• Human beings evolved under primitive,low-tech conditions. This is our natural state of existence.
• Present technological society is radically different than our natural state, and imposes unprecedented stresses upon us, and on nature.
• Technologically-induced stress is bad now and will get much worse, leading to a condition where humans will be completely manipulated and molded to serve the needs of the system. Such a state of affairs is undignified, abhorrent, disastrous for nahlre, and profoundly dehumanizing.
• The technological system cannot be fixed or reformed so as to avoid this dehumanized future .
• Therefore, the system must be brought to an end
pay debts you turd
>>79533615
Biology adapts to environments.
Stop being a faggot.
>>79533615
Just because you can't pay denbts doesn't mean we should go back to living in the jungle.
I thought Greece was already in the stone age??
>>79533860
Yep, that's why when you drop a fish in boiling water it grows thicker scales to survive
>>79533615
We need to go back to a more natural way of life ala the Amish. Excess hormones and chemicals in industrial goods are cucking Western men.
>>79533722
>>79533960
>>79534074
not an argument
>>79533860
The logic is sound. However, we are free to challenge any of the premises. Perhaps we did not evolve under low-tech conditions-maybe God created humans 6,000 years ago. Perhaps modern technology is, in some sense, not an aberrant condition but is really our "natural state." Perhaps the stresses of modern life will not get worse. Perhaps reform is possible. Perhaps revolution, though justified, is futile
>>79533615
Yup, all of that is true. At least give credit where credit is due - Ted Kaczynski's book. And if you didn't read it, you should.
>>79533860
>Biology adapts to environments.
Not as fast as technology develops, the adaptation will be artificial the moment we'll be able to manipulate genes, and will only cause further restrictions of freedoms, i.e. mandatory gene treatment and so on.
In any case we are today not in the condition that we were evolved in, meaning we live in an unnatural environment by all means.
>>79534478
I am currently reading it, going carefully through it so I don't go through an existential crisis and get depressed all the sudden
>>79534669
I wasn't as clever as you are. This book is extremely, overwhelmingly demoralizing.
>>79534669
Greece sucks ass bruh, all your hot bitches died out after the Turks raped the living fuck outta ya. I wouldn't come down on any of their chimneys or fill their stockings. Yuck!
t. Santa
>>79533860
And the environment demands us to be low IQ, easily manipulated, docile, obedient, good goy slaves. Face it, humanity is over. We're no longer humans. We're r-selected cattle animals, bred for only one purpose, to serve the Jew
>>79533615
>So
>many
>assumptions
such little fact
>>79535675
I don't see any counter arguments or debunking fuckboy
We did evolve in an environment that is very different from technological society, and we do live in an environment that is different than the one that shaped us into humans.
The technological society does change human behavior to the point where it's very different from natural behaviour, and there is a change in human psyche accordingally.
If current trends will continue, humans will indeed have no choice but to change themselves to be compatible with the system they have built.
>>79533615
well you as a greek could always drop out of society and solely live off a diet of your bodyhair
>>79533615
go live in africa you bottom feeder if you do not like technology,its called evolution through means you illiterate roach.
>>79536063
>Oy vey you stupid goy! Stop stepping out of line!
>>79536299
You didn't post one argument you literal retard, only personal attacks on flags - like the majority of the thread. For the record supporting this system is being the goodest of the goys.
>>79533615
inb4 mass exodus from society
>>79536715
I don't think it's even necessary. The main problem is that all technology looks beneficial at the time(and it is) but restricts freedoms overtime. So humans will comply out of pragmatism and the next generations will already be born with the technological advancements when they are spread enough to restrict their freedoms.
When gene treatment or deus ex esque augmentations will be available, they will at first be accepted by some, and overtime will become necessary to get a job, move around, etc.
>>79536446
>Oy vey my manipulation mind tricks aren't working! Get in line and be a good goy!!! NOW!!!
Who ever wields the first SuperHuman AI will essentially be a god amongst men. I dont think AI will ever develop sentience or conscienceness like a human, as the human brain is a product of evolution and biological imperatives that dont exist for a compiter/Robot, but it will become better than Humans in all intellectual endeavours. It will be like weilding the ring of Power I think. Just like the Ring of Power in Tolkiens universe, superhuman AI will corrupt those that weilds it power and it will eventually lead to a techno-dystopian future.
>>79537101
Delete post
>>79537310
![825[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aSejlli.jpg "825[1].jpg")
>>79536190
>evolution through means
Eternal slavery for the jews, unless you have enough power to change technology to do what you want, but you don't - hence you will always be a slave untill you die.
PAY DEBNTS REEEEE
>>79533615
Yeah, shure...
Tell that to medieval farmers.
>>79537352
My post still applies, I think what'll bring a techno-dystopian future is that people will comply with all technological advancements out of pragmatism and due to propaganda, not that a single organization will enforce it.
>>79537521
who worked less then "modern" farmers.
>Technologically-induced stress is bad now and will get much worse
citation needed
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.
>>79537577
>Yes goy no one organization will enforce it!
>>79537577
I think your prediction would be the best case scenario tho. Throughout Human history, everytime a revolutionary technology is developed, whether that was metallurgy(bromze age/iron age) or advamcement in energy(discovery of fire, splitting the atom) we tend to use these techs for warfare to secure resources, before we use them to better our soceties. So theres a good chance that your scenario wont happen since the powers that be, are keen on using AI as a way to consolidate their power or to protect their nation from other rogue or autocratic nations who may be using AI to further their own expansionist agendas. AI will become the Ring Of Power of the 21st/22nd century.
>>79533615
>>79537818
OP arrived at Ted's conclusion 20 years late.
http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt
>>79533615
Why do you think this undignified state of affairs is bad?
How is our technological society going to lead to this state of affairs to being with?
Can you demonstrate that the system in fact cannot be fixed or reformed?
>>79533615
>reddit formatting
>unironical anti-technological reactionaryism in 2016
dont do this
>>79537310
>computers are magic
pls shut up you dont even know how to operate your own PC
>>79538746
>Why do you think this undignified state of affairs is bad?
When humans are put in conditions that are unnatural to them, they become uncomfortable. Today's society has much more mental dysfunctions such as anxiety, boredom, depression, so on.
You barely have any autonomy in today's society. You can choose what to study generally but the specific topic will be picked for you, you can choose a career but will still have to listen to your boss, you can open a business and will have to comply with regulations and red tape.
There is no true process of autonomically attaining goal you put up for yourself, and there are much less freedoms than humans are used to.
>How is our technological society going to lead to this state of affairs to being with?
For example:
Cars are invented, at first they are used freely by people who can choose whether they want to buy them or not. No one in his right mind will argue that it's not a positive advancement.
After some time the system adopts to their existence, roads are built, and the system relies on fast travel to function better.
This has lead to a couple of things:
1.Humans no longer have a true freedom of movement. They can not move in the 360 degrees they were evolved with, but only on roads or sidewalks - this is undoubtedly unnatural.
2.Humans no longer have the freedom of not owning a car. The adaptation of the system means that things are much further away from each other, certainly not a walking distance. You have to use a vehicle if you want to have a job, go to a bar, visit friends and so on - this is a restriction on freedoms.
This happened with any and all kinds of technological advancements.
>>79533615
>it is le unnatural he says on a world wide computer network sitting in his comfy house eating his mass produced food and statistically likely only alive because of modern medical technology
feel free to fuck off and live in a bush
>>79533615
...ok
>>79539577
>Whats a metaphor
Are all leafs this retarded?
>>79540163
OOOOoooOOOOOoooOoYYYyyYYYYYYYYyYYYYyyyY VEY!
>Pic related this triggers the jew
>>79540163
You're literally free to go live out in the woods alone at any point you want and be free from technology that directly affects your life
>>79533615
I understand master Socrates.
We were created by nature, and thus anything we do has been ordained by nature. There is nothing unnatural about the current state, nor will there ever be anything unnatural about any future states. Humanity is nature's greatest achievement.
>>79540689
Actually you aren't, since those woods are owned by someone, and thus it's illegal for you to be on them. If they are your woods, then it means its your property, which means you need to be paying taxes on it, which you can't do if you're living in the woods with no job, so you again will be doing something illegal by not paying taxes.
>>79540689
Yes, I know, I can go live in solidarity in the wild, alone forever. Oh, what joy, thank you for presenting this amazing alternative to me. It's not like humans are social creatures or something that need society and can be concerned about it's future.
>>79540807
That is only philosophically true, in practice we live very unnatural lives if you define naturality as the environment which has created us through evolution.
>• Human beings evolved under primitive,low-tech conditions. This is our natural state of existence.
>• Therefore, the system must be brought to an end
retarded. our present world has different selection pressures and continues to produce people better fit to survive today, just like selection pressures 5,000 years ago resulted in people suited to those conditions.
but feel free to go live in the forest if you think YOU'RE the same as a hardy resilient humans from those times. hint: you're not
>>79540972
>we live very unnatural lives if you define naturality as the environment which has created us through evolution.
evolution and adaptation doesn't stop just because we exist in our current state. this is ALL part of and is 100% defined by evolution
>>79533615
Thank you Mr Unabomber
White men have created industrial civilization. Therefore it is in their nature.
I'll agree it isn't in 'human's' nature though.
>>79540927
There is an astonishing amount of wilderness that people have no clue about what goes on in. You may not own the land, but you can still live off of it. Moreover, owning the land shouldn't matter to you anyways because land ownership is a symptom of society, as is technology. And all the problems you've mentioned so far stem from society. Technologic advancement is just a logical conclusion of society.
>>79541046
Also, you are all going to the ridiculous extreme of go live in the forest alone. The argument is that the technological system is harmful, not that all technology is. Technology is obviously beneficial you retard, building society around technological advancements is not.
>>79541137
>>79541182
"We are animals so everything we do is natural" is a non argument. We did not evolve since the 18th century, we are not made for technological society.
>>79541182
the world's first civilizations weren't anglos.
>>79540972
Then again, your main issue is society. Once humans made societies, everyone had to buy into it or not. For instance, you might see the lack of freedom and problems with transportation technology as an issue, but most people in society don't at all, otherwise roads, millions of cars, etc wouldn't exist.
>>79540163
Yes, what you listed sounds quite bad for the individual, but you cannot deny that under these (unnatural) conditions humanity will, sooner or later, evolve into something that would be more accepting of them. Would you (or whatever neo-luddite branch you're representing) consider this end result bad as well? Why or why not?
And thanks for clarification, I can see how someone could assume that technology leads to restriction of freedom. Now the question is, does it mean that this restriction is necessary for any and all technology (if so, why) or can we somehow have the technology while keeping our freedom intact? Can you not at all envision a system where you could have both?
I've known this since I was 17 and I've been extremely unmotivated ever since. I literally want the world to burn unironically.
How do you guys cope?
We are righteous animals.
It has always been in our instinct to destroy stuff.
Not because we are bad, but because we feel that we are inherently good and anyone who doesn't agree with us is evil.
Well, evil has to be destroyed.
Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing.
So rally you pitchforks, brexiters. Crush the remainers before they flood the country with immigrants. Remainers, sharpen your blades as the brexiters will destroy the country through ignorance and sheer stupidity!
Remember, both of you are right and the other side is evil.
Now everyone, repeat after me - WE ARE GOOD. WE WILL STOP EVIL.
>>79533615
>using philosophy to argue that man needs to return to a primitive state
>>79533615
Oil is finite. The system can only exist with oil.
It will sort itself out within a century and we will have maybe 10% the energy use we enjoy today. 1,000 kwh per year instead of 10,000.
>>79540163
>generations upon generations of brilliant humans making discoveries, answering problems, curing diseases and improving the condition of human life across the globe at an explosive, accelerating rate
>some guy on 4chan is mad about not having a car, so all that shit is a mistake
Disgusting.
>>79533860
I don't think you actually understand how evolution works.
If you've already got the ability to survive, you survive and produce more like you.
If you don't, you die, and are never known of afterwards.
Most humans sit in that second category.
>>79542234
Research perovskite solar cells and Thorium reactors. Oil will be replace and this system will be even more entrenched in the future.
>>79533615
appeal to nature fallacy
>>79541668
As I said, people have no choice but to comply. First generations accept new technologies because they are indeed beneficial, later generations are born into a system that has already adapted to the technologies. To say that roads and millions of cars all exist because the majority of society wants them, while the majority of society is forced to use them seems to be a weak argument.
>>79541696
The only way that humanity can evolve as fast as technology does is artificially, which means, that new technologies that change the nature of men will be invented. As I said the nature of new technologies is to force themselves upon the people, which means that people will be forced to artificially change themselves. This is a restriction of freedom, not to mention that it's playing with fire. I don't see it as a positive.
It happens with all technologies because the current system is always pragmatically makes itself more efficient, adapting to those technologies is what ultimately causes the restriction of freedoms. So I'd say that it's unavoidable for any and all technologies that can benefit the systems efficiency.
The way we can keep our freedom intact, is to completely change the system, fundamentally, to a system where every new technology is viewed as a serious potential danger - quite the opposite of today's system. I'm sure I can envision such a system but it will rely on a moral structure that can break, while the technologies will keep existing, silently waiting.
I think that is the reason OP mentioned that it cannot be reformed, and needs to be revolutionized - reform is simply too little too late.
>>79533615
kill yourself, malaka.
>>79542234
>implying engines are only capable of running on oil
>implying the people behind prohibition didn't enact it for the purpose of making it illegal for people to use ethanol as fuel.
>implying the oil industry isnt a scam and oil isnt an extremely outdated energy source.
Shlomo, pls stop.
>>79541916
>How do you guys cope?
Out of spite. Also, future generations might start an anti materialist movement when looking for something to rebel against.
>>79542155
Nothing was said about primitivity, only about the fact that tech shapes our society to it needs, while it supposed to be the opposite.
>>79542516
Welcome to the social contract. Enjoy your fucking stay because you're stuck here. FOREVER.
>>79535140
there are still some pretty cute girls tho pablo. you will find mongrels in even country.
Also the armenoid influence in Greece (aka turks) is a small percentage of the population. It sadly exists nevertheless.
>>37777777>>37777777
Shiiiieeeetttt >>79542516
Oy vey
>>79542434
>Research perovskite solar cells and Thorium reactors.
I have. What i could not find in any of my research was a cost-projection for supplanting petrochemical energy. Renewables are 20% of the grid. What is the cost of replacing the other 80% and any growth in the time period of the project?
>Oil will be replace and this system will be even more entrenched in the future.
How does solar and nuclear power give us a cheap supply of nitrates for fertilizer? What technologies are there to replace the myriad of other uses for petrochemicals?
Frankly, the only fiscally sound option is to reduce our energy usage so drastically that we don't have to depend on nigh-impossible schemes of replacing the entire world's infrastructure when we can live on what is actually available and go from there. It's far better than the alternative.
>>79542815
I know, and I'll cope, easily. We're still gonna fuck ourselves over if we continue like this.
>>79541361
It's not about owning the land. You didn't understand my post. There is no land you can use that isn't owned by someone else or yourself. If you use someone's land that is trespassing and will land you in prison. You cannot just go live off the land somewhere without paying for it.
>>79542831
I've been watching you Mohammad al buzzeli and this year you've been really really naughty(; you're on my bad list and need a spanking since you're so naughty. I know what you've been up to, spreading those Turkish genes all over Greece(; that's why I don't eat their cookies anymore
>>79542957
The last 12,000 years of human history suggest otherwise.
We fuck any problem that comes against us in the ass one way or another with enough time.
>>79542672
>>implying engines are only capable of running on oil
Is there a fiscally sound means of making liquid energy that i am not aware of? Biofuels again? We didn't waste enough time and energy on ethanol?
>implying the people behind prohibition didn't enact it for the purpose of making it illegal for people to use ethanol as fuel.
They really didn't have to. Alcohol sucks as a fuel. We use gasoline because it is more efficient.
>implying the oil industry isnt a scam and oil isnt an extremely outdated energy source.
The modern world only exists because of the petrochemical singularity. Every idiot who believes in the techno-god singularity only does so because of the progress made possible in the last century by cheap and abundant energy.
But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Oil is running out, and we don't have enough money in the world to replace it.
>>79534478
What's the book's name?
>>79533615
I actually agree to a point. Society needs to collapse and we need to go back in the woods. Only way to beat the globalist elites is to make their money worthless.
I'm going into the woods if hillary wins since I'm in Alaska. Take my dirt bike, camping shit and rifle and a bunch of alcohol. Winter is going to suck but better than paying taxes to that cunt.
BRING ON THE EMPS OP
>>79542983
Kek, you're a fucking idiot. People do it all the time. Private property should be avoided by government property is fine. In Alaska they'd never even know you were out there.
Sorry, I know people like you love being know it alls but you're full of shit bro.
>>79543197
>he doesn't understand WHY that happened
>he literally thinks we just evolved like a pokemon one day and were smart and modern.
Human productivity is directly tied to energy. When you only have the energy of the human body, you can only grow so much food. Learn to use livestock and you get more, water wheels and you get more, steam machines and you get more, oil and you get more.
It's not exponential. Nothing is. The last new energy source we discovered was photovoltaics in 1893.
Deus ex machina isn't saving us. IRL isn't a comic book.
>>79533615
Denbts. Pay them.
>>79542923
No you havent.
Perovskite solar cells have the potential to be more cost compettive that coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/dec/18/game-changing-perovskite-solar-tech-could-be-cheaper-and-more-efficient
We have enough Throium in the earths crust to last 50,000 years.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2014/02/will-thorium-save-us-from-climate-change/
We have abundant supply of oil, but these sources of oil are expensive to extract, but once we will be able to develop cheap renewable energy like Thorium reactors or perovskite cells, we could extract the remaining crude , for fertilizers and other purposes.
>>79543197
You are talking about things like population growth, life spans and other pragmatic issues while I argue that despite the fact that we are indeed pragmatic, we don't live in an environment that is natural to us and the stress and lack of sovereignty it puts on the individual harms him.
Humans no longer can choose the course of their lives or the nature of their existence, not to the slightest. We don't move, talk, eat, work, study or fuck the way we were evolved to. You think it's a good thing that is worth the benefits, I disagree.
>>79543350
Industrial Society and It's Future
>>79534152
It does given enough time. See fish and crustation thriving around deep water volcanic vents. Temperatures hot enough to burn your skin.
>>79533615
Varg Vikersandria is that you?
Neo-Luddite garbage.
>>79534152
sure
>>79544157
Pro-tech garbage Mexibeaner alert.
>>79534152
>American education
>>79543770
But if how we used to move, talk, eat, work, etc. was so great, why did we move away from it? Why didn't we just continue doing that forever?
>>79544242
>brazilian education everyone.
>>79542516
So then our beautiful artificially engineered future human to which freedom is not even defined or applicable as a concept is a negative? Regardless of whether current humanity evolves into this future form naturally or through technology, why is it such a bad thing? I can see you don't like it and that you put much value into freedom, but think about it. Have humans ever had any freedom to begin with? Back in the hunter-gatherer days the choice was simple: stay with the pack, or die alone. Fast forward to agriculture: stay bound to your land, or die alone. Fast forward to urbanization or whatever: buy a car, or die alone. We only have to fast forward a little bit more in what seems like quite well-defined trend to get to the dreaded: get subcutaneously implanted with a tracking beacon, or die alone. You prefer one certain blend of the same old shit, and I must ask you why.
About the pragmatic nature of technology, sure that's the case when it's allowed to develop on its own in a free-market-like fashion. But what if we regulate it? People are all for regulating the markets, you'd think the idea of regulating the technology would be quite popular. A regulated deregulation so to speak.
And about the evil technology lurking in the dark, waiting, surely even if we roll back to early paleolite, there is still the danger of somebody clever inventing all that shit back again, as, if you think about, it was exactly the conditions of those olden days that brought about the whole chain of events up to this day.
>>79543739
>have the potential
Thank you for being honest.
I find your link to be insufficient evidence, since it is just a layman's article that barely says anything. My opinion does not really matter in the grand scheme of things, but i will not reconsider my opinion until i see some actual installations using perovskite and their final costs. Just some preliminary googling and all i'm finding is a shitload of empty hype. just like you see with graphene, the grant printing machine. There's a lot of advertising going on.
Thorium, as far as i am aware, is not nearly as energy dense as other radioisotopes and it is less cost-efficient and is also overhyped by people desperate for an easy solution.
>We have abundant supply of oil
You can't know that. The actual numbers are state secrets.
>but once we will be able to develop cheap renewable energy like Thorium reactors or perovskite cells
Again, unless you have a cost-projection for the replacement of fossil fuels, including our vehicles, then i do not think you have sufficient evidence to make your claims. I am not saying it is impossible, i am saying i am skeptical.
>>79533615
don't worry my heavilly indebted greek friend.
climate change will ensure the system dissolves into food riots, warfare, and wholesale slaughter. its just a matter of time.
are you prepping? you should be.
>>79543197
>>79544349
I said it a million times, technology is always beneficial when it's introduced, and always restricts freedom when it's wide spread.
What restricts freedom is not cars, but the distance you have to travel and the limitation on the speed and direction of your travel. What restricts freedoms is not phones, but the fact that you have to use them.
Technology is great, and the ways we developed to do things are more efficient, but the way the system adapted to them is not, for the individual.
>>79544544
The difference between pre and post urbanized humanity is that we still lived naturally, and we were satisfied psychologically. Maintaining a field around your hut does not fundamentally change the nature of your everyday life, it's de facto gathering.
You still had autonomy to a large extent, and with smaller societies you had more room to revolt against systems that put pressure on you. you can barely revolt against the current system, and you have ways to function without ever revolting, like medication and so on.
The fact that we were always social creatures is not my problem here, I know I live in a society, my problem here is the reengineering of man for the continuation of a system that I do not support, a system that has no reason to exist but to feed itself to become more efficient. The same system that is bringing Globalism now for the sake of efficiency, robbing nations of their culture and identity. My problem is that soon enough people will be robbed of their identity too for the sake of efficiency.
Yes, we could regulate technology, but again, I think we'd need to fundamentally change the way we see pragmatism in society, which means cultural revolution rather than a mere reform. I'm not hopeless, it could happen.
If we fundamentally change the way we see pragmatism, the next clever person that will invent new technology will be much more careful with introducing it into society, and it will be regulated, and society itself will be careful.
>>79543739
Okay and now after even further research i find that the achilles heel of this perovskite is that it degrades very rapidly in the presence of light, water, and air.
Why did you neglect to mention that? How the shit are we going to fix that? mass synthesizing of some probably radioactive isotope that doesn't react with light and the atmosphere?
Damn man, you had me going there for a second. I thought this shit might have promise.
>>79542425
You're disgusting, I hope you get cancer freak for being so disgusting.
>>79540443
sure buddy
>>79542425
>the ends justify the means.
I don't know but is anyone else just tired of all this shit? Every time I see a commercial where some smug looking "hip" nerd advertises some new product or talks about trending on twitter or whatever the fuck, I just want to punch him in the face.
I want out. Fuck everything.
>>79547265
Yeah. Don't watch TV mate, it's infuriating, I haven't been able to watch ads since I was little.
>>79533615
>The technological system cannot be fixed
begging the question -> not an argument
>>79533615
>Oh boy its another anarcho-primitivism episode
- The point of technology is to enhance survival.
- We're one of a few species to use tools
- We're the only species to use tools beyond sticks, stones, and fire
- We're the only species continuously seeking out new technology despite biological requirements to life already being met
- Therefore we're unique on the planet, perhaps the universe, and our evolutionary fate is wildly different than 99.99999999% of species that ever has, or ever will, evolve on Earth
- If we abandon technology, our chance of a near-future species extinction increases to almost 100%
- It's also impossible you will never convince the entire species to abandon technology, as the ones who maintain it will have a decisive evolutionary edge
- Abandoning technology is therefore not just immoral, but impractical and impossible
You can sit on a hippie commune and pick worms off your organic tomatoes if that's what you want, but humanity is clearly bound for the stars and you're not going to be able to stop it.
>>79547653
Wow what a nice collection of strawmen
>>79545569
You probably don't believe that being satisfied psychologically because you live naturally, or because you've changed your psyche to adapt to new reality, or because you're taking magical drugs that make you satisfied are all the same thing and are indistinguishable neurologically.
You should read up on agricultural societies - the nature of everyday life changed dramatically. Virtually all the vices of current society didn't exist until agriculture hit. How much room for revolt and autonomy you had is debatable, but it was pretty ruthless back then. You could easily say it was way worse for the average man than it is now because he didn't even have time to think up metrics like psychological satisfaction.
But regardless of these semantics, the most important question is, why shouldn't we embrace this new efficient globalized world? Why losing your identity is a bad thing in the first place? I mean we didn't do anything wrong - we live and function according to what we evolved to do. We didn't gain or suffer from anything that wasn't a direct consequence of the original conditions. If this is the next logical step that we make with our brains that evolved in the primordial times and with the laws of pragmatism which made evolution itself possible, if this is the destination our path takes us to, why should we deny it? I understand you don't support the system etc etc, but is there a reason behind your preference, reason big enough to potentially deny us colonization of outer space?
>>79537818
Also true of the agricultural revolution to a lesser degree. Anthropologists pretty much agree that before that people had a higher quality of life with more autonomy
>>79547811
Declaring 'strawman' with no evidence is a strawman
>>79542234
Why would you think this? Nuclear and alternate sources will compensate. If consumption went that far down there would be a reduction in profits that corporations in our state capitalist system would not allow. They will all switch to different shit when oil is gone
>>79547653
>we abandon technology, our chance of a near-future species extinction increases to almost 100%
So no change then for our current sans nuclear disarment tragectory then, ok
>>79548185
Abolishing the technological system does not imply primitivism nor anarchism. We can achieve space colonization while still having societies that keep freedoms and do not force people to live unnatural lives. Not sacrificing those things for efficiency does not mean that we abolish technological advancement, only that we make sure that people will not be forced to comply with the whims of the system for the sake of efficiency, and base our technology on societies actual needs instead of basing our societies duties on what technologies have developed.
>>79547961
I guess that's where we just have fundamental ideological differences, I don't believe that this strive for efficiency will end well, I think it's mostly hubris and that we should not force ourselves to evolve, and that pragmatism is not the highest value there is. Not to mention centralization of power over the whole world and so on is very dangerous.
The way I see it, we have big dreams that will lead to self destruction, unless we take a step back and recalculate our trajectory. We are in a hurry for no reason.
Who should we vote for if we just want to watch society burn
>>79548323
>Nuclear and alternate sources will compensate
It's going to be very expensive to build 18 terawatts of nuclear power generation.
I do not think there is enough money in the world to afford the change, especially if oil prices start to increase, which they inevitably must.
>>79549346
This. I like technology but I resent this zealous religious faith that technology can never be limited or planned, as in Elon Musk's shilling for autonomous vehicles.
>>79549346
Oh, no I don't actually subscribe to this kike ideology, just thought maybe you could provide some overwhelming argument I could later use myself. If you are to ever hope for a better society with well-regulated technology, it would help if you could convincingly make your case to all those other people which more often than not don't even notice that something is amiss and in the worst case are already entirely dependent on their generation of handy gadgets and cheap services.
>>79549574
Its state capitalism. There's no way it can be cost prohibitive because the companies making the change own the government that controls their purchaseing power
>>79550356
Well, my main argument is the restriction of freedoms and the unnatural way of life in technological society.
You asked me for an overwhelming argument for not giving up your identity for the sake of a system that only restricts your freedoms and makes you mentally ill. Most people would not be comfortable with the idea naturally once they think about the way this system operates and the immense power they will get from globalization and from being able to dictate fundamental human nature.
>>79549383
seriously who will just wipe us all out the fastest
>>79550935
No one, it'll most probably be a slow death. I think you should stop hating society and just distance yourself from it if it's bothering you, or at least from all the things in it that bother you. I'm guessing that you live in a city, move to a rural area, do some woodwork or painting, work at a farm, get some sunshine, you know.
