You guys do realize that there is no escape from the expanse and eventual control by the technological system don't you? You can run for a short time but you can't hide. Outdoors and homesteading etc. are ultimately just temporary escapes. Most of the globe after all was a wilderness where these kind of lifestyles were possible for most people and due to the expansion of technological civilization there is little wilderness left. Wilderness escape is only available to a relative few for economic and practical reasons. The system will continue to expand. How many of you guys agree with Ted Kaczynski that a revolutionary anti-tech movement like wilderness front (www.wildernessfront.com) should force an end to the technosystem and save wilderness from ravaging and control and eventual extinction? If there is no wilderness left there is no freedom left.
>>2757469I've been pressed on the whole "well why don't you just go innawoods yourself and leave us alone" thing a few times. After a few words, people usually admit that it's basically a suicide mission unless you're with at least a band of people. I think even Ted had to make the occasional trip to town for necessities.Even then, we always hear of new previously uncontacted tribes all the time and the result is always a transformation in the direction of technological progress. It's only a matter of time for simple life styles to become impossible or transformed.
>>2757471The big problem there is people hate psychological conflict--they absolutely despise having to face up to disturbing truths. So they block them out of their mind. They invent all kinds of silly, irrational, and ridiculous justifications or arguments as to why you are wrong and the wilderness will always be available to them in the same way. And they can act absolutely viciously to anyone who threatens their to pop their little psychological comfort bubble.
>>2757469Nothing short of a unified, worldwide, anti-tech revolt would thrust us back to the primitive/harmonious life within wilderness we used to have. Even then, we would be dealing with the industrial fallout for many centuries after the fact while also gradually losing the technical knowledge of how to mitigate the damage along the way. Any regression would have to be extremely gradual, so gradual that over many generations the sentiment of "going back" will inevitably be lost, and we just fall back into our old habits.Basically, the time and opportunity to "go back" passed us over a long, long time ago. The only way out is through, technological progress must continue, but with an emphasis on environmental sustainability for any new tools developed while also addressing issues inherent to our current ones. I don't think that technological/industrial progress necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, although I accept the possibility of this being wishful thinking.Of course, I don't know how to do any of that. I'm just some guy.
>"Noooo let me pick and choose what technoloigies I like!"It's either everything or nothing, you can't criticize tech and then go use a hammer to build your wood shack. Progress is inevitable so it's better to accept that and mitigate the damage it causes than throw the baby out with the bathwater.The industrial revolution was a net good for humanity, it's failure was in the system it was created during.
>>2757479>It's either everything or nothingok sperg
>>2757472there isnt a wilderness revolution to get away from techpeople bring fucking entire computers and emulators consoles hunting and camping.Shit there is a thread of pekple watching anime outside in the wilderness on a projector.The wilderness revolution exists to get away from obssesive autistic retards like you who stay in the same spot for literally 10 years while a normal non-terminally online person does a shit ton in the span of a year.
>>2757479There is a dividing line that is easy to understand. Here, straight from ISAIF:"We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology does regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down."
>>2757484cop-out. your evading the main points.
>>2757486keep telling yourself it's a cop out dude.People are gonna keep bringing their nintendo switches and kindles camping with them while you seethe about how you wasted the year playing anime games when you could have been enjoying nature durinv the day and reading a book or watching a movie before bed at night. The seetheing still wont make them want to be around chris-chan
>>2757469I ain't reading allat
>>2757488At least read the image, anon. Does big chungus Elon saying something make something inside of you tingle? The OP is a literal paragraph. Ted was right.
>>2757475>we would be dealing with the industrial fallout for many centuries after the factNature takes care of itself. The scars will heal in time. And whatever "industrial fallout" you refer to won't be everywhere and ever present.>Any regression would have to be extremely gradualNo. A rapid collapse is far more likely, and anyway it's the only practical human course of action.>The only way out is through, technological progress must continueThis is a dangerous delusion. There is no such thing as "through" technological progress. it's just a continual and continual digging a hole deeper and deeper into the abyss until humanity no longer exists or the biosphere is devastated. This explains the Fermi paradox: the reason we havn't heard from any extraterrestrial life despite the billions of planets in the universe is because all technological systems collapse because there is a process fundamental to technological growth that inevitably leads to collapse.
>>2757469I am fine with either an anarcho-primitive society, or a transhumanist society. Either is fine, but nothing else. Just those two. You could say I have a penchant for the 'tism.
>>2757485Organized society is still an inevitability, it's in our genes to form community which will always evolve back into civilization. Even if we did set arbitrary rules and about what tools and discoveries are and aren't allowed there is still no way to physically regulate it across tribes.We will never not progress so instead of trying to deny that on a civilizational level time would be better spent accepting that fact and regulating versus destroying. More good would come out of rapidly moving to sustainability than it would eliminating the entire global economy. The problem isn't the iPad it's the fact that landfills are full of iPads that were overproduced and couldn't be sold (yes I'm are iPads are part of the problem but it's an example). If people learned about the amount of waste we deliberately created they would be dumbstruck.
>>2757499>will always evolve back into civilizationok, fine. but you can VASTLY limit the damage caused to wild nature and human nature by limiting the power and scope of civilization. After industrial civilization collapses there are a number of reasons why it could never be rebuilt again, if nothing else because the basic resources have already been exhausted and any further resources need advanced organization-dependent tech to get to economically in the first place, so it becomes a catch-22 after collapse.That it the point Kaczynski is trying to make: you SHOULD NOT change human nature. All that can be done is to limit the MEANS (i.e. the technology) with which organizations can manipulate humans and impact the environment away from the conditions to which humans have been adapted over the course of millions of years to best thrive both physically and psychologically.
>>2757502You underestimate humanity, consciousness is like a virus that can't help but reproduce itself. We could exhaust every ounce of coal on the planet and the next generation would find whole new source of carbon to pump into the atmosphere. Drive, desire, growth, community, those are all fundamental aspects to human nature that inevitably lead to industrialized society no matter what you do.I'm not trying to say 'give up' or 'stop complaining', that would be stupid and reductive. What I'm saying is that these are inherent aspects of humanity and we need to both accept, and work around. Whether it's communism or capitalism humans will organize themselves into a hierarchy so it's better to rip that philosophical bandaid off now and ask how we can maneuver it into complete sustainability.As humans we split the atom and went from being completely grounded to launching flaming chunks into space in only 60 years, we're this fucking smart and we can't figure out a way to live within our means? That's horseshit, we just don't WANT to because it might mean some of us have to give up some of our treats.
>>2757517>Drive, desire, growth, community, those are all fundamental aspects to human nature that inevitably lead to industrialized society no matter what you do.False. All of those things were satisfied, and satisfied much better, for thousands upon thousands of years for humanity prior to industry and civilization. Saying that those things inevitably lead to industrial civilization is just a religious self-serving teleology. it's no different from any civilization in the past thinking that all historical roads led to it, and it was the apex of everything humans desired.
>ITT: ted speds drinking CIA jizzkek.
>>2757526Satisfaction will always give way to hunger, that's what it means to be a living thing. It's also important to remember that life was suffering for a majority of humanity for most of our history instead of most of humanity like today. Yes there are things that were taken from us through industrialization but there are far smarter people who have written far more about that than Tedrick has. Beyond everything else Ted was a very angry man who resented the society he couldn't acclimate to because of his life experiences and lashed out because of it. Ted was a VERY intelligent man but his manifesto was incredibly surface level, it's full of things that SOUND right and strikes an emotional chord but it's far too short to have any real merit.Also yes, all historical roads lead to all civilizations, they were all the apex of everything humans desired. Like any ecosystem civilization is a result of generations and cultural exchanges built on top of each other.
>>2757540>life was suffering for a majority of humanity for most of our history instead of most of humanity like todayCan you clarify what you said here please? I'd like to respond to you but I'd first like to understand exactly what you're saying.
>>2757562Basically that 95% of humanity lived in some sort of squalor and sufferering for a majority of our history compared to the last hundred years where it's more like 70%. Of course suffering can be a subjective term but the crux of my point is that overall happiness is higher compared to a thousand years ago. Also don't stress about a reply because I'm going to bed and won't be able to see it until tomorrow anyway.
>>2757565>squalor and suffereringSee now you're just regurgitating tired old tropes. Reliable anthropology has pretty much debunked these topes, but they get repeated because they serves a psychological purpose."The Pirahãs show no evidence of depression, chronic fatigue, extreme anxiety, panic attacks, or other psychological ailments common in many industrialized societies." …"I have never heard a Pirahã say that he or she is worried. In fact, so far as I can tell, the Pirahãs have no word for worry in their language. One group of visitors to the Pirahãs, psychologists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Brain and Cognitive Science Department, commented that the Pirahãs appeared to be the happiest people they had ever seen." -Daniel Everett, "Don't Sleep There Are Snakes" (2009) p. 278Here we found a few Snake Indians comprising 6 men 7 women and 8 or10 children who were the only Inhabitants of this lonely and secluded spot.They were all neatly clothed in dressed deer and Sheep skins of the bestquality and seemed to be perfectly contented and happy. …I almost wishedI could spend the remainder of my days in a place like this where happinessand contentment seemed to reign in wild romantic splendor….-Osborne Russell, "Journal of a Trapper" (1965) pp. 26-27The Mbuti "were a peoplewho had found in the forest something that made their life more thanjust worth living, something that made it, with all its hardships and problemsand tragedies, a wonderful thing full of joy and happiness and freeof care.”-Colin Turnbull "Forest People" (1962) p. 26"Thus the pygmies stand before us as one of the most natural of humanraces, as people who live exclusively in accord with nature and without anyviolation of their organism. In this they show an unusually sturdy naturalnessand heartiness, an unparalleled cheerfulness and freedom from care."-Paul Schebesta, Bambuti-Pygmäen vom Ituri (1938) p. 73one could go on and on...
>>2757496>No. A rapid collapse is far more likely, and anyway it's the only practical human course of action.Relax, there will be a collapse, probably this century.We will all die, and the last free people have already been born.The future is hell, techno dystopia hell, then a collapse and if there are survivors, they'll repeat the cycle from whatever technological age humanity regressed to.
>>2757603Anecdotal evidence that is romanticizing poverty.
>>2757469I like living in a civilized, technologically advanced society.
>>2757610if it were merely a few then a point could be made, but instead this is a consistent repeated trend observed in all primitive cultures. Your "poverty" comment shows you a sucker for the "standard of living" myth. the way that works is the industrial system simply defines a higher standard of living as being only those things it can provide and then it "discovers" that the standard is increasing. If instead of iphones and refrigerators and cars etc. you judge standard of living in freedom, fulfillment, dignity, clear flowing streams, abundant wildlife, tranquility and solitude of vast meadows and forests, etc. etc., then our standard of living is falling very, very rapidly.
>>2757610That book Health and the rise of civilization made a pretty good overall point that technology solves the problems that technology itself created. Now I'm not all for going back to year zero or anything but if you think everything is OK with society these days then you are most definitely terminally online. Aka a Nu man.
>>2757497go back
>>2757488Based. I was scrolling through the thread to see if anyone was smart enough to demonstrate brevity and all I see is rambling nonsense from psueds.
>>2759077It's even worse when you realize none of these cockgobblers even flinched about Elon, considering how much of a pseud he is, from the non-stop shallow virtue signalling to the anti-Woke crowd to putting chips in brains and turning Twitter into an Indian bot farm. He singlehandedly turned Dead Internet Theory into Brown Internet Theory.
>>2759158>Brown Internet Theory (BIT)we need to meme this into common vernacular but maybe tweak the acronym. Maybe Sub Human Internet Theory or something.Elon is good at one thing: scamming people out of money.
is this fake news? its obvious esl english
>>2759047your mom is a whore and chokes on my cock
>>2757603The whole "dumb idiots living pathetic, short lives of squalor and starvation" meme was created by Victorian era historians because the victorians utterly couldn't comprehend an existence outside of their own that wasn't awful. (Ironic considering that we now look back at the victorian's themselves as dirty backwards retards.) Point being, Victorian scholars tended to tamper with artifacts and history to force their findings to fit their views of how everything was. A lot of "history" is just leftover from that period of archeology when they tended to just blatantly fabricate a narrative with very little to zero evidence to support it. Modern archeology is finding that ancient cultures were a hell of a lot more sophisticated and complex than they've been given credit for. Actually, there is pretty strong evidence to suggest hunter gatherers were healthier, stronger, lived longer, and had longer lived than the sedentary agrarian cultures that the victorian's liked to attribute so many positive traits to.
>>2757618Have to agree. Our system tends to define itself as the definition of success, then magically declared that it has a magic red line that only goes up to prove it. The fact that the number of people actually benefitting from red line that goes up is constantly shrinking, or that the red line what only goes up is only able to do so by making blue line, green line, yellow line and all sorts of others always go down just never gets mentioned. We're gutting our planet and the amazing places and creatures in it in ways that can never be repaired in our lifetime just so a very small cadre of people can live in luxury. (A life of sedentary consumption and decadent luxury is frankly, a state inherently unhealthy for our species to exist in anyways.)
>>275756595% of humanity currently lives in some sort of squalor and suffering. Did you think your modern life of convenience came free? Almost every single modern luxury, convenience, or commodity you enjoy was brought to you by the suffering of somebody else. You just get to pretend you live so good because you are somehow superior or enlightened in relation to them. Has it never occurred to you that in order for the people who run this shit show to live like kings they needed at least some portion of the populace to be capable of purchasing all the bullshit they sell? You're just some house nigger laughing at the field niggers like he isn't a slave too.
>>2759285>Modern convenance is predicated on the suffering of othersThis isn't true at all. It is true that the ultra wealthy get extremely wealthy by taking advantage of others but increasing the quality of life for the majority doesn't obligate slaves. That's just how the jew cult of demon worshipers corrupted intelligence in our era.You are living in the demon worshipers era--they won and slaughtered the nature worshipers. Only demon worshipers shame people for being poor.
>>2757471>>2757469Ted didn’t live off grid. he had an address and would go buy groceries and had neighbors he would go over and visit with like neighbors do
I ..am ..a ...ent ...
>>2757479>The industrial revolution was a net good for humanityit is waaaaay too early to make that judgement. it could very well lead to human extinction in the next 200 years or so.
>>2757479>you can't criticize tech and then go use a hammer to build your wood shackwhere are they making people this retarded
I agree that technology is bad, but then again I think life itself is a bad idea.But seriously though, even if enough people signed on to this End the Tech ideology.. how exactly would you do it without lots of genocide? People in shit world countries aren't gonna stop having babies just because we've dystopia'd ourselves inside our own developed nations.
>>2759705>so uhhhh that thing created by life might be bad but uhhhhh*hits bong*>life itself is bad okay, you can't have all this life without some suffering therefore nothing should be alive at all because then nothing could suffer*snorts pixie stick*>and uhhh killing everyone is the only way outdo you even read the shit you write
>>2759730[Thing that was created by life] is only "bad" from the perspective of living things who desire autonomy and individualism, or to not be sacrificed along the way to keep it going. There's no "might be" about it.The suffering bit you seem to be able to recite, yet not grasp. Not my prob.As I mentioned, without some sort of depopulation, we'll continue to see individuality and autonomy and sense of freedom disintegrate, as well as the biosphere to be stripped bare. People don't like the idea of restricting birth rate, so what I see happening is continuing what we're doing until the resource wars start ending in genocide.
>>2757469Technological advancements like modern medicine and the whole industry involved in it allow even weak to live to old age. Get rid of it and you will see a massive die off of the population. We are talking prehistoric levels of natural pressure eugenics were only the most strong and fit will survive but not thrive. You are talking about killing off almost the most of mankind if not outright extinguishing it out completely. Our ancestors had very valid reasons to push for technologically advancing themselves.
>>2757469the technosystem is cool as long as we can leverage it for the preservation of nature instead of the degradation of nature. I like the idea of enhanced rock weathering to restore ecosystems and that will require some pretty heavy indsutrial tech to carry out
>>2761618Any system selects for itself. The current one selects for lower intelligence and lack of environmental awareness. There's a reason Ted saw it so clearly as a threat, it's selecting against people like him and selects for people like his brother.The system selects the qualities. The most in line with those qualities a person is the more they're "normal". The real question we should ask instead of "are we willing to face a die off" is "what is humanity and what are we willing to sacrifice to have more of it?"Nature has its laws, get an organism that goes against them and you got yourself a disfunctional organism that is ultimately nothing but confused.
>>2761936I'm not going to go all philosophical on the question if we are experiencing real humanity or not, that stuff is really subjective and relative on the perceiver, I think. What matters is that we're here and we're queer. And I don't think that mankind is going against its nature or the natural order of things. We are just trying to adapt to it and trying to overcome whatever it throws against us with the help of the system and industry that don't just grant us the help in mere easier survival but even helps us thrive. With the help of industrial revolution and the technological advancements the population of mankind experienced growth not seen before in its history. But I agree that the system and industry are getting exploited and that world would be better if we found a way of getting rid of planned obsolescence in industry and if mankind would turn into more conscious consumers.
>>2761976Subjective or not, we all take a stance on the question in some way. For example when you say that industry makes us thrive, you are defining what is humanity and what is its optimum - whether it's sheer numbers, economical complexity, interreliability, leisure or any other metric which makes you think the people of the current epoch are thriving. That is as well subjective though, whether we're thriving or not. It all depends on our own definitions and considerations.I personally look at any house pet and think to myself "they must feel like they're thriving, they get treats, entertainment, a bunch of leisure, get to go to the park every day and even get to watch their favorite dog shows, that's something they couldn't do as wolves in the wild", but if we consider the nature of a pug and compare it with a wolf, in terms of which is more fit for coexistence with nature we have a clear winner. Therefore for the pug to exist there requires to be a space where the laws of nature don't apply. And that is the domestic scene. Any domesticated animal, where it is stripped from its means to survive in the wild, will see the wild as a threat.In that sense the organism is not thriving but has severely regressed in inherent traits and abilities which previously made it what it is and now are absolete and the absence of which make it motivated to maintain an unnatural domestic environment.
>>2762198Now I'm not proud of holding this perspective and would very much like to find a refutation that would convince me of its invalidity, because holding it isn't very joyful as it stands. If anyone has some tips on how to deal with this black pill that would also be appreciated.At the end of the day I don't aim to be a loner and have people close to me who I care about so isolating myself from others is really not an option I'm willing to take. But I know that holding that perspective somehow creates that.
>>2762201You are just an extremist environmentalist who romanticizes nature. Man has struggled with it for so long and you want to throw all that progress away and return us to starting point. I'd say your outlook on nature and being of man is not realistic.
>>2762207I agree on everything except wanting to return to the starting point. I think we've progressed very well in some capacities, but the trajectory we're on doesn't look very promising. I think a balance could be reached between having all the luxury we want while maintaining the current regard for human life while still remaining in touch with what keeps us alive on this planet and strengthening those relationships.A good example of that is Hellenic Greece where those things stood in equilibrium. I'd like to know in what ways my outlook is not realistic.Thanks for the feedback.
>>2757469>You can run for a short timeGood enough for me. In wilderness, life expectancy will be lower anyway
>>2757475We gotta leave.
>>2757469What
>>2757565>overall happiness is higher compared to a thousand years agoLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, imagine believing this. Go outside and look around.
>>2761618>You are talking about killing off almost the most of mankind if not outright extinguishing it out completelygood
OP seems real sure of his take when our grid is so insecure and fragileMuh "nowwhere to run"Nyuga dont make me knock out the entire eastern seaboard just to remind you of how fragile "progress" is.
>>2757469Ted K is big cringe
>>2762198Nothing exists that isn't natural. Everything occurs in and in relation to nature.
>>2759278and at least half those people living in luxury are on antidepressants to keep from killing themselves. we are killing our planet for no benefit, no reason
>>2757469You can't escape itNorth Sentinel Island is proofYou can runBut the modern world will fly jets over your ass 24/7 and there's nothing you can do about itOnce we have anti-gravity vehicles publicly releasedIt's overWhich is why they're keeping it quiet and not releasing itCan't have people flying to the moon and escaping our control
>>2757479>It's either everything or nothingbecause you said so?
