continue surviving (if by tech you mean modern technology)? You fail to grasp that technology/the techno-industrial system first and foremost significantly destroys our environment, including its essential bioorganisms without which life on earth would undergo catastrophic events (for example, the extinction of bees). As the techno-industrial world grows, it will start exploiting more and more of the earth's natural resources and in that process it will cause even more devastating effects on nature, organisms and wildlife alike.
I told you to read the picture to which I referred you in my previous post, but it seems that you're too lazy and obtuse to do it and rather prefer to regurgitate your delusional erroneous opinions and call others retarded, while you yourself are the retard here.

>That's subjective but for the sake of argument I'll act like I agree. It's still early days, we're still adjusting, we need to come to terms with the fact we're dangerous stupid monkeys.
Technological development can't be subject to rational human control. He literally dedicated an entire chapter to this in one of his books.

[Anonymous No.18939478]

>>18939438
usually it's the most evil whose existence is always remembered
>>18939446
>We're all enslaved to something,
maybe if you're a weakling
>you're enslaved to your emotions and ideals
my emotions and ideals ARE me. this is like saying i'm a slave because I control me.
>there's nothing wrong with wage labor for a time, in fact it can be very beneficial to your personal development. God forbid somebody has a job! Even a menial one.
lmao

I'm 20

you are a dummy

[Anonymous No.18939489]

>>18939478
>I'm 20
Exactly

Doesn't it bother you being a cliche?

[Anonymous No.18939493]

>>18939489
doesn't it bother you to project your jaded psychology onto others?

[Anonymous No.18939501]

>>18939478
>usually it's the most evil whose existence is always remembered
Look, just know that God or Reality or whatever you want to call it doesn’t care what you think good is and will punish you evenhandedly regardless of your notions. You WILL suffer in a way that you can’t endure or justify with your “goals” and most probably already are. “Hell” is an archetype that continues to resurface for a reason, and that’s because it’s real and can be felt in real life and you get there by believing the things you believe. Be warned.

[Anonymous No.18939504]

>>18939382
Ted never called for mass murder or murder of any kind, retard. Why is it so hard for you to understand this? By the way, I'm still waiting that screenshot where he says anything remotely close to this.

[Anonymous No.18939510]

>>18939493
>project
I'm nothing like you, I had far more humility at your age.

[Anonymous No.18939512]

>>18939501
what a gift. i cannot wait.

[Anonymous No.18939517]

>>18939510
>For what is modesty but hypocritical humility, by means of which, in a world swelling with vile envy, a man seeks to beg pardon for his excellences and merits from those who have none? For whoever attributes no merit to himself because he really has none is not modest, but merely honest.

[Anonymous No.18939567]

>>18939473
Good post. Listen my friend we have more in common than we have in difference.

>Ted also prioritizes survival
He didn't in the long term. How are you doing to protect against an extinction event without tech (yes modern technology).

I largely agree with the rest of what you've posted except for the fact you seem to think I don't already know all of that. You're coming at it retroactively. Our tech system has caused catastrophic damage that we cannot undo WITHOUT tech.

>Technological development can't be subject to rational human control.
Of course it can but not with society as it is currently.

>He literally dedicated an entire chapter to this in one of his books.
Yes I've read it.

You seem dogmatic in your views. Everything is pros and cons.

[Anonymous No.18939581]

>>18939517
I didn't say modesty you retard LOL. You will achieve far more, my young friend, if you open your mind to different points of view even if only to study how your enemy thinks.

[Anonymous No.18939658]

>>18939581
you just don't have positive qualities.
>Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change

[Anonymous No.18939695]

>>18939658
I can't imagine you have any friends being this insufferable lol, I would bet you stake your pride on always being right so when the loneliness howls at your tattered mind, you comfort yourself by saying at least I'm very smart, a pathetic lie.

Everybody has positive qualities. The wise adapt, fools never bend to the wind and they snap. Good riddance.

[Anonymous No.18939703]

>>18939567
>How are you doing to protect against an extinction event without tech (yes modern technology).
Most of the major extinction event(s) facing us can be easily avoided by just abandoning technology as a whole (I say as a whole, because if people decide to retain only the 'good' technology whereby to undo all the negative effects caused in the past and not let nature itself revert to its previous, purest state instead, they will sooner or later get back on the same track we are on now and will have to solve the same problems over and over again until the earth's natural resources are almost entirely ravaged). Naturally, there are some cases--although very few--where modern technology will definitely be needed in order to prevent a massive disaster, such as an asteroid or comet impact, but historically those kinds of events happen very rarely and it is more likely that humanity ceases to exist by destroying itself with unhinged technology rather than by a grand-scale natural disaster.

>Of course it can but not with society as it is currently.
No, it can't. You yourself stated that you've read that part, but yet continue to insist with your wishful thinking that humans will eventually reach that idyllic utopic mindstate where everyone in the world will work in cooperation and will use technology carefully and with diligence from then on. That will never happen, my friend. For thousands, if not millions of years we, humans, have always been greedy, egoistic and reckless animals, and we will continue to be such no matter the political zeitgeist or how powerful and fancy technologies we have. Get over with it.

[Anonymous No.18939704]

>>18939567
>cannot undo WITHOUT tech.
>You seem dogmatic in your views.
i love how people think they are not dogmatic because they share the mainstream view.

[Anonymous No.18939771]

>>18939703
>Get over with it.
Get over it*

[Anonymous No.18939842]

>>18939704
Without tech how are you going to stop the Earth from turning into Venus (runaway greenhouse effect)?

i love how smarmy, seemingly detached comments can give the illusion of destroying an argument instead of valid arguments

[Anonymous No.18939903]

>>18939703
This is a little ridiculous.

>Most of the major extinction event(s) facing us can be easily avoided by just abandoning technology
Famine. C'mon.

Stop regurgitating Teddy, are you capable of forming your own ideas? I've already read him, I love him, I don't need you to mindlessly repeat his writings.

>No, it can't.
Of course it can! Every heard of city planning? Ever heard of product oversight? Ever heard of infrastructure?

>Get over it
Maybe you should; stop being such a doomer faggot. You think you stand a chance anyway? Even if Teddy was completely right, which he wasn't, it's completely irrelevant in the present.

[Anonymous No.18939916]

>>18939703
The ban on stem cell research. The ban on nuclear energy. Building new pipelines. Etc etc.

Of course technological development CAN be subject to rational human control.

[Anonymous No.18939961]

>>18939446
>I enjoyed reading your intelligent responses
I think I have reached a similar conclusion to you in the past about evolution, but the important thing is not survival itself since survival implies there is a reason we want to live. Obviously we need the material evolution of tech to survive but we also need to evolve mentally in ways that make life worth living more, hard to express in an areligious context but basically we also need moral evolution and an evolution in meaning, which in the longest of long runs is actually more important than material evolution not only because it makes survival worth it and meaningful but also because it will eventually decide whether we will continue to evolve materially. But technology is not a necessary evil, along with it come also material improvements of quality of life which brings also spiritual improvement. Ted’s criticism of tech is appealing because of how addicted we are to it and how it has in some ways negatively affected us personally, but I believe that in both the long run and already it won’t just help us survive but also increase happiness. I think most of our problems come more from simply living in an amoral age than tech, as it’s not very hard to undo it’s negative affects once you take control of your life and understand its meaning, as you will no longer be the kind of aimless drifter with lots of free time that tech addiction takes advantage of. Technology has always and still does give back to the user in the way they use it, Ted seeks to blame the flaws of humanity on the apparatus it uses to exercise its debauchery rather than on the quality of humans themselves. All tech really does is to help exaggerate the qualities already present in humans, and sadly the majority of people are aimless hedonists, which wasn’t caused by technology. Nothing is really new. I think you should fully embrace progress in all its manifestations.

[Anonymous No.18940048]

>>18939903
>Famine. C'mon.
What's the connection with modern technology and its prevention of famine? What is your point here? You seem to misunderstand the implication of my meaning of modern technology--I do not renounce ALL types of technology, as far as the word 'technology' could apply to primitive items and buildings such as windmills, watermills, farming tools, transportation wagons, etc. I renounce only MODERN technology, that is, everything that had sprung out since the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. And, that might come across a little shocking to you, but most of the times throughout history famine has been caused by natural factors such as drought or locust infestation, by wars or by political reasons (deliberate starving of a certain populace).

>Of course it can! Every heard of city planning?
City planning is a small-scale mutual arrangement that is exclusively limited to a limited and local part of the world, of course that a local populace living in the same country and speaking the same language and having the same mutual interests would benefit in teaming up for making their livelihood better. There was already a city/village/etc. planning way before the appearance of modern technology, you know? What is the Roman Empire? What is Ancient Egypt? etc.

>Ever heard of product oversight? Ever heard of infrastructure?
Again, I don't understand what you're trying to prove with those things. Product oversight and infrastructure is a necessary basic component part of every civilization that has always existed regardless of the degree of technological development.

>>18939916
>The ban on stem cell research.
As far as I know stem cell research isn't banned, only regulated to some extent. But that doesn't mean shit, because even if it was banned and condemned in most parts of the world (which will never happen, quite the contrary) big and independent countries like China will continue doing their own thing and not giving a fuck what some 'concerned' WHO/UN bureaucrats have said. Just look at what happened at the Wuhan lab (which, as it turned out, Fauci had allegedly helped with its funding).

>The ban on nuclear energy.
Not banned worldwide. Lots of countries today still use nuclear energy, the biggest of them being France, Russia and China.

>Building new pipelines.
Again, irrelevant and nowhere near the undertaking of drastic grand-scale cooperative measures.

[Anonymous No.18940109]

>>18939903
>>18940048
To add regarding that human technology can't be subject to rational human control: all of the examples you've listed pertain, like I said, to a local residential areas/communities/countries that have a tight-knit and easily governed and organized administrative body throughout which decision-making and regulations are easier to undertake. Nowadays there is a myriad of international regulations and directives regarding food quality, scientific conduct, governmental corruption, human rights, etc., but we all know that a big part of the countries who have signed to follow them don't do it. I'm asking you then, how do you expect humanity to suddenly gain a global conscience and stop harming nature and exploiting its natural resources? It's a fairy tale and deep inside yourself you know it.

[Anonymous No.18940121]

>>18938378
Transwomen are based

[Anonymous No.18940127]

>>18940109
>human technology can't be subject to rational human control
yeah bro the buttons just keep pressing themselves

[Anonymous No.18940145]

>>18940127
Nice rebuttal doofus.

[Anonymous No.18940622]

>>18937645
just like Einstein's Relativity. Is 12 people the average number of dissertation defense panels?

[Anonymous No.18940775]

>>18940145
Not me retard, you could have looked at the grammar to tell that.

I'll reply in the morning, I'm winding down.

[Anonymous No.18940797]

>>18940145
Haha but he's actually fucking right anyway!

[Anonymous No.18941008]

>>18940048
Fuck it I'll do it now. My god you are obtuse, I think it's because you're trying to win an internet argument or you're a zealot. Is that the case or do you care about what's actually true?

>Most of the major extinction event(s) facing us can be easily avoided by just abandoning technology
This is such a retarded statement, it's embarrassing. I'd like for you to own up to it. Famine, drought, natural disasters, these are catastrophes we can avoid/mitigate thanks to our technology. Now what the fuck are we going to do against an asteroid with primitive tools?

You've missed the point, time and time again. You are NOT very smart. I left a word for you as a counterexample to the bullshit you were spewing and you lacked the mind to put it together.

The examples are irrelevant individually. The point is that you can control technology. And sure, if you actually couldn't then your whole ideology becomes absolutely worthless because you won't be able to stop it.

>how do you expect humanity to suddenly gain a global conscience and stop harming nature
Necessity, when mother nature gets nasty.

>exploiting its natural resources
Ya sound like fackin hippy mate! Lay off them fackin mushrooms ya sick cunt.

You're a zealot or an egotist and it's getting tiring. This anon btfo with one line:
>>18940127