/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21594279]

>What incredibly important book is no one reading?
>What incredibly important topic is no one writing about?

The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Anti Luddite tactics and strategies.

[sage No.21594283]

>>21594279
Anything evopsych

[Anonymous No.21594284]

>>21594279
Why do you dislike Luddites?

[Anonymous No.21594291]

>>21594284
There are too many problems in the world that are solvable through knowledge and thus technology. Some of these problems are human: blindness, lack of regrowable limbs, and heart failures to name a few. Some of these problems are physical: not enough energy, not enough homes, food too expensive to name a few. If you are a Luddite, what are some benefits of Luddite-based philosophies? What are some books that some even Anti-Luddites should read to be informed of Luddite benefits?

[Anonymous No.21594335]

>>21594291
>blindness, lack of regrowable limbs, and heart failures
None of these are problems

[Anonymous No.21594356]

>>21594291
If I was a Luddite I might say the anti-technological stance solves nearly every problem modern man is facing. Of course, these solutions are unacceptable to all the people who cannot survive without technology or do not believe they could live a good life without it. Surely a Luddite would argue that the psychological stress placed on humans in a technological system are so great that it will eventually fail, so the longer we delay anti-tech solutions the greater the disaster. The perils we endured with more primitive technologies were pains we evolved to suffer and endure. They were natural for us, and modern society is unnatural to us. The use of industrial technology prohibits us from expressing our natural behaviors in a similar way that animals in a zoo are stultified by their enclosures.

I think the best anti anything strategy is to talk to people. I'm not an authoritarian, so I wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything. Tactics and strategies assume a position of authority.

[Anonymous No.21594837]

>>21594279
The inverse questions are also valuable, I suspect.
>What incredibly useless book is everyone reading?
>What incredibly useless topic does everyone keep writing about?

[Anonymous No.21594858]

>>21594837
Any selfhelp book. So many of them exist because so many of them don’t work.
Celebrity biographies. Most celebrities will be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.21594901]

>>21594356
For me the issue is reforming social and political institutions dating (like in the U.S.) to 18th century to keep up with the rapid advance of technology and the "shock" this has on those institutions and society.

For example I'm not an anti-vaxxer and think that's like Luddism because people fixate on the vaccine much like a machine in early 19th century England, but that's not the problem as I see it, it's the (to sound like a Marxist) social and political relationships surrounding it, in this case the institutions built to handle a crisis failed and governments fell back on resorting to cajoling people to get a vaccine.

I probably would accept a society sorta like the one in Demolition Man where you do get mega-vaxxed because it is highly rational and sensible and they do know what's best for everybody, which would be a nightmare scenario for a libertarian-minded type, but I do think it's true that it's hard to force people to do things they don't wanna do. The biggest task for any authority is to convince people of its necessity.

https://youtu.be/Oubi9HU8t5o

[Anonymous No.21595030]

>>21594279
this is the most evil post ive ever read on this site

[Anonymous No.21595042]

>>21594291
Cause technology only solves problems and doesn't create any

[Anonymous No.21595464]

>>21595042
We wouldn't use any technology that we didn't feel solved more problems than it created.

[Anonymous No.21595567]

>>21594291
Why do you want to solve these problems?

[Anonymous No.21595580]

>>21595464
>we didn't feel
As if you can tell immediately the effects of new technology.

[Anonymous No.21595605]

>>21595580
Agreed, positively or negatively.
You're just biased towards retaining old problems because you feel you understand them better.

[Anonymous No.21595613]

>>21594279
C:\Users\J1m4\Desktop\L'Académie.pdf

[Anonymous No.21595688]

>>21594279
>The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Is that a book by George Soros? I might be interested in picking that up, soon, as I'm curious what he has to say about enemies.

[Anonymous No.21596565]

>Solves the problem of technology in society
>Solves the globo-homo agenda
>Solves the obesity and health crisis
>Solves the issue of leadership and continual stable guidance for the future
>Outlines a method for uniting society, both high and low in to a cohesive whole
>Outlines plans to form a new way of organizing society
>Outlines why it would be beneficial
>Outlines the pitfalls to he wary of when implementing
>nobody has read it

Its as if they dont want people to know there is a better way.

[Anonymous No.21596802]

resource depletion, iq decreasing, biosphere collapse, sperm count drop, obesity increase, antibiotic resistance, social polarization, cultural stagnation, white minority, death of god, insect apocalypse, decreasing testosterone, the coming multipolar world

[Anonymous No.21596807]

>>21594291
>>21594279

[Anonymous No.21596842]

>>21594279
Open society IS the enemy.
Luddites should be making strategies to either burn your shitty books, or display them in a historical record as an example of ‘what not to do’.

You’re either a malicious faggot who deserves, and will someday receive, the swinging hammer of God, or you’re a colossal fucking idiot who thinks that any new concept is a forward progression of humanity.

Either eat shit and die, or learn about cyclical history. There’s nothing else to say to people like you.

[Anonymous No.21596930]

>>21594291
>blindness, lack of regrowable limbs, and heart failures to name a few.
How are these problems? In what way do they affect you or society at large?

[Anonymous No.21597975]

bump

[Anonymous No.21598021]

>blindness and heart failure are good

damn luddism sounds like an ideology of winners.

[Anonymous No.21598110]

>>21598021
Yes, please cause autism, mass infertility, chop the genitals off children, infest the water with pharmaceutical and industrial runoff, blast my brain with EMR, make me inhale microplastics, all so that JUST IN CASE I go blind, I can get cataract surgery.

Nigga wat

[Anonymous No.21598128]

>>21598021
Agreed. Luddism is unironically low IQ precisely because it is anti-knowledge, and thus anti-tech, for they allow themselves to be blind and have heart failure—and remain that way. Truly a mind-stapled species.

[Anonymous No.21598199]

>>21598110
>nooooo don't try to improve anything because what if you mess up!

there is only one way to go in this life: forward. if you keep trying to go backward you end up a cuckold defending blindness or imprisoned for the rest of your life after you send out a few mail bombs.

[Anonymous No.21599714]

>>21594279
>>What incredibly important book is no one reading?
Zersetzung
>What incredibly important topic is no one writing about?
Psychological warfare

[Anonymous No.21599724]

>>21594291
I love Mr Beast too bro.

[Anonymous No.21599751]

The death of positivism and its consequences were a disaster upon the human race.

Ever since that movement petered out people have been always trying to block actual science, instead they treat it as Christ or the Antichrist.

[Anonymous No.21599821]

>>21598199
>cuckold defending blindness or imprisoned for the rest of your life after you send out a few mail bombs.
Neither is a bad thing.
>Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good ought not to calculate the chances of living or dying; he ought only consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong. ... The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, bit to avoid unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.

[Anonymous No.21600517]

>>21598128
>and thus anti-tech
Midwits truly demonstrating the might of their intellect here

[Anonymous No.21600533]

>>21598110
>Yes, please cause autism, mass infertility, chop the genitals off children, infest the water with pharmaceutical and industrial runoff, blast my brain with EMR, make me inhale microplastics, all so that JUST IN CASE I go blind, I can get cataract surgery.

Don't pretend that the reason you dislike current society is because you actually think any of those things are ethically wrong. Being a hunter-gatherer doesn't change what human beings fundamentally are, a spoon is just as much a technology with negative consequences as a freight train.

[Anonymous No.21600548]

>>21600533
Very few technologies on their own are necessarily bad. What's bad is industrial society or, the system that enables and requires organization dependent technology. If there were a magic button that cured blindness there would be no issue. But in order to support the surgeries that can cure some forms of blindness, we need mass infrastructure, industrial mining, pharmaceuticals, radio, all sorts of tech. You can't have just the good without the bad.

[Anonymous No.21600561]

>>21599714
Every retard who self-identifies as a “policy wonk” and works at every mediocre think tank is writing about psychological warfare. Hell, even retards in academia are writing about. They have been writing about it since a time immemorial, you retard. Just because you browse /pol/ and see that retarded stripper-cum-“psyops” reservist does not mean no one is writing about it

[Anonymous No.21600572]

>>21600548
Yes of course technology isn't neutral in a political or ethical sense, the problem here is that the Kaczynskyite primitivism isn't a solution because technology is intrinsic to human nature, if you wind back the clock to pre-industrial society and start the wheel of history again, given enough time we'll end up at exactly the place we are now again because human beings can't help themselves inventing new shit and making their lives less of a hassle.

[Anonymous No.21600582]

>>21595464
This is an obviously false belief, and is the bedrock of your ideological blindness. It's commonplace that people persist in doing things that they agree are bad for them. This can happen for a variety of reasons. The simplest form is addiction. In this case short term pleasure overshadows long term harm, even overwhelming harm, and even when the subject knows that they're hurting themselves. Addicts often express that they feel they cannot change, and so take comfort in the fact that the pleasure of the addiction at least temporarily distracts them from the harm they know they're ultimately inflicting.

Another form of acting against your own interest arises from failures of social coordination. In this case, it would obviously be in everyone's interest to change behavior, but if any one person changes their behavior alone, they are worse off. The toy model of this phenomenon is the prisoner's dilemma. People in this situation will acknowledge that the social structure is incentivizing them to do harmful things, and will acknowledge that by going along with it they are thereby creating additional social pressure for others to do the same harmful things, but will say they nevertheless cannot change, because no one else will go along with it. Thus they actively support and contribute to the thing they know is harmful.

Another form of acting against your own interest is reaping rewards today at the cost of problems to be solved later. In this case the person acknowledges that the harm they are creating outweighs the immediate benefits, but because the harm comes later, they hypothesize that they will come up with a mitigation strategy later to deal with the harms. Thus they deny that the harms will really happen, even though they don't actually know how to prevent those harms. They simply stipulate that "somehow" we will mitigate them, with unspecific appeals to belief in Progress.

It's pretty obvious that all of these psychological and social forces are at work with technology. It creates new addictions, it creates coordination problems, it creates immediate benefits in exchange for long term crises. It does also produce legitimate benefits, like certain medical technologies. And medical technology is usually what technophiles will point to. But you cannot help but notice that the vast majority of new technology is not medical and does not produce health benefits.

[Anonymous No.21600586]

>>21600572
>212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.
Already know that. Just because a problem will come back doesn't mean we shouldn't solve it for now.
>Oh no! There are shit stains in my toilet. Eh, I won't clean it cause it'll just come back.

[Anonymous No.21600602]

>>21600586
Except it isn't solved if it returns you dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.21600608]

>>21600602
Holy shit you're retarded. What can you solve forever? Suck eggs.

[Anonymous No.21600617]

>>21600602
Imagine a child who refuses to take a bath because he will just get dirty again. Imagine a man who refuses to eat because he will just die anyway. Imagine a doctor who refused to treat an illness because the patient will eventually die anyway.

[Anonymous No.21600623]

>>21600617
More like imagine creating a society where you are morally obligated to shoot your smart kid in the head because the chance isn't non-zero that he'll invent the dishwasher when he's 35.

[Anonymous No.21600624]

>>21600623
Lmao this is your brain on retard juice

[Anonymous No.21600633]

>>21600623
Can you point to a particular passage written by Kasczinski or Luddite that advocates killing intelligent people because of what they might do in the future, or is this your own invention?

[Anonymous No.21600635]

>>21600624
And you're a fucking loser who thinks someone who spent half their life in prison for murder is someone to idolized.

[Anonymous No.21600642]

>>21600633
You started with the strawmen retard.

[Anonymous No.21600647]

>>21600642
Genuinely confused by your response. What is the strawman I started?

[Anonymous No.21600656]

>>21600635
I don't idolize anyone. Keep the retard juice to yourself- maybe take it with your meds schizo.

[Anonymous No.21600663]

>>21600647
>What is the strawman I started?

>>21600617

[Anonymous No.21600673]

>>21600663
That post is clearly intended as a reductio by analogy. The argument against primitivism was that it "isn't a solution" because the problem will return later. That's also true of dirtiness, hunger and death. So I asked you to imagine someone who makes the argument against mitigating our everyday problems. You responded by asking me to imagine a society that requires you to kill intelligent children. But nobody ever advocated that principle.

[Anonymous No.21600688]

>>21600673
The logical conclusion to a society that says technology is immoral, unethical or otherwise undesirable is a society that will eventually have to make decisions like causing harm to smart people who have the propensity to invent technological things.

The fact that you don't LIKE this idea, doesn't mean it isn't what would ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

[Anonymous No.21600716]

>>21594291
>heart failures
God already gave us a cure for that anon it's called exercise

[Anonymous No.21600724]

>>21600688
Some agricultural societies existed for thousands of years with relative cultural and political continuity, yet without industrialization. Egypt is the best example. As far as I'm aware, there was no policy of murdering smart people. This is not a claim that Egyptian Kingdoms were idyllic. It serves only to illustrate that industrialization is not some inviolable law of nature in long-standing civilizations.

"Smart people" can engage in all kinds of activities that don't involve advancing technological infrastructure. Even within industrial society, plenty of smart people spend their life engaged with arts, philosophy, and culture. Outside industrial society intelligent people generally use their intelligence in ways that is productive to their daily life.

This ties into a critical point that Kaczinski makes about technological development. Industrial technology is not in fact produced by smart people overcoming problems in the course of their daily life. On the contrary, technology is almost entirely produced by professional technologists who pursue this career because of a combination of intellectual satisfaction and economic incentive. The pursuit of intellectual satisfaction is what Kaczinski calls a "surrogate activity", by which he means an activity not pursued under conditions of maintaining your daily life, but rather under conditions in which industrial society meets your needs and then asks you to "do something productive".

[Anonymous No.21600729]

>>21600724
living in ancient egypt would fucking suck. you would be a slave or some other gimp. get a grip.

[Anonymous No.21600748]

>>21600724
>"Smart people" can engage in all kinds of activities that don't involve advancing technological infrastructure.

The point isn't that they *can* do something else, the point is that someone will have to STOP them from doing things the anti-technological regime doesn't want them to do, and the extreme endpoint of this is violence.

>by which he means an activity not pursued under conditions of maintaining your daily life, but rather under conditions in which industrial society meets your needs and then asks you to "do something productive".

Just like making more bread or growing more carrots than you personally need and selling them in the local medieval town market. Why is one worse than the other? Protip: They aren't.

[Anonymous No.21600754]

>>21600729
Please read what I wrote rather than reading the first two sentences and blurting out your gut reaction. Nowhere did I say that living in an ancient Egyptian Kingdom is better than living in the USA today. What Egypt illustrated was that a civilization can exist for millennia without industrializing, and that this does not require killing smart people, contrary to your claim.

[Anonymous No.21600769]

>>21600748
>Just like making more bread or growing more carrots than you personally need and selling them in the local medieval town market. Why is one worse than the other? Protip: They aren't.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that selling surplus food is also a surrogate activity, and you're asking why selling surplus food is better than developing technology?

[Anonymous No.21600789]

>>21600769
It is both a surrogate activity and large agricultural surplus by definition requires more advanced agricultural technology than merely a plow. Therefore it would also qualify as as immoral activity under this regime, e.g an Anti-Tech Police Force would have to counter it by issuing fines or jailing the person responsible.

[Anonymous No.21600827]

>>21594279
Peter Thiel is a homosexual. Literally. The literal kind of literally. He blows men and takes it up the ass. He is not someone to emulate or listen to.

[Anonymous No.21600844]

>>21600827
Imagine thinking this is the problem with Thiel and not that he's an autistic turbo-libertarian.

[Anonymous No.21600850]

>>21600789
There are several very different questions getting bundled together here. The first question is whether humans are better off under industrial society than the alternatives. The second is what causes industrialization to take place, and why does new technology get developed in the way and at the rate that it does. The third is what kind of measures are necessary to prevent this from happening. And the fourth is what kinds of technologies are compatible with human good, what "level of technology" a healthy society can exist at.

The concept of surrogate activities is introduced to explain the second question. Surrogate activities are not "bad for people" per se. Rather, the theory of surrogate activities partially explains why technology continues to be developed as it is, even though it has bad consequences. So the fact that a certain behavior is a surrogate activity is not a moral condemnation of it. It's just a (partial) explanation of why something is happening.

Now, whether something qualifies as "immoral under this regime" is a very loaded question. Certainly your question presumes that the answer to question three above is that we need an anti-technology political regime. But my comments in previous posts about Ancient Egypt are a challenge to this presumption. Egyptian kingdoms did not have an anti-technology ideology, but maintained political and cultural continuity for thousands of years without undergoing industrialization. What explains this? Either industrialization naturally takes many thousands of years, or not all civilizations are structured in a way that guarantees an industrial explosion. In either case it appears that an Anti-Tech Police Force is really not necessary. All that's necessary is removing the conditions that lead to rapid technological progress.

[Anonymous No.21600856]

>>21594284
they're village niggers, we will be throwing romans on Mars without you

[Anonymous No.21600870]

>>21600850
>but maintained political and cultural continuity for thousands of years without undergoing industrialization.

Yeah but it wasn't for a lack of trying you absolute idiot. That's seemingly the point you don't seem to get.

And you also don't seem to get that you saying industrialization is the real problem is you trying to avoid defending the premise that the underlying principle of technology is what is bad. Neither you nor Kaczynski have ever established why anyone should at all morally object to industrial society, because the reality is that neither you nor him have any morality to begin with.

[Anonymous No.21600887]

>>21600754
living in ancient egypt would fucking suck. you would be a slave or some other gimp. get a grip.

[Anonymous No.21600903]

>>21600870
>Yeah but it wasn't for a lack of trying you absolute idiot. That's seemingly the point you don't seem to get.
I think this is just a mistaken presumption from your progressive view of history. Why do you think that non-industrial societies must have been trying to industrialize?

>Neither you nor Kaczynski have ever established why anyone should at all morally object to industrial society
It's presently bad for you in a variety of ways, and in the future it's very likely to either destroy ecosystems we depend on or enslave us to a totalitarian regime.

>the reality is that neither you nor him have any morality to begin with
If your objection to Kaczynski is that he killed civilians, I would be interested in hearing which political leaders or revolutionaries you think are moral

[Anonymous No.21600921]

>>21594279
I like this topic and your recommendations
>pic related is a great source of inspiration for how to contribute creative works of real underlying value to contemporary culture
Topics no one is writing about: Maybe how genuinely useful creativity is the key to success and happiness in neo-lib society. Essentially a white pill. Time spent stressing about what other people are doing is time wasted in a society that allows you to be an individual, and a distraction from fulfilling your own creative potential. If you make something good (people like it or find it useful) the market will provide the fixings of a good life.

[Anonymous No.21600933]

>>21595042
But it does create plenty of em. See the coming global population collapse and overall the state of humanity in highly developed countries.

[Anonymous No.21600938]

>>21600903
>Why do you think that non-industrial societies must have been trying to industrialize?

I never said that.

>or enslave us to a totalitarian regime.

Perhaps. But I'll take a totalitarian regime that can cure my mother's brain cancer over a hunter-gatherer society where people will die of tooth decay and appendicitis because doctors don't exist, thanks.

[Anonymous No.21600969]

Another day another thread full of reactionary-anons who can't stand living in current society and instead of swallowing a bullet make life miserable for everyone around them instead.

[Anonymous No.21600989]

>>21600969
>Someone critiquing your society is "making life miserable for everyone around them"
Okay bud

[Anonymous No.21600995]

>>21600844
>billionaire venture capitalist
>hurr durr turbo libertarian
sounds like you fell for his PR department

[Anonymous No.21600997]

>>21600989
All reactionary politics ends with mass murder and prison. No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.21601007]

>>21600997
Not the other anon and I do agree that the reactionaries here are retards, but how does your statement square with the French Revolution or other revolts throughout history that have lead to greater freedom / rights?

[Anonymous No.21601020]

>>21600938
>But I'll take a totalitarian regime that can cure my mother's brain cancer over a hunter-gatherer society where people will die of tooth decay and appendicitis because doctors don't exist, thanks.
I will just refer you back to my final comments in this post: >>21600582 It is a really striking fact that people who defend industrial society pretty much always rely completely on improvements in medicine as their defense. They almost never try to argue that a smartphone actually improves your life, or that increasingly powerful military technology improves your life, or that video games with better graphics improve your life. Whether they admit it or not, they quietly recognize that the vast majority of technological developments provide at best short term appeal and at worst long term harm. Medicine is one of the only exceptions, so they try to argue that literally everything else has to be accepted for the sake of medicine.

[Anonymous No.21601027]

>>21601007
He will simply define in retrospect every successful movement as "not reactionary", and every movement that results in mass murder as "reactionary", regardless of how those ideologies were identified and characterized at the time, and regardless of what they believed.

[Anonymous No.21601061]

>>21601020
Perhaps you should instead consider the fact that it is revealing that people like you don't have any counter-argument against such technological advancements since the benefits are straight up staring you in the face, and you don't even care that they would be gone because your fundamental motivation isn't really to make a better society.

[Anonymous No.21601074]

>>21601007
>but how does your statement square with the French Revolution or other revolts throughout history that have lead to greater freedom / rights?

In what way is reverting current society to an agrarian absolute monarchy or hunter-gatherer society where technology is under tight control so as to not repeat current society a revolutionary movement?

[Anonymous No.21601094]

>>21601074
you need violence and state power to do it

[Anonymous No.21601117]

>>21601094
Just because reactionaries and revolutionaries have to engage in the same tactics to get what they want, doesn't mean they are the same kinds of people and want the same kind of society.

[Anonymous No.21601715]

>>21600844
Same thing.

[Anonymous No.21601885]

bump

[Anonymous No.21601924]

>>21594279
Instead of spending hundreds of hours upong writing that useless tome, Popper should have spent that time re-reading Plato and actually comprehending it this time.

[Anonymous No.21602416]

>>21600938
>hunter gatherer
>tooth decay
A hilariously ironic projection onto the past from the eternal present, speaking to your infinite ignorance. Tooth decay is an entirely modern phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.21602433]

>>21594279
dao de jing
yi jing

[Anonymous No.21602461]

>>21600754
I wanted to chime in. You are a saintly person and a friend of truth. I can feel your kindness.

[Anonymous No.21602466]

>>21600921
Something good always has the mass appeal to generate wealth?

[Anonymous No.21602851]

>>21602466
That’s a good critique of my point, but no, something good just needs an audience. It’s easier than ever for a niche creator to find supporters and succeed today with the internet than ever before. While it’s true that there appears to be a race to the bottom in wider culture with base appeals to populism and short attention span stimulation, pop-culture and information streams are now less hegemonic and there’s more high quality content available for those that choose to consume it.

[Anonymous No.21603707]

bros i just want high IQ book recommendations that are 1) not commonly recommended by normies and 2) not recommended by 4chiggers. truly an impossible feat to find that hidden library…

[Anonymous No.21603783]

>>21602433
>no one is reading

learn chinese cunt