Ok, so I've explored both sides of these two radical viewpoints and I'm still unsure where I would place myself. Environmentalism's ideals seem rational in an almost necessary way, but its almost irrational to even think all they could want could come true and some of it is even unrealistic i.e. Anprim and Linkola's culling of the population. It's even been noted that we've already ruined the environment in a permanent way and theres not much to be done as not everyone country would be uniform. But at the same the Accelerationist have a point in saying that the Capitalist machine will stop for nothing and will most definitely not put nature over consumerism, and with China and the U.S. both trying to one up each-other it seems unlikely either would expend their resources on something like the environment even if radical activist begin to start bombing plants, if anything this would increase a need for a more authoritative role. The production of technology would have to pull us through this all and if anything save nature or come a solution of sorts along the way. But then again it seems unlikely we'll get that far before mother nature pulls out its belt and starts beating us for our deeds. Machinery seems like a bad thing very naturally even seeing the paved roads with the automobiles expelling gas and obnoxious noise into the air it all seems like a mistake but, in contrast the deeper you look into technology the more it seems necessary and almost our only hopes of improvement, our fate.
Can you accelerationist or environmentalist explain your reasoning for your perspective and maybe persuade me? Also some books or articles to check would be great too.
>While reading tons of things online of both of these perspectives i've come to a point in realization that makes me feel as if all these perspectives are most useless in their rational views, it should be a collective of all of our wills to push through one of these ideas only then after we've stripped the morality off these views and examined the bare bones, only then will things be clear. But this has just brought me to a pessimistic egoist view, and its not very satisfying in anyway
Kaczynski is an anarchist, not an environmentalist. He's explicit about it.
Asher Murphy
Anarchism is inherently anprim when followed through to the ultimate
Jaxson Jackson
Linkola Joker makes me smile even though it doesn't really make sense, considering he's authoritarian
Benjamin Williams
Just side with both. AI-Plant symbiosis is inevitable.
Dylan Baker
Sadie Plant?
Landon Evans
Well, the way I see it is that I have a life with an opportunity to do something that I feel is right. I'm dissatisfied working for Goldberg, especially when the environment (one of the last beautiful things left) so I may as well commit to preserving it. It's never about the outcomes, but the adventure. Fuck the people who say it can't, and therefore shouldn't, be done
Juan Wood
When the environment... *is being destroyed systematically* Sorry
Christopher Rodriguez
Are you an earth or a human? Are you a unit of value-measurement or a human?
Neither of these things matter.
>the Capitalist machine will stop for nothing and will most definitely not put nature over consumerism Green tech gets all kinds of subsidies. There is a gradual pivot towards environmental sustainability and there will eventually be a technology solution. There's already a machine that can pull carbon out of the atmosphere.
"Mother nature" isn't a sentient being and it certainly isn't your mother. Nature is another notch in the belt on our path to omnipotence. It's a thing to be mastered. Quit being fooled by movies and alarmists. You're just looking for a new thing to worship because you are a natural born slave.
Bentley Brooks
I'm an egoist at heart and have been for many years I do think its time for to take on a perspective that I have yet to look into yet but thank you for your insight
Adrian Brooks
The greatest trophies I can think of right now are the heads of technocrats
Charles Ward
The synthesis is collapse accelerationism. Accelerate the techno-commercial process in order for it to burn itself out completely.
After that we'll end up in a world with no accessible fossil fuels left. Global industrial civilisation will fall apart. Enormous amounts of people will die, in the developed world easily 90%. There will be mass simultaneous nuclear meltdown and maybe even nuclear war in the last fearful years of civilisation, things will go to shit for almost all people and a lot of non-human life, but in the rubble some will survive and will necessarily return to a pre-industrial way of life.
Some of the remnants will remain of course, people will dwell in concrete buildings as if they are caves and ride bicycles along cracked abandoned highways with old Kalashnikovs slung on their back. But we'll never again have access to resources that fuelled the first industrial revolution and will never have a second one. Social structures will revert to those most fitting to a pre-industrial life. The traditionalists will get their way in the end.
Please: I can only get so erect. Is there a general timeline? 100 years? 50? Decade? Soon the better imo. I wanna experience it
Blake Sanchez
>wanting material """omnipotence"""" >implying that if someone respects nature and doesn't want the modern world ruining it, he is somehow a slave >trying to justify everything with Nietzsche power fantasies that just make you look like you are overcompensating for your own personal weakness This post is embarrassing. There is something truly soulless about city dwelling insects.
Joshua Mitchell
they'll just be replaced by new technocrats. the reason capitalism us destructive is because people would rather save a buck at walmart than save the environment and help others out. you seem to be attributing societal problems with the people who most represent them, not the people who put those people in power or keep them there. the rest of the population would need to have their minds changed in order to make change on a large scale.
Jaxson James
only works if we keep relying on fossil fuels. we have plenty left to keep us going until the switch to renewables and nuclear in the developed world, and international organizations will help the poor and chinks switch over quickly if they run out of fossils.
Joseph Price
Right and wrong. People generally want pleasure, and technology is a great way to get that. People aren't going to stop buying shit because some trees are cut down, correct. And killing technocrats without fundamentally altering the circumstances for their initial establishment will result in a new generation. What needs to happen is the removal of the possibility of a technological society, as much is possible. This means a direct and massive attack on the people (technos), their means (industry, energy, and transportation), as well as their ideological stronghold (capitalism /materialism). It is no easy task. I honestly just have to hope it collapses on its own, although I'll do whatever I can to help it.
Chase Jackson
If you find nature preferable to humanity and want nature to 'take back' from the human empire, then you're literally a cuckold.
I'm saying nature only matters insofar as it serves us. Sustains life, has beauty, etc. I never said I was okay with nature being ruined. I'm saying it's a thing to further master.
'Material' omnipotence? As opposed to? I'm saying humanity is increasing in control over our surroundings at a rapid rate. I don't see that stopping anytime soon, and with breakthroughs in tech, it'll only increase. Towards omnipotence, towards omniscience, towards a greater level of sentience.
Gavin Morales
The greatest challenge (and therefore the most rewarding hunt) is against other "humans," not the environment or nature. It's all too easy to chop trees or kill animals. Killing the wealthy, well-equipped, and hubristic ruling class is much more difficult
Jordan Davis
I guarantee that people didn't consciously choose shitty cheap chink products and terrible food. Producers look to cut back costs on the side of overhead, and the market needs to follow suit. Mildly cheaper products is the icing on the cake.
People that shop at walmart or eat mcdonalds don't love the fact that they do so. They live a life of stress and choose the easy option, which becomes perpetuates the cycle.
Nor is trying to push ourselves back to the stoneage anywhere near an intelligent idea. At least not for the betterment of mankind. Maybe it is if you're some kind of tree fetishist.
Challenge for the sake of challenge?
Maximal net pleasure (overall pleasure throughout the lifetime) is the goal. This can best be achieved with power. Money is the most tangible form of power in our society, though humans remain the largest source of power in the known universe. Another thing to master.
Humanity must master itself and bring sanity / unity to the hivemind metaconscious that we call God.
Angel Jackson
>"Mother nature" isn't a sentient being Being is sentient itself. Read simondon, retard.
>our path to omnipotence Same wrong modernicism was debunked a long ago by t.nietzsche and the satanic postmodern queers that your "acc" team uses as theoretical fundament. There is no omnipotence.
This is why people makes fun of accretards. Accelerationism have a lot of good points, but got full of internet larping brainlets who see a cool intelectual mask to put over his inexistent intelectual capacity, and also memes.
Jeremiah Robinson
Struggle breeds meaning. Pleasure is about the emptiest thing you can set as a goal. I'm not surprised that this is what I'm talking with, though. Well, have a good one.
Ian Carter
itt: american pigs who have not read a bit of theory Nice meme, kiddo.
Jason Gonzalez
>theory Is it just generic "theory" or like meta-theory or what?
Wyatt Bell
can i get a rundown on linkola please
Aaron Morris
An older Finnish guy who witnessed first-hand the industrialization and ecological destruction of Finland and consequently became anti-consumerism and generally eco-fascists. He said something along the line of, if there was a button to kill himself and millions of others, he would push it
sounds like an interesting guy where should i start with him? or environmentalism in general?
Jordan Jenkins
Read Against His-story, Against Leviathan.
Nathaniel Harris
>being is sentient itself >there is no omnipotence
If mother nature is a being then so is the universe. The universe is omnipotent. This is your logic.
Anyway, you can't even directly speak on anything I wrote. You're just pointing deflecting to philosophers and buzzterms.
Also I don't even know what accelerationism is other than it being a meme here.
Nicholas James
I only have "Can Life Prevail," which might be his only translated piece. I can't remember. It's a collection of his essays and such over the years. I'm about of 1/3 done and it's pretty enjoyable but also sad. He's by no means a philosopher or "deep" thinker, but he has reasoned opinions and important (in my opinion) experiences.
Jose Ross
The universe *is* omnipotent
Jayden Thompson
based, this can't begin quick enough the problem isn't our energy sources, obviously there are ways to create enormous amounts of energy "sustainably" (this is why Lovelock advocates for nuclear) but there are plenty of other limits, physically or socially, which can and most likely will create a collapse. Organisms are all limited on their growth by the scarcest resource, and there is no way for a system of infinite growth to be able to answer this in the amount of time before mass starvation would break out due to economic collapse. Something as simple as say an even bigger bee colony die-off, how quickly could agriculture respond to maintain their level of production? It could easily cause the sector to collapse, and most likely the rest of the economy and social order if its severe enough. Capitalism tries its hardest for sustainability but how quickly can it act on even bigger hits?
>Accelerationism have a lot of good points Name 3.
Bentley Perez
This. A simple three or so pronged attack on fundamental industries would wreck the global economy. Destroy rubber plantations, important fish ports, and bee hives when they go to Cali for the almond season. Hardest part would be finding people to do it
Christopher Bailey
probably sooner if we play our cards right
Jonathan Sullivan
Which cards, dubs?
Jaxon Adams
> The universe is omnipotent You think omnipotent is something accord to a theory that considers something is "true", even when its knowed, now, that there is no external "true", but only "human theoretical true". The universe, the monad, etc, is not omnipotent, the same way you are not omnipotent of your self, or your objetive self.
>if you accelerate enough you can destroy "humanity", even as a constructed cultural-structure so: >you destroy cartesian duality >you desintegrate organic structures >you desintegrate lingüistic comon objectivity Also, you can prove that human being is just bio-organic robots who can do some things like feel or think. That way you can notice that non-human being is just as innecesary as humanity, so you can choose how to construc your own extramoral ethic, in the real sense, not the fedora one who think antijudeochirstian morality is non-morality. When you destroy enough humanity, there will be other forms of comunication and reorganization, that you could choose to destroy again.
Leo Ward
The thought of electricity being a scarce ressource gives me a hardon. All the consumerism and globalised industry collapsing, no more useless junk produced en masse, selled to us as "wealth" and "progress".
As for your question OP, like always the answer is probably somewhere in between. We need a mixture of radical enviromental protection, which comes with a massive drop of material wealth and autonomy a person can aquire, but without getting rid of technology/ scientific progress all together. This sounds and probably is utopistic, because (as far as I have asked around) people aren't willing to live with less wealth than the previous generation. Ideally this would mean a mostly agrarian, rural society (obviously with less people globally) with scientific institutions that would use the scarce electricity to further human knowledge and maybe find a way out of that transient state, without fucking everything up. A man can dream. I imagine the scientific institution somewhat like Castalia in Hesse's "Glass Bead Game".
John Cruz
But he is a gamer...
William Williams
these cards
Sebastian Long
I'll accept that. I do certainly believe it. Though it's unconscious.
Life is the consciousness. And life is gaining in power. The end result of this is omnipotence; bringing consciousness to the universe (i.e. God)
I'm not omnipotent / the God of myself. Though I am certainly a demi-God.
It isn't known that there is no external / objective truth. It's unknown whether or not there is (brain in vat theory).
Thomas Lee
I'm sure that Linkola would kys himself on the spot if he knew that he was connected to video games and memes
Hehe le witty envirotard. I can't wait to cut down each and every tree. Fuck you
Isaiah Cruz
>I can't wait to turn my world into a post-industrial wasteland to spite reactionary environmentalists
Is this sort of like the game where you say retarded things and then pretend that other people are being retarded for not getting that you were only pretending to have those retarded beliefs?
Ps. The point wasn't to be some sassy response. Invention of machines to accomplish the goals which can otherwise be handled well by natural forces is effectively worthless. A forest or wetland much more easily absorbs CO2 than any carbon scrubbing machine would, and can be accomplished much more simply and sustainably. Techno-environmentalism is fake and gay, just like electric cars and solar panels.
Jackson Gomez
What I've always found funny about the term "bootlicker" is that it is almost always said by someone who poses no real threat to the current paradigm like the various flavors of AnComm/AnCap/AnSynd. I've never once heard the term bootlicker used by someone who actually really is challenging the moral framework upon which the status quo is currently resting in any serious fashion, but rather is complaining that the current system doesn't actually comply with it's proposed morality for some reason. Nobody actually looking to challenge the moral paradigm of the American Liberal Globalist order uses the term bootlicker because they understand full well that having boots ready to fight is a prerequisite to actually engaging in serious political action.
Jose Perry
Renewables are a con.
Aaron Long
What a stupid comment.
Brayden Edwards
The current form of agriculture needed to feed our population level is based on fossil fuel based fertiliser that aggressively depletes top soil. Even the relatively conservative and non-alarmist UN says that we only have 60 harvests left.
There are other things that can go wrong in the meanwhile but that one is a pretty hard limit to civilisation as we know it.
Ryan Wilson
In what way? Explain your thinking. How is politics anything more than the management of authority to commit violence? How can one actually take seriously the idea that politics can exist outside of the paradigm of enforcement of authority via violence on some level or another?
>not the fedora one who think antijudeochirstian morality is non-morality
can u explain what this means further
Jayden Lewis
>Maximal net pleasure is the goal Someday you will learn that no amount of pleasure will ever make you happy.
Sure, you get your fleeting satisfaction when you receive your paycheck from your middle-class job, or when you buy your newly released vehicle that'll drag you that job day after day, but does that really bring you any closer towards fulfillment? Does it really serve anything to fill that emptiness within yourself that drives you to do these things in the first place, or is that part of the vapid reward-seeking mentality you've deluded yourself into believing is the ultimate path to fulfillment?
You can run your rat race until the day you wither away, but you will never become anything more than an animal on someone else's leash. Your rabid hedonism is what makes you so easy to manipulate and predict, and that's why it was planted in your mind in the first place.
Do you just dislike the word pleasure or are you stupid?
Maximal net pleasure. Would you prefer I call it happiness? Maximal net happiness. There you go.
You can't say you disagree, because you're literally saying it. >fulfillment >happiness
I guess we're on the same page. Maybe someday you'll learn to stop feeling guilt for wanting what's best for yourself.
Ian Hall
He's using a lot of buzz terms and it isn't the most coherent.
A direct reading would be insulting people that think judeochristian morality is The Morality, rather than just one moral system of many other systems. I'd agree with this, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what he meant.
Brandon Powell
taiwan #1
Zachary Martin
>Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Evan Nelson
>KJV opinion discarded
Caleb Wilson
>There will be mass simultaneous nuclear meltdown and maybe even nuclear war nuclear winter. we'd go extinct
Ryan King
Pleasure =! Happiness =! Fulfilment
Carter Scott
I hope, but supposedly nuclear winter is a bit of a meme.
The sixth mass extinction is not though so we will probably go extinct within the next 100-300 years. Big mammals such as us can’t survive that level of eco collapse.
Easton Rivera
>tfw I'll be dead before this happens
Born too early to experience the rise, born too early to experience the collapse.
We can speed it up. But people are spooked faggots to afraid of the "feds" to do anything. Protip; if the collapse was brought about, the Fed would have little to no power, and you won't be imprisoned or whatever it is people fear
Joseph Gomez
*too Sorry
Jack Bailey
Don’t lose hope, given the vast numbers of things that can go wrong it may happen sooner than later. War, bioweapons, nanotechnology, autonomous drones, resource depletion, climate change, mass migration, antibiotic resistant disease and so on. We’re living in a very intricate global house of cards that can be disrupted easily and once supply chains falter there will be a domino effect.
There’s also solar flares that can destroy all technology at once, supervolcanos, ocean acidification, insect population collapse, etc etc.
It is very reasonable to believe that shit will hit the fan within your lifetime.
You can have sex and feel pleasure for a night, or you could engage in a healthy long-term relationship with another human being and possibly find fulfillment.
You can smoke a cigarette or a joint and receive your instant gratification, or perhaps you could find fulfillment in pursuing a healthy lifestyle and striving to be the best you can be.
You can receive pleasure when you receive that large paycheck from working that job you despise, but perhaps you could find fulfillment if you love your job & it helps you self-actualize. Alternatively you could find fulfillment by being your own leader and doing what you want actually want to do, but you'll never achieve it by living a life for the sake of impressing other people.
Pleasure isn't intrinsically wrong, and it isn't wrong to feel or want pleasure. But by your logic, since you believe pleasure can be derived from power, you can achieve maximal net pleasure by becoming a CEO of a major business. If that's the case, then why is it that C-suite executives tend to suffer from depression at much higher rates than the average person? Surely they have the means to simply "buy more pleasure".
I'm proud of you for holding off for a whole sentence before lashing out and calling someone stupid, it sounds like your lifestyle is really fulfilling you.
Ecology is solved through hypercapital teleoplexical deterritorialization.
Jonathan Campbell
so no one has anything nice to say about raymond brassier?
Lucas Ward
>Can Life Prevail
A useful counterpoint would be the recent essay by Jeremy Grantham (whose hedge fund manages 160 billion dollars), who wrote a recent essay on “The Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over.” He goes down the economy of resources, sector by sector, and if you read between the lines, he essentially points in a kinder, gentler direction than Linkola, but in the same general direction.
It’s simply the unsustainability of compound growth, period.
I like him. I reread Nihil unbound every year or so to sort of clear my head
Brody Davis
who says that
Asher Phillips
Neither op, I like Linkola's authoritarian route while also taking the hyper-capitalistic techno future route. They both essentially connect its where Ted is concerned that theres a difference. The Environment needs attention but this will only be accomplished through an extreme authoritarian effort. But then again I don't enjoy Authoritative governments and mass control. So i'm not entirely sure what government would fit this role but, if we could have Marshall Law and only Federal gov jurisdictions then I think we will get a lot, accomplished. Maybe some moldbuggian type of system. But then again if we keep going the route were going and just accelerate capitalism and fuck the environment more and more, then the government will have to out of necessity establish a maybe even stricter and more powerful authoritative role
Parker Bell
>Nature is another notch in the belt on our path to omnipotence. It's a thing to be mastered. Quit being fooled by movies and alarmists. You're just looking for a new thing to worship because you are a natural born slave. I was about to call you a short sighted brainlet over your first paragraph but then you spoke like a true übermensch, god bless you user, hope you get into a position of power one day.
Liam Howard
daily reminder that technocrats and primitivist are both influenced by the will to power, the latter will inevitable strive for more, there by leaving primitivism behind, it's also really fucking stupid unless you're a buddhist
