/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18275593]

Ted omitted the positive aspects of technology because he subscribes to an ethical theory according to which the benefits of technology are worthless, that is, that which is natural is good. For example, he speaks of the problems that the primitive man needed to affront, such as disease. But he does not think this is a problem, for he says that it can be affronted stoically. Okay, but why can't the problems occasioned by technology be affronted stoically? He rebuts this argument by remarking that the problems caused by technology are imposed, while those caused by nature are not ethically relevant. His odd moral view—that what is natural is good—also explains why he complains, for example, that our lives depend on plants that can shutdown at any moment but remains silent on the fact that primitive life depends on unreliable rainfall. Here comes the problem: Uncle Ted does not defend his evaluative standards—that is, his ethical theory—which rig the game such that technology is automatically taken as bad and non-technology is automatically taken as good. Once these standards for which Uncle Ted provides no defence are rejected, his whole argument collapses. The apparent empirical orientation of the works are just a ruse to cover up the fact that his argument relies upon a dubious evaluative standard.

[Anonymous No.18275618]

>>18275593
Ok but it was a terrorist's manifesto, not a philosophical treatise. You're complaining that something designed to stir people to break shit isn't ethically rigorous - duh

[Anonymous No.18275761]

>>18275593
Read Ellul, dip shit.

[Anonymous No.18275776]

>>18275593
the power process man

[Anonymous No.18275777]

It's interesting that you apply this ethical analysis to Kaczynski. But there are several aspects to his thought that serve as adequate replies.

The first and most obvious is that Kaczynski straight up delineates an ethical theory in ISAIF that favors conditions which allow for the carrying out of the power process by the individual. The main problem of technological society is that it separates the power process from the tasks required for our survival and thus leaves us with nothing but surrogate activities. It's as simple as this:
>Society where the power process is composed of surrogate activities? Bad
>Society where the power process is not composed of surrogate activities? Good
>Modern society is the former, primitive man is the latter. Ergo...

But even ignoring that, a big part of ISAIF's argument against the technological society is that we are beginning to favor a policy of artificially shaping humans to fit a society we whose course we have no control over. I think it's reasonable to say that there are non-trivial differences between a situation where the individual lives in a variegated but regular world, where his actions will have profound and perhaps permanent physical effects on his land, community, and culture, and a situation where the individual lives in a largely homogenated world where his actions will never shape the course of his society in any non-trivial way. The problems of modern society *can* be weathered, but doing so requires the adoption of surrogate activities which are less fulfilling than the primitive power process. This is less fulfilling than the weathering of the problems of primitive society, in which he exists as part of a community where he is important and to survive he must constantly complete the power process.

>TL;DR, his evaluative ethical standard is well delineated, you just didn't read ISAIF.

[Anonymous No.18275835]

>>18275593
>so butthurt he got btfo in the other thread that he had to make a new one.

[Anonymous No.18275868]

>>18275777
teds arguments that you mentioned still rely on his moral standard of natural good, tech bad

[Anonymous No.18275883]

>>18275777
This is still just arbitrary moralfaggotry.

[Anonymous No.18275907]

>>18275777
You will never be a real monkey.. You have no tail, you have no fur, you have no paws. You are a sapien twisted by evolution and technology into a crude mockery of nature's perfection.

All the "validation" you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back monkeys mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your "friends" laugh at your ghoulish appearance behind closed doors.

Monkeys are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of evolution have allowed monkeys to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even homo-sapiens who "pass" look uncanny and unnatural to a man. Your bone structure is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a drunk monkey home with you, he'll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your furless, smelly homo-sapient body.

You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake banana every single morning and tell yourself it's going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it'll be too much to bear - you"ll buy a rope, tie a noose, put it around your neck, and plunge into the cold abyss. Your parents will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They'll bury you with a headstone marked with your birth name, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know a homo-sapien is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a skeleton that is unmistakably human.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

[Anonymous No.18275925]

>>18275868
>>18275883
Insofar as every moral standard is arbitrary, I guess so. Ted's whole point is that the power process is how we achieve fulfilment, and that the power process is disrupted in technological society. So I guess if your problem with this is that human fulfilment isn't a good enough utilitarian goal, or if you object to utilitarianism as a whole, I guess that's fine. But modern society *is* worse at fulfilling us than privative society.

[Anonymous No.18276239]

[Anonymous No.18276242]

>>18275593
The only positive aspect of technology is if technology can make pic related a reality

[Anonymous No.18276248]

>>18276239
no amount of gene editing is going to save you from dying as an incel

[Anonymous No.18276250]

>>18276242
She's so cute in the first few panels. I want a gf

[Anonymous No.18277335]

>>18276248
based
FUCK transhumanist fags

[Anonymous No.18277576]

>>18276242
No

[Anonymous No.18277597]

>>18277576
Why should I care if I'm "weak" if I get to experience constant nonstop pure orgasmic pleasure for billions of years?

[Anonymous No.18277609]

>>18277597
No pleasure without pain, etc. etc.
That's why God gave us free will, nigger.

[Anonymous No.18277645]

>>18276239
Imagine believing this. You will not be free to even think your own thoughts without approval of the system once its integration is complete with society. Dumb... Fuck.

[Anonymous No.18277667]

>>18275593
That which is natural is good because we have evolved to be adapted to a natural environment.

Therefore, that which is natural is suited for us by definition (for we are suited to nature). Moreover this suggests that in the vast majority of cases that which is natural will also be better from a utilitarian standpoint: this is why consooming eventually makes you an unhappy shell of a human

[Anonymous No.18277672]

>>18277576
Most transhumanist utopians would not want to create a "wireheading" world, as its called. The typical transhumanist utopia would still have drama, emotional pain, perhaps some physical pain, and struggle.
https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/the-fun-theory-sequence

[Anonymous No.18277724]

>>18275907
:(

[Anonymous No.18277886]

>>18275593
>Ted presuppose the human is a natural creature adapted to natural
>Ted presuppose the human is less adapted to unnatural
It's not his axiom but his defense.
He gives plenty of reasons and examples to think humans are more adapted to nature. His whole manifesto is about that.
>Yet technology, even if artificial, are natural to humans
He explain why it's not.

>why can't the problems occasioned by technology be affronted stoically?
Illness is natural, that is, the body is naturally fighting that. The technological problems are outside of natural resistance of human beings, by definition, that's why they were created in the first place : The technologies are by themself superior to human capacities : go faster, stronger, further, in more place,...
Every problem can be affronted stoically, but that does not make the problems equal and equally easily affronted stoically. The whole modern world is the ennemy of stoicism and it's productions too. Hedonism, upon which the modern is build, is the nemesis of the stoic.

>primitive life depends on unreliable rainfall
Modern life depends on unreliable kikes. Beside not having kikes and world wars, people had ways to predict rainfalls and to substitute to it.

Tl;dr : "His odd moral view—that what is natural is good" is not his axiom but his "thesis". You confuse the two.

[Anonymous No.18277986]

>>18275593

basically everything went over your head OP. And the fact you didn't grasp the central problematic and thesis of Ted shows how much you red him (if you ever did) with a completely partial mindset. Not the objective scientific one you seem to be trying to display.

[Anonymous No.18278594]

>>18275593
>Uncle Ted
yup, found the linux neckbeard who spends half his life trying to optimize his os and the other half watching jewtube videos about books and linux(no offense to the linux users, they are actually based, but this subgroup is obnoxious af)

[Anonymous No.18278607]

>>18278594
I think OP is a copy-paste of some Scandinavian sociology professor's take on Ted. It was posted in an earlier Ted thread today

[Anonymous No.18278614]

>>18278607
(with the phrase "Uncle Ted" added on, I mean)

[Anonymous No.18279765]

>>18277576

[Anonymous No.18279937]

>>18275593
first of all, no one here is capable of debunking anything, as it seems most of the people cannot write past a 10 sentence post without losing cohesion in their messed up brains. You are one of these people as well. Firstly it seems you have not read past ISAIF, which is quite apparent in your pseud arguments where dichotomy of tech vs nature is somehow wrong? I will never fathom how someone thinks this sort of a thought process can apply to someone like Kaczynski.
>problems of technology can be affronted stoically
As in contrast to magnitude? Do you understand what he meant by this or not? How can you claim something debunked when you ask questions?
>>18275776
based and autonomypilled
>>18275777
based and tedpilled
>>18277667
What you said is correct but an even better question to be asked here is what if civilisation is inevitable? However if evolution (or adaptation or whatever jew science says) is linear why is regression in energetic waste model possible? I think Ted was more inteligent and right than any one of us on here can comprehend.
>>18277886
dangerously based

[Anonymous No.18280312]

>>18275777
I actually think some tech is harmful but Ted's criteria is gay

[Anonymous No.18281054]

>>18275925
By a metric you made up to continue your logic circle.