[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 214 KB, 1200x1200, ted-kaczynski-578450-1-420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16368766 No.16368766 [Reply] [Original]

Has his work ever been refuted?

>> No.16368775

>>16368766
There is nothing to refute.

>> No.16368791
File: 8 KB, 176x286, based_grin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16368791

>>16368766
No, nor can it be

>> No.16368815

>>16368775
All defensive arguments can be refuted

>> No.16368937

>>16368815
Defensible*

>> No.16369089

not, it's vindicated every day, further more, every scientist who dared mention TK's name did so only as praise for the genius of his works. MIT magazine published an article following ISaiF explosive breakthrough, stating it to be the work of a genius.

>> No.16369156

How can I signal his work to others?

>> No.16369163

They're self refuting

>> No.16369171

>>16369163
Cope

>> No.16369235

>>16368766
The existence of mentally healthy people who embrace all modern tech is a refutation of some aspect of him, isn't it?

>> No.16369265

>>16369235
Civilization is a state of alienation. The division of labour is a neurosis, a crisis of identity, in which the totalized subject is fragmented. There is no "mentally healthy" people insofar as "mental health" only refers to the assimilation of an individual to the current temporality of alienation.

>> No.16369270

>>16369235
>mentally healthy people
Go back

>> No.16369281

>>16369235
>The existence of mentally healthy people who embrace all modern tech
Where are they?

>> No.16369306

>>16368766
All people who don't agree with him never read his work

>> No.16369323
File: 69 KB, 1063x595, 13_29_42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16369323

>>16369265
>Civilization is a state of alienation.
Can you prove or demonstrate that? What is your frame of reference on this? Why would anyone call a highly industrious and creative person (which we still have plenty of) "alienated' — alienated from what?

>>16369281
>Where are they?
In labs and offices. mostly.

>> No.16369331

>>16369281
I'm content and I love modernity
My dream is the universe as a giant neverending megalopolis

>> No.16369334

>>16369235
No? The technological system wants to encapsulate everybody, regardless of mental health.

>> No.16369339

>>16369334
So let it? What's the issue, if it doesn't impact mental health?

>> No.16369424

>>16368766

his "work" was to simplify Ellul

>> No.16369445

His work is just a mass simplification of what other social theorists already said better and more detailed. Now you know why brainlets and 14 year olds love him

>> No.16369502

>>16369445
What other social theorists? Any lit from them to recommend?

>> No.16369629

>>16369424
>>16369445
>i can't sound smart quoting ted I need my academia approved vernacular to feel intelligent
kek, filtered

>> No.16369834

>>16369424
>>16369445
provably and definitely false.

>> No.16369841
File: 1.59 MB, 1067x1600, Anti-Tech Revolution w drones_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16369841

>>16368766
no, it can't be. it's too logical and well supported.

>> No.16369842

>>16368766
yes. by me.

>> No.16369952

>>16368766
To my knowledge he has not been, for two reasons. First, ISAIF contains no original ideas of substance, so any first-rate thinker would address Ted's influences (like Ellul) rather that Ted himself. This isn't a criticism either; Ted would almost certainly agree. His intention wasn't to devise some brilliant new theory, but rather to raise awareness about a very real problem.
The second reason is that Ted is correct about technology.

>Ted Kaczynski is rotting away in a maximum-security prison for the sake of an anti-technology PSA. Even now, old Kaczynski is writing anti-technology PSAs—and what good they do.

>It’s embarrassing. Only the religiously faithful could think discontinuous acts of violence can do any damage to the overall functioning of the industrial system. But the fact is Kaczynski is an idealist: he believes, deep down, that things can change for the better, and he believes that people’s beliefs and ideas are what drive history onwards. This is why he proposes such an absurd solution to the problem of technological slavery:

>“The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.”

>The message is clear: if people could be firmly convinced that technology was bad, they would surely voluntarily end modernity and die off in the billions. The utter lack of sensible materialist analysis revealed here confirms it: despite the assertions of hand-wringing moralists, Ted Kaczynski is not insane, nor is he a fascist, he’s yet another liberal, albeit one with an atypically strong sense of justice, though regrettably channeled. Compare with the contemporary resistance to Trump, who sit around twiddling their thumbs even as the state tortures and kills asylum seekers in disease-ridden camps.
(from an eco-pessimist newsletter I read; https://metaspinoza.substack.com/))

>> No.16370034

>>16369952
>But the fact is Kaczynski is an idealist: he believes, deep down, that things can change for the better, and he believes that people’s beliefs and ideas are what drive history onwards.
LMAO did this retard even open one (1) of kaczynski's books?? A third of ISaiF is dedicated to this

The ENTIRE point of anti-tech rev, the chapter that comprises half the book is called: The Development of a Society Can Never Be Subject to Rational Human Control

wew

>> No.16370091

>>16368766
Ted is only taken seriously because straight white male privilege if he was a brown person theyd be calling him a terrorist instead of fawning over his edgy entitled nonsense. Womder why you never hear of a queer woman of colour killing people with bombs because ofsuch an entitled tantrum?

>> No.16370106

>>16370091
step up your game kid

>> No.16370223

>>16369331
No wild nature? Just a giant city? No trails? And you say you’re healthy? Are you fat? I am sad now.

>> No.16370231

>>16369331
Your dream will die along with your useless, weak genofond, and be replaced by the dreams of stronger men.

>> No.16370265

>>16369235
Dumb fucking cunt. How do you categorize as healthy that which does not reproduce? The societies were your vision of a mentally healthy individual are real are dying, coping with the possibility of endless immigration from less technologically advanced societies, without realizing that those societies do not provide en masse the type of people who will be useful for the sustainment of the dying technological states.

>> No.16370344

>>16369331
This. Ghost in the Shell is more awe inspiring than gay post-manosphere monkey worship

>> No.16370356

>>16370231
projection and cope

>> No.16370583
File: 68 KB, 720x743, 1597424263696.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16370583

>>16370231

>> No.16370614

>>16369952
>>16369445
>>16369424
reminder that the originality of his ideas has nothing to do with their verity

>> No.16370676

>>16368766
What is there to refute? Its just estrogen-fueled whining of another academic burnout.

>> No.16370734

>>16370676
Ask me how I know you've never read it.

>> No.16370743

>>16369445
Filtered by the filter's broadest mesh

>> No.16370747

>>16370734
Stop being such a marxist and tell me what is there to refute.

>> No.16370751

>>16370747
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Now refute it.

>> No.16370764

>>16370751
>refuting normatives
There are more people around than there were before the industrial revolution.

>> No.16370778

>>16370764
>mistaking quantity for quality
What is your ethnicity?

>> No.16370797

>>16370778
You said "human race", not a particular ethnicity. Purpose of human race is to reproduce, ergo rapid expansion of population couldnt have been a disaster. I don't recall any historical event, described as disaster, that was accompanied by population explosion.

>> No.16370811

>>16370797
Exactly. The industrial revolution was and is a disaster the likes of which has never been seen before. It is historically new. This is explained in the writing. Read ISAIF before replying to this post.

>> No.16370834

>>16370811
So you define the word "disaster" in this case as something entirely novel that had no precedent before? That would make such stament unfalsifiable and thus reinforcing my opinion about lack of ideas worthy of refuting.

>> No.16370854

>>16370834
If the world was hit by an asteroid the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs and it killed the entirety of the human race, I'm sure you would be happy to call that a disaster despite it being historically unprecedented. You are not arguing against his point, you are arguing against the phrasing of his point because you are a technophile faggot and your flaccid, internet-destroyed brain can only dream up semantic arguments. ACTUALLY READ I.S.A.I.F. BEFORE REPLYING TO THIS POST.

>> No.16370870
File: 1.74 MB, 177x150, 1584737926276.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16370870

>>16369323
>In labs and offices
Lol...

>> No.16370880

>>16370854
>If the world was hit by an asteroid the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs and it killed the entirety of the human race, I'm sure you would be happy to call that a disaster despite it being historically unprecedented.
Killing off the human race would fall in under the conventional definition of disaster, as it would reduce population to 0. You failed to justify using the word disaster to describe event under which population explodes.

>> No.16370899

>>16370880
Stop posting pilpul definition fetish semantic horseshit and read the fucking manifesto before replying to this post, you brain-dead retard.

>> No.16370909

>>16370899
>Degradation to namecalling within 6 posts
Consider Ted refuted.

>> No.16370930

>>16370909
>mommy mommy the mean online man called me names for being a semantic faggot, that means I win the argument
I wish we were having this conversation in person so I could force you to swallow plastic litter at gunpoint before putting rounds into your hands, feet, genitalia, and spine.

>> No.16370963

>>16370880
It's a disaster if the excess population is submitted to abject poverty and enslavement. Today 4 billion live on under $5 a day. Most people have to work in terrible conditions to keep the rapacious juggernaut going. Even the technophile Marx noted working on the factory production line was like becoming the appendage of a vast machine.

>> No.16370968

Murray Bookchin

>> No.16370990

>Trump, who sit around twiddling their thumbs even as the state tortures and kills asylum seekers in disease-ridden camps.

into the trash this goes

>> No.16371021

>>16369265
based and im gonna guess situationist-pilled

>> No.16371070
File: 35 KB, 540x297, 1599028944906.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16371070

>>16370614
true but i think they were implying that anti tech has far more advocates and more arguments than just teds, so even disproving teds points wouldnt end the argument entirely

>> No.16371079

>>16368766
Yeah but he never read it because it was published on the internet :(

>> No.16371092

>>16368766
I mean his argument as to why humans can never change their relationship to technology is rather silly, but I'm a neo-luddite so I'm not exactly his opposite.

>> No.16371094
File: 37 KB, 474x515, 1598828260409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16371094

>>16371070
holy shit i laughed my ass off. got any more?

>> No.16371234

>>16370963
Modern day India has a higher per capita income than the wealthiest nations had in the 1800s and even sub-Saharan African countries nowadays have a higher life expectancy than any country back than had. Stop being this retarded anon.

>> No.16371594

>>16370265
What are you even talking about, retard?

>> No.16371609

>>16369502
Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality, and Discourse on Science and Arts.

>> No.16371621

It's self refuting. If modern society didn't work no one could even hear of him. It's just a meme. We developed the things we developed for a reason. It's better to live with technology than dying to bug bites in the middle of the field.

>> No.16371833

>>16371621
if you read his manifesto he actually talks about this

>> No.16371854

>>16368766
>>16368775
I literally refute him every thread. I really cant be bothered ro type out the same shit every time anymore. People who enjoy these threads are thoroughly brainwashed midwits who worship a fucking terrorist

>> No.16371866

>>16371854
you have to read the manifesto to be able to refute him. we tell you in every thread

>> No.16371908

>>16371854
ad hominem is not an argument

>> No.16371926

>>16371854
Ted can't be refuted, but he can't be proven right either. That's why these threads go on forever, with everyone in the argument looking past one another.

>> No.16371934

>>16371926
read his manifesto

>> No.16371949

>>16371934
Prove that the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>> No.16371962

>>16369339
Browsing social media causes depression and anxiety.

>> No.16371967

>>16371962
So does seeing young romantic couples on Christmas Eve when you're single.

>> No.16371973

>>16370854
Does Ted address the asteroid problem? Because I feel like it's one of the few good reasons in favor of keeping technology, the possibility of preventing an asteroid Armageddon.

>> No.16371982

>>16371949
read his manifesto. he admits that line is up for debate, but the industrial revolution WILL be a disaster when ai and automation end specialized labor

>> No.16371991

>>16371982
The Manifesto proves nothing to anyone who thinks differently and thrives in the modern world.

>> No.16372000

>>16371973
yes. chapters 1 and 2 of Anti-Tech Revolution.

Basically, continued tech growth will INEVITABLY lead to disaster for humans and the planet within a few hundred years.

>> No.16372001

>>16371991
soo we just gonna ignore what i said or what? all yall miss ted's entire point

>> No.16372003

>>16371967
Once a year vs all year.

>> No.16372005

>>16371991
disagree. it has convinced a number of people I personally know who were initially in support of tech.

but even if you're right, so what? an anti-tech revolution doesn't need to convince everyone--or even anyone who is currently in support of tech.

>> No.16372010

>>16372001
Are you going to ignore what I said? Yes, you are, which is precisely my point. "There is no one who has successfully evolved and adapted to the modern technological world" can't be proven, and therefore can't be claimed, and without that claim, Ted's arguments are neither right or wrong, nor are they even arguments. This is why these threads go on forever, with absolutely NO ONE learning anything, and this will NEVER change, because Ted's claims can't be proven true or false.

>> No.16372028

@16372010
you are arguing against a straw man. you didnt read the manifesto and you assume the meme line is ted's point. people adapting to the needs of the system right now has nothing to do with the scale of inequality ai and automation will beget.
no (you) until you read the manifesto

>> No.16372031

>>16372010
by your standard no social theories can be proven true or false. ok. so what? the point is which theory generates enough fervent support to become the dominant one in history.

but you're wrong. a social theory can match up to the facts better than another social theory. so even if you can't say one is absolutely "true" or not, you can say one is more valid. Kaczynski's theories are by far the most valid of all.

>> No.16372044

>>16372031
Ted's social theories have confirmation biases, not facts.

>> No.16372071

>>16372028
>people adapting to the needs of the system right now has nothing to do with the scale of inequality ai and automation will beget.
Inequality is not a bad thing except for those who lose.

>> No.16372079

>>16372044
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Grasping at straws.

>> No.16372087

>>16372044
no, they definitely don't. for example, power process theory is rooted in the most current findings of biology and psychology.

but can you be more specific. to simply say "confirmation bias" without any evidence or reasoning amounts to just name-calling, not argumentation.

>> No.16372089

>>16372044
munchausens trilemma. if everything requires proof you will prove nothing. social science and philosophy rely on commonly accepted axioms and build off of them with deductive reasoning

youd know this if you read the canon

>> No.16372092

>>16372071
Everyone on 4channel today is going to lose.

>> No.16372099

>>16372079
Of course it doesn't make sense, you're retarded.

>> No.16372101

>>16372092
kek. this. plus I deeply resent any society that allows the kind of extreme inequality as an industrial society.

>> No.16372105

>>16372099
Theories don't have confirmation bias, people do.

>> No.16372107

>>16372092
>>16372071
everyone who is dependent on specialize labor will lose. which is pretty much everyone except the uber rich because specialized labor is the essence of civilization

>> No.16372108

>>16372092
So you're going to deny the truth so that you can maintain your petty little existence for a few more centuries?

>> No.16372124

>>16372108
this is the nature of the Godless man. he will put off the greater good so he can consoom, although it will ultimately lead to his destruction

>> No.16372131

>>16372087
>can you be more specific.
"the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" cannot be proven. Only confirmation biases can be drawn for such a claim.

>>16372105
You don't have any idea what you're saying.

>> No.16372139

>>16372124
You are the godless fuck. God is gearing up his AI warmachines right now and you're denying him.

>> No.16372143

>>16372131
>cannot be proven. Only confirmation biases can be drawn for such a claim.
see >>16372089

>> No.16372154

>>16372143
If a claim can be asserted without proof, then it can be denied without proof. If it rests on judgement, then the exact opposite kind of judgement necessarily exists.

>> No.16372160

>>16372154
>If a claim can be asserted without proof, then it can be denied without proof
then nothing can ever be proved. holy shit you are brainlet pseud, google munchausens trilemma

>> No.16372178

>>16372131
No u. I can distinguish cognition from a text.

>> No.16372181

>>16372160
>then nothing can ever be proved.
Small claims can be proven. Claims as abstract as "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" can't be proven.

>> No.16372205
File: 139 KB, 1280x2061, 1280px-Infinite_regress_en.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16372205

>>16372181
small or abstract has nothing to do with it anon

>> No.16372226

>>16372205
It has everything to do with it. A proof is something that is too hard to deny; one can prove that putting your hand on a heated stovetop hurts. Everything is an abstraction, but the wider and looser it is, the greater its deniability. "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race" is so wide and loose an abstraction that it can be denied as easily as it can be accepted.

>> No.16372263

>>16372226
if you admit small things can be proven at some point, it follows that you can use that which can be assumed to be true to prove something more abstract, and so on. we can use inductive reasoning to find a probable conclusion

>> No.16372276

>>16372181
it's true in a mathematical sense, but that is not required. Kaczynski's theories can be shown to align with the facts more than any reasonable alternative, such that they are true enough for practicable purposes. this is basic common sense. and Kaczynski's theories by far align with the evidence far more than the alternatives.

also, if you think that the statement "technological progress on the whole is beneficial" (or similar) is equally unprovable and/or is purely "confirmation bias", then you haven't said anything meaningful at all. but if you DON'T think that statement is "confirmation bias" then by your standard how can you prove that statement is any more true than Kaczynski's?

Again, all social theories need to do is convince enough people that it aligns with the facts better than all available alternatives. And Kaczynski's certainly do by my account.

>> No.16372317

>>16372263
I can deny that claim, so somewhere along the line of those proofs, they stop being proofs.

>> No.16372364

>>16372317
you are moving the goalposts now. you said abstract concepts like what Ted postulates cant be proven, which i showed you was wrong. you say you deny his claims, but the only place you say why is that they cant be proven, which we already proved wrong. i would say its pointless to argue with someone who objects only to quarrel without cause or reason, but it is also pointless to argue with someone about a text they havent read

>> No.16372427

>>16372364
>which i showed you was wrong.
Where bro? Where did you show me this? I specifically said that as abstractions get "wider and looser," i.e., they become more abstract, their deniability grows. I can deny Ted's claim, therefore it is an abstraction that can't be proven.

>> No.16372481

>>16372181
Define "small."

Just saying "small" seems like a rather wide abstraction in and of itself and is totally subject to your whims.

>> No.16372489

>>16372205
turtles all the way down

>> No.16372498

>>16372481
With immediate verifiability. It's relative, like everything else, so the closer it gets to that definition, the "smaller" it is.

>> No.16372549

>>16372427
>Where bro?
i refuted that right here>>16372089 here >>16372205 and here >>16372263
first of all you have yet to state a claim of his and refute it for a reason other than it cant be proven, which we have already refuted. since you seem to have forgotten (or are playing dumb), if small things can be proven, as you admitted, they can be used with inductive reasoning to prove more abstract concepts are probable. second, you have yet to show me a logically sound way you can "deny" his claims so as his abstraction cant be proven. with this i am referencing the trilemma and your admission that we can assume small claims true. keep in mind whether or not you agree with one of his claims or proofs, by nature, has little to do with whether they can be proven

>> No.16372590

>>16372549
>i refuted that
Lmao... no, no you didn't.

>you have yet to state a claim of his and refute it for a reason other than it cant be proven
Why do I need to? This suffices to show that it is not a claim which can be refuted or proven. The question "can you refute it?" is meaningless altogether.

>if small things can be proven, as you admitted, they can be used with inductive reasoning to prove more abstract concepts are probable
This is completely true, and yet you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at here. Small abstractions can be proven. The "larger" an abstraction, the MORE "smaller" abstractions it consists of. The more smaller abstractions there are, the more there are to PROVE in order to prove the larger one. This DOES NOT at all guarantee that all large abstractions can be proven! Only if all the smaller abstractions can be proven can the larger one also be proven.

Here's the thing: I CAN DENY HIS CLAIM. Therefore, there is a proof that's missing. If all the smaller abstractions could be proven, I wouldn't be able to deny it. But I can.

>> No.16372666

>>16372590
you are going in circles now anon. in accordance with the logic i have shown you in my previous post,the larger the abstraction would simply be less probable. you then make the mistake of conflating whether you think something is true or false with whether or not it can be proven. and finally we assume you can deny his claim. you still have not given us a reason that is not self referencing. if you dont have a logical reason to deny a claim, we can with some justice consider it trivial

>> No.16372710

>>16371594
Declining birthrate across the West, growing wealth disparity and crime in major fiscal institutions through EU/US. Increase in mental illness and psychiatric medication, lowered life expectancy in the US, especially for whites. Increased immigration from war torn and impoverished areas of MENA into EU to an unsustainable degree and at the measurable decline of the quality of life of indegenous Europeans.

But hey, a new iPhone is coming out so its all good.

>> No.16372736

>>16372666
>you are going in circles now anon
Because that's all that can be done, which was my point in my first post here >>16371926

>the larger the abstraction would simply be less probable
"less probable" means "absolutely improbable" for those who exist as proofs against the claim. "less probable" means "more people who can deny it" which means "more opportunities for it to be absolutely improbable."

>you then make the mistake of conflating whether you think something is true or false with whether or not it can be proven.
Actually, I think that something is true or false whether I want it to be or not. The reality of my logic is that nothing can be proven or denied with 100% universality. Therefore, nothing is absolutely true or false, and everything boils down to the individual's preference on the matter.

But I digress. My real point is that the thread sucks hairy balls. The OP question is a non-question.

>you still have not given us a reason that is not self referencing.
Neither have you or Ted, because such a reason can't exist for such a claim.

>> No.16372757

>>16372710
None of those problems affect 100% of homo sapiens on earth. Who does "human race" in Ted's claim actually refer to? His idea of it only.

>> No.16372805

>>16372736
>nothing can be proven or denied with 100% universality. Therefore, nothing is absolutely true or false
you make the same mistake i have told you about for like 2 or 3 posts of conflating whether something can be proven with whether something is true or false. to help you understand i will give an example:
i can prove something we all know is false.
1. cameron rides a bike
2. all boys ride bikes
3. therefore, cameron is a boy
likewise, i can prove 2+2=5 and so on. whether or not these proofs are true or false is irrelevant to the fact that it can be proved. even if i gave you a proof that had 10 times the steps, it can still be proven.
furthermore, if saying nothing can be proven or denied contradicts when you say small things can be proven

by now i have shredded every facet of your argument with basic demonstrable logical principles and shown you have contradicted yourself. next ted thread at least come with a coherent argument

>> No.16372836

>>16372805
>i can prove something we all know is false.
>doesn't prove shit, just makes a logical error
Do you know what it means to prove something? It means "to demonstrate its undeniability." This is obviously relative, since different things have different degrees of deniability to different people, so the closer it gets to that definition, the more of a proof it is. You don't understand the concept of relativity, which is why you struggle so much with what I'm telling you.

>> No.16372849
File: 24 KB, 474x474, Robin Hanson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16372849

>>16368766
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/01/kaczynskis-collapse-theory.html

>> No.16372868

>>16369331
t. Apollon Apollonovich

>> No.16372877

>>16372836
a proof is simply evidence anon. whether or not it works doesnt change what it is

>> No.16372889

>>16372877
Evidence to who? You have to understand everything within relativity, if there is relativity at all. You ignore the relative dimension of abstractions and so you fail to understand what I'm really saying.

>> No.16372942

>>16372889
evidence that something is the case. to whom is irrelevent. it doesnt matter who thinks what. if we were to say everything is relative and nothing can be proved, we fall into munchausens trilemma. it is an infinite regress and thus that relativity cant be proven. but at this point we both know you contradicted yourself, im gonna go fap and go to bed and consider this a W

>> No.16373007

>>16372710
>lowered life expectancy in the US
So you think a pre industrial society where the life expectancy is like 35 years instead of nearly 80 is the better option?

ISaIF makes some reasonable points but they have nothing to do with your dumb /pol/ talking points.

>> No.16373025

>>16371866
No one has ever told me that in any thread

>>16371908
I never said it was

>> No.16373046

>>16372942
"to whom" is never irrelevant, because judgement cannot be passed on "the case," as in "THE case."

>> No.16373196

>>16369323
>alienated from what
Why are you on 4chan and not enjoying life with those around you?

>> No.16373209
File: 100 KB, 1024x893, C3BD6FB8-E5FF-4E89-926A-21A4BB05B495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16373209

>>16371609

>> No.16373228

>>16371234
I bet they enjoy life even more than those people in the 1800s too
Stop being this retard anon

>> No.16373231

>>16373196
>implying you can't do both

>> No.16373239

>>16371094
Where are these memes? they’re gold

>> No.16373255

>>16371973
>We need tech to save us from asteroids
Lmao

>> No.16373306

>>16373231
Yes

>> No.16373863

>>16372181
>Claims as abstract as "the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race"
fucking anglo on the brain

>> No.16373864

>>16373007
How many times must it be repeated to you retards that those low numbers in pre-industrial times were due to infant mortality. If you didn't die the first 5 years, you could easily reach 70 years of age.

>> No.16374153

>>16368766
I think he makes some good points but overall his methods an solution is just nonsense. Pandora is already out of the box, so to speak. There's no going back unless you want to be crushed with the force of a sun by the states of the world. Don't get me wrong, we are headed down shit road right now with trade getting more uncertain between super powers, power vacuums being created, political unrest, and revolutions taking root due to an unchanging status quo.. But he doesn't offer any real solution.

>> No.16374209

>>16373864
I'm aware of that, what's your point? Do you give no moral considerations to infants or women dying in labour? And even if you don't die to dumb shit you probably won't beat even the unhealthiest of Americans today in terms of age. You absolutely can't bring up life expectancy when argueing for Ted's schizo ramblings, that was my point.

>> No.16374234

>>16368766
By Bookchin, yes

>> No.16374265

>>16374209
Funny you say that because women and infants diying in labour began after the industrial revolution, not before that

>> No.16374270

>>16374234
JUST GET OUT OF MY FUCKING HEADD GET OUT!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBzltOh5bpI

>> No.16374289

>>16374265
Are you pretending to be retarded?

>> No.16374316

Isn't the fact that somebody like Jeff Bezos can take advantage from technology a kind of refutation?

>> No.16374408 [DELETED] 
File: 393 KB, 1500x864, No Bombs Here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16374408

>>16368766
>Has his work ever been refuted?
Do bears read Don Quixote.

>> No.16374425
File: 393 KB, 1500x864, No Bombs Here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16374425

>>16368766
Never will be.

>> No.16374715

>>16373863
>doesn't know what an abstraction is

>> No.16374844

Whats the last time hes said anything?
Is he still mentally sound?

>> No.16374968

>>16369331
Now this is mental illness.

>> No.16375025

>>16371609
>I lick the boots of a previous writer than yours so I'm smart and you are dumb, ooga booga my writer good your writer bad

>> No.16375074

>>16371621
>We developed the things we developed for a reason
Yes, control.

>> No.16375114

>>16375025
Rousseau arguably has some advantages over TK, in that he understands man's religious nature

>> No.16375121

>Ctrl+F
>'jew'
>0 results

This thread is a joke

>> No.16375918

>>16372849
yeah, that guy is a moron compared to Kaczynski. His "review" consists of like two sentences where he says "this seems crazy to me" because "we haven't seen a factor of 2 decline" ??? He never defines "factor 2 decline" and he sets up a red-herring. Kaczynski isn;t arguing that there will be a "collapse" in the sense of a sudden breakdown if tech continues, he is arguing that there will be a disaster in the sense of increasingly degraded and disrupted natural systems. it's as if Hanson didn't even read the book, or didn't have any valid arguments so just adressed something he came up with.

It's one of the great non-review reviews out there.

By the way, how old was Hanson when he became the youngest professor of Mathematics at UC Berkeley? How old was he when he got his Ph.D. in a hard science.

Oh....... right.....

>> No.16376487

>>16369323
>>16369235
Fuck off moron. There is no fucking need to give any claims and references. If youre blind enough not to notice how fucked up and screwed the world is, where muh mentally healthy people are defending cuties on Netflix and shoving 3D smart neon dildos up their asses. This reference please shit is the worst fucking form of cope, like if Buzzfeed defended Ted tomorrow would that be a proof enough for you to believe? kys