Does modern medicine make up for wage slavery?

technology is inevitable. It will be picked up on again after the revolution, assuming a successful one is even possible anymore without nuclear war levels of collateral damage, which is highly unlikely

Technological progress cannot be stopped and it is our death drive. We are Power. Our becoming is Power. Power and Terror.

there are too many people in this world, we are choked with ghosts

Attached: F40AED2F-D49A-4D52-AC96-B2BBEBB08645.jpg (575x804, 83K)

>against Kaczynski
Please read John Zerzan or Derrick Jensen if you want primitivist thought. Please, I'm begging you, the Unabomber is a brainlet.

Kaczynski tears brainlet Zerzan apart in The Truth about Primitive Life

Attached: unabomber_'critiques'_zerzan.gif (271x224, 2M)

>If it survives, it can't be wrong, regardless of how it survives.

Attached: Science is Memes.jpg (1912x1151, 459K)

Zerzan lol. Jensen lol What a laugh!

Those guys are jokes; intellectual cockroaches compared to Kaczynski.

>He ignores the fact that medicine will almost certainly cure the vast manority of genetic disease within the century

What evidence is there for that? It's just wild speculation. And in any event the biosphere is a very delicate interconnected web of interdependent systems that have co-evolved over the course of millions of years. You artificially eliminate all diseases you seriously disrupt and inevitably destroy the system. We're seeing just the tip of the iceberg in terms of damage all around us today.

no

There's actually evidence that dental health was excellent pre-civilization.

Attached: timecop_1994_1.jpg (1920x1080, 505K)

Spotted the acceltard.

Attached: Sentience Behold Me.jpg (1280x720, 45K)

If you did a double blind anonymous study comparing Kaczynski's highly scientific, extremely lucid, logically flawless, and comprehensive writings including his two books "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution" against Zerzan and Jensen's work, the people doing the study would laugh at the idea that Jensen and Zerzan's work would be even 1/10 as truthful, as well researched and sourced, as well argued, or as well written.

I would LOVE for there to be that kind of study.

this. lol.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution_3b.jpg (1000x1500, 1.51M)

>let's use technology to prove who is the world champion of anti-tech writing!!!

Attached: lgb2000.jpg (940x705, 376K)

What does it mean to "cast" a smart phone

no one of any "genetic worth" would reproduce with that though, so it will die anyways, thereby not corrupting the gene pool.
Yea sure its fucked up, but if those people want to pay to preserve their feels and raise their teratoma as a kid, whatever.

>He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone

what if he decides to have a baby in an artifical womb with an egg donor
what then m8

umm.. . only because people like you would respect it that way. Honest, conscientious and rational people who compared their books wouldn't need a double blind study to decide.

And there's nothing wrong with using technology to destroy itself. A nuclear bomb is technology. If, hypothetically, someone used it in order to throw the world back to the stone age through a nuclear war, I see no hypocrisy.

Why not? If medical machines can keep it alive then the parents can also use its dna to reproduce in a lab, then post on virtue signal on instagram about how beautiful their granddaughter is.
Nothing opposes this in your original argument. It is a survival ethics of the amorphous grey blob.

Attached: nihilist bio-ontology.png (1366x768, 913K)

They're not wrong though. say what you want about the desirability of the accel future, but at least they're not in denial about where we're headed.

>Honest, conscientious and rational people
You've already lost.

then maybe you and the niggers of the world can put aside your differences to be racist against goblins together. whats the problem?

nothing wrong with a little ad hominem put down before I brutally destroy the logic of your argument.

>if there's even the slightest grain of truth remaining then it's good

Attached: maddy.png (515x281, 77K)

Attached: Not a JUST.png (414x441, 184K)

Attached: interdasting.jpg (625x628, 58K)

It's not a matter of denial. It's a matter of hope.

Progress isn't inevitable in the sense that old age is inevitable, it's inevitably because there is research in technological fields. If chemists and computer scientists didn't do any research, there wouldn't be any progress in computer science or chemistry etc.

Under revolutionary conditions, it's possible that such things can indeed happen.

>blaming industrial society for the enslavement brought about by agricultural society centuries prior
>blaming agricultural society for the innate death drive fostered in man by centuries of cannibalism and drug abuse
>believing that we can ever change the course of our extinction
Ted K was a fucking college kid

Attached: 514emcyy3XL._SX340_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (342x499, 32K)

lol

This. Cavities were extraordinarily rare before the agricultural revolution, simply because the kinds of complex sugars needed to fuel tooth decay aren't all that common in nature. Cavities/poor dental health starts popping up in the archeological record usually around when groups of people domesticate some kind of wheat/rice/maize crop. The sugars created during flour production help eat holes in your teeth.

this. it's basic evolution through natural selection 101.

So is Musk the greatest anti-tech writer?

Attached: muskybrain.jpg (1910x1000, 416K)

So? No one's gonna breed with it. The parents can continue to pay for their mad science experiments but it doesnt pose any threat to the rest of the population. Unless you are scared of one of the chad Goblins are gonna take your job and steal your girlfriend, in which case maybe they are the true inheritors of the earth and not you

This is just an appeal to nature, and has no more basis than the claim that Aryans are the only ones who deserve to live

Not necessarily. Industrial society usually solves the problems it created in the first place. The biggest killers today (heart disease, stroke, COPD) don't happen in populations with low fat/cholesterol diets, constant exercise, little to no air pollution, etc. Modern hunter gatherers (they exist, believe it or not) have unbelievably low rates of almost every single industrial ailment. The tradeoff? If a hunter-gatherer suffers a heart attack, they'll probably die. On the other hand, the chance they'll ever get a heart attack is one in a million.

That's not natural selection or evolution, user. We have the same amount of tooth enamel as our ancestors.

Its just another business, OP, infusion centers, radiology, and now tele-radiology. If you think capitalism is fun now, wait until they begin selling the norms of medical tourism to normies, that is if they don't just scuttle it all and the US becomes another Empire of Dust with better police forces.

As long as technology offers an advantage to certain populations/individuals over others, i dont see how youre ever going to keep that genie in the bottle forever.

Ted makes a distinction between small changes that only forestall the inevitable trend of history, and large changes that permanently alter its course, and its pretty obvious that his revolution against technology would only be the former, so long as we're humans and not animals

Imagine being this fucking retarded.

Attached: 2018_08_steven_pinker.jpg (790x350, 170K)

That wasn't my point. My point was that under primitive conditions, individuals who easily got tooth decay and quickly died would tend to be eliminated through natural selection, until a biological equilibrium was reached with the environment. It may be claimed that this selection is not operative because primitive tooth decay morbidity is caused after offspring, but those with genes that predispose them to tooth decay also tend to exhibit those symptoms during child-bearing age or before and so the general trend would be to encourage teeth to be resilient.

Premature tooth decay that leads to death--and I'm talking the kind of tooth decay that leads to a premature death when everything else about you is fine--is a biological maladaptation largely caused by civilized conditions.

explain

be nice...

Then I don't think you've really gotten into Kaczynski's work. He explains why it's the later. There are actually many thinkers who also believe that if the technological system collapsed now, it would be impossible to restart. This was the opinion of the astronomer Fred Hoyle for example.

I do think it is impossible to dismantle the technological system at this point. How would it even occur? There is no possible chance that all the world uprises at once to destroy machines. And the powerful will cling to technology and use high-tech weaponry to protect the system.

Sorry if i scared you man dw the goblins arent coming for you yet

I understood your point. There's not much data that suggests primitive people had stronger enamel than we do, which suggests that natural selection had little to do with rates of tooth decay. Modern food is laden with sugars. Primitive fare wasn't. That explains the rise in tooth decay rates. Plus, natural selection/evolution requires at least a few hundred thousand years for significant changes, and we're only about 12,000 (being generous) out from agriculture.

>that all the world uprises at once to destroy machines
you don't need this to happen.

The world is highly interconnected and interdependent, a serious disruption in one area will take down the entire system. You only need a tiny tiny tiny minority of revolutionaries. Such is the case with all world revolutions but especially with an anti-tech revolution.

You really should read the book "Anti-Tech Revolution" but after that you need to study the dynamics of revolutions, you can start by reading Trotsky's history of the Russian Revolution.

>take down the entire system
Not really though. It might kill a lot of people and set things back but you're not going to take down the entire system

I agree with you. I fail to see where we are in disagreement. My statement does not necessarily imply that "primitive people had stronger enamel than we do" as you say.

>natural selection/evolution requires at least a few hundred thousand years for significant changes,
doubt.png

Even if an entire country revolts successfully at once a powerful country like China will just move in and pick up the remnants. I don't really say how you can say a tiny minority of revolutionaries would be sufficient to take down the entire system when revolutions occur again and again throughout history without seemingly changing anything of substance.

I don't think you understand what technology is exactly. But that's another topic.

I don't think you fully understand how interdependent and precarious the situation is. The Great Depression was caused by relatively minor correction in capital markets. By serious disruption I mean the destruction of some vital resource or industrial center. Such a disaster would make the Great Depression look like a cake walk.

Rome fell, and when it fell it's organization-dependent technology was lost for more than 1000 years. there are very specific reasons why the fall of industrial society not only would be relatively easy, but would never again be able to be restarted.

You fail to understand how interdependent the global technological system is. There's going to be no "stepping-in" by China or anyone else if some major world power were to collapse today. It would lead to massive economic disruption in China, which would lead to chaos, social strife, various civil wars, the break down of civil society, infrastructure etc. etc. etc.

He doesn't explain why it's the latter. He says "we believe its the latter" while providing no reasoning. It's wishful thinking.

>collapsed now, it would be impossible to restart.
Couldn't find your Fred Hoyle ref but i'll look. I wouldn't take that bet though. There's still more than enough surface coal, iron, etc. It's conceivable that this will be the case sometime in the future, but frankly I don't even see the revolution succeeding short of nuclear war. I'm pretty sure you'll need to harness power of the system (lol) if you want to export your revolution to countries that don't want in on your suicide pact, even if it somehow succeeds locally

You have no evidence for anything you're saying. There is massive redundancy in every energy source and resource today, billions of people. What are you going to do to stop that.

What would stop the industrial revolution occurring again

Take height, for example. I'm 6'3". If I marry a tall woman our children will be tall. But that's not a change to the *whole species,* that's a change to *our children.* Even if I settle in a town with only tall people who only breed with each other, we'll create taller than average people -- but that's not a general pressure on the entire human population, and there's still the chance that some children will be born short.

Economic disruption, sure, but nothing else. China's mostly food secure and imports raw resources. So industry might stall, and people can't drive, but this isn't going to cause revolution, just a temporary war-time economy. Why would the people want revolution when this would be a massive opportunity for china to expand its power? How would they even stage a revolution against the states monopoly on arms and vast surveillance infrastructure

shut the fuck up and read/talk about something that actually matters for once

Our level of technology is dependent on our large-scale, complex, and highly organized society. If there is a breakdown in the social organization of the technology, as there was with Rome when it fell, than the technology falls to.

A power plant is not simple something that comes into thin air provided an individual has the plans to it. A power plant is dependent on a vast and complex network of social arrangements that have evolved over the course of hundreds of years.

In terms of "redundancy," there exist back-ups in, say, spare parts for power plants, or even extra power plants, but once a disruption occurs that is serious enough to break down the social order needed to operate and maintain the power plants, the problem becomes systemic enough that "redundancy" fails to help you.

The Romans no doubt had "redundancy" in that they had more than one Aquaduct leading to Rome, maybe they had teams of engineers to quickly repair or build aquaducts if there was a problem, tons of resources to allocate to make sure the water kept flowing. But once there was a breakdown in the social organization of Rome, the aquaducts fell into disrepair for over 1000 years. the entire social netword needed in order to feed, train, organize, motivate, allocate, and economically allow for "redundancy" simply wasn't there. Such is the case for modern industrial technology, except that by virtue of the fact that modern industrial technology is so much more complex, interdependent, and dependent on highly organized social arrangements, the easier collapse is than in ancient Rome. Rome relied on relatively simple organization-dependent technology. It is relatively straight-forward to teach a centurion how to mine limestone, direct him to arrange it into an aquaduct, economically feed him etc. ...In contrast, it is vastly more difficult, by virtue of the complexity involved, to maintain the highly specialized tasks needed to keep the industrial system afloat once its social arrangement breaks down.

>pic

Attached: reply guy.jpg (882x624, 72K)

>my fireplug gametes will have turned your wife's womb into a Dwarf Fortress experiment in reproductive ecology
fugging kek'd

Hope your lanklet sperm eat their wheaties, bulb-bait, because my fireplug gametes will have turned your wife's womb into a Dwarf Fortress experiment in reproductive ecology, some carnivorous sperm gobbling up the HPV and chlamydia dormant in the many rivulets and fissures threaded through her taut sleeve of herpetic scar tissue while others begin a mysterious semenal masonry where her uterine aperture is carefully closed behind whichever sperm made it in there. Should this lanklet have a healthy enough circulatory system that he can maintain an erection, and his ejaculatory response has not been crippled by any sort of pituitary mishap then my seed amassed forward your wife's uterus would fight rear guard against any and all incoming lanklet vivification agents, who in typical tallboy-head style are overconfident, and all swagger and no substance, would find themselves at the tender mercies of my berzerker swimmers, many of them veteran commandos of countless ejaculations that were successfully re-ingested so as to train the next batch of sperm to be faster and more cunning. Done at a tempo that would shock you, the sperm that lead each of my loads are like eons-old warriors from the Warhammer 40k universe. Your sperm dont stand a FUCKING chance, lurch.

I'm talking about that zero marginal cost society. What happens when basic goods become as cheap to produce as text messages or any other digital transaction? It means everything becomes really cheap .

This is an entire angle that dumbass politicians are too stupid to be aware of.

>kurzweilian capitalism
why does it sound more silly than promising the jetsons?

Zero marginal cost doesn't mean shit, it's an abuse of the economic theory that says that the price equals the marginal cost, UNDER many hypothesis. It's a limit that you cannot reach. In reality prices are much higher than the marginal cost. And it also doesn't take into account the investments in capital and the costs to maintain capital.
Plus, costs are more likely to go up, energy prices are going up (the energy required to make a google search is the same that needed to make a cup of tea, the Internet requires more energy than all the planes in the world) since renewable energies are used more. Even if you buy a tomato, you have to pay for marketing, shipping, shareholders, a fraction of the cost of the heavy machinery, a fraction of the iphone and the macbook of the farmer, etc...

bump

The problem with that is there are redundant systems of control. If federalism in the US fails and the social contract breaks down states have fully functional management systems that could step in and cut off the region from others. Military institutions are fully capable of taking over localities and some corporations will be able to step in and govern specific areas as they see fit. And while a catastrophe may see some technologies destroyed (temporarily) the most useful advances won’t go anywhere because one institution or another will grab hold of it for their own benefit.

You losers need to read Braudel. here's a summary: reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/8bypq0/reading_notes_civilization_capitalism_15th18th/

Basically, the alternative to wage slavery is Malthusianism, which is unimaginably worse. we might get to Universal Basic NEETbux at some point, but the idea that life was better pre-Industrial Revolution is completely laughable.

I would think so given the amount of free time we have these days

>He ignores the fact that medicine will almost certainly cure the vast manority of genetic disease within the century

Attached: 9AFCE8AB-3168-4709-A2F4-C7E7B126062C.jpg (1200x1090, 84K)

idk but "X and its consequences have been a disaster for Y" is an endlessly repeatable meme template. it's nearly as good as "X with Y characteristics"

What's it like to be 14 and dreaming of finger banging Rupi Rottencrotch in the music rooms storage closet? Genetics has been hyped to such an extent it is challenging to understand what is the state of the art and what is reasonable to expect in the future, except to say, if past pumped-up jams are any indication, not much, because genetics became genomics became stem cells until it was epigenetics and then CRISPR, that's what will finally land the genetics mothership, the rewriting of our nucleic and protein elements in whole, according to the best designs of...drum roll...the same people who brought you Enron and the Iraq War and Theranos and financially lucrative pharmacological solutions to extract maximum value from the cartoonishly unhealthy modern.

Tomorrow a meteorite will drop on your house
>if it dies, it cant be right , i fucking love science told me so;^D

Attached: 1555437727076.jpg (800x522, 45K)

NO such thing as wage slavery. If You're paid You're not a slave. That's all there is to It.

>He thinks hes not slave because he is paid
O I'm laffin

Attached: LMAOo.png (555x555, 256K)

African American slaves got food and places to sleep and paid in small amounts at times. Does that make them any less of slaves?

Don't you understand user? Slavery isn't real.
If the didn't like "slavery" why didn't they like walk way?

based

>Malthusianism spammer
Go back
Then KYS

Attached: 2032.jpg (300x300, 13K)

>For people into worldbuilding this tome is pure gold.

Attached: reddit premium.jpg (649x449, 101K)

if you're free you're not a slave. think your free? try surviving without wagecucking.

No. Proper economic disruption would lead to technological regression worldwide. It would postpone humanity's destruction at least 2,000 years, but possibly indefinitely. It needs to happen

reuters.com/article/us-health-europe-superbugs/drug-resistant-superbugs-are-killing-33000-in-europe-each-year-idUSKCN1NA2SD

this.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution 102.jpg (4944x7416, 3.82M)