>Kaczynski's analysis of non-industrial and non-agricultural societies being superior to the modern world rests on a fundamental ignorance of human history. While he rightly criticized the idealized view of primitive hunter-gatherer societies as being communal utopias of equality, cooperation, and pacifism, he simultaneously indulged in the equally fallacious view that they were libertarian utopias where freedom and rugged individualism reigned. Even if one ignores questions over standards of living, child mortality, and disease, both viewpoints fly in the face of the actual history of ancient empires, which used brutal coercion to crush the nomadic hunter-gatherers and consolidate the power of their leaders. None of these early empires came out of nowhere; rather, they grew out of hunter-gatherer tribes who discovered some good land with food in enough abundance that it was worthwhile to settle down there permanently, start cultivating the land to maximize the food they were able to hunt and gather (inventing agriculture and animal husbandry in the process), and kick off any interlopers who tried to take "their" food and land (inventing armies and war in the process). A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty.
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization. Earth's population is supported almost entirely by agriculture, even before the Green Revolution of the 20th century and its resultant population explosion. If industrial civilization were to collapse, billions of people would starve to death, but not before turning against each other for food and resources, potentially killing billions more. All this comes before the prospect of nuclear weapons, be they controlled by governments or in the hands of terrorists, enters the mix, with the potential to finish the job of humanity's self-destruction. Of course, for those of a hard green and/or Malthusian persuasion who believe that Earth is already overpopulated, the death of most of humanity would not necessarily be seen as a bad thing Taken from: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unabomber#Ignorance_of_history
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT THE CENTER OF OUR PROBLEMS, NOR CAPITALISM, BUT HUMAN SIN IN ALL ITS FORMS
Grayson Carter
did you leave your tripcode off tripfag?
Jason Morgan
What are the sins and what causes humans to commit them?
Connor Wilson
This. lit doesn't read books but they'll take rationalwiki seriously.
Carter Kelly
epic win
Gabriel Morales
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization. Good. >A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty. t. your brain on neoliberalism.
Lucas Scott
Ted was based but blue-pilled. His prognosis of society was pretty spot-on, his proposed cure: not so much.
Source might be shit, but those two paragraphs are absolutely correct
Jaxson Davis
>non-primitives are totalitarian >therefore primitives bad Imagine thinking this is a good argument.
Nathaniel Murphy
So what's the cure?
Jacob Brown
True, but technology is a manifestation of sin. Technology seeks to conform the material to man's will, whereas religion seeks to conform the spiritual to God's will.
The question is, can man reduce his sin without the grace of God? Is it possible to create a society of humans who are sinless, whether through changing their nature, nurture, or both? If a human must have God’s grace, then could we engineer a society to move the wills of humans to seek God perfectly, and therefore be relatively sinless? Would this be such a bad thing, from a Christian perspective?
Eli White
There is no cure
Benjamin James
Hare Krishna
Ethan Moore
>Combining all of our problems under an abstract subjective label which reveals no potential solution user, it's not exactly that you're incorrect, but can you see how that contribution isn't helpful for understanding the problem?
Connor Morris
mom i posted it again
Easton Russell
This. Purge the heretics.
Liam Long
>Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization. IIRC this is a demonstrably inaccurate statement? I remember Ted mostly being cheerful about this eventuality.
Eli Lee
you can have warfare with hunter gatherer tribes. Just look at the injuns
Kevin Hill
They're misrepresenting him as if he didn't see this as a necessary part of the solution. The 'rational' or 'skeptic' community does this all the time. They take any conclusion which might be outside the overton window and frame it as if the author never saw it coming, they can do this because people don't/won't/can't believe that someone could desire a conclusion other than supermaterial neoliberalism.
Mason Howard
You can't BTFO someone by lying about what they said tho. They're not tho, they literally have nothing to do with what he's saying
True, the "rugged individualism" part is also a misrepresentation, I already posted the same quote from Technological Slavery in a previous Ted thread, but fuckit. >But I don't want to give the impression that all primitive peoples or all hunter-gatherers were radical individualists who never cooperated and never shared except under compulsion. The Siriono, in terms of their selfishness, callousness, and uncooperative ness, were an extreme case. Among most of the primitive peoples about whom I've read there seems to have been a reasonable balance between cooperation and competition, sharing and selfishness, individualism and community spirit. Basically this entire thing is either a misrepresentation, or misreading, I've looked hard but it's hard to actually find any good criticism of the guy, anything that tries to broadly disprove his arguments always ends up involving lying about what he said.
Ethan Martinez
>post pretty pictures and repeat your now-debunked point Must be fun to be a blissfully ignorant anprim. LMK when you decide to play the game.
Ryder Morales
>I am btfo'in Uncle Ted without actually adressing his points. wew > A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty. >Likewise, his analysis glosses over the fact that a mass die-off would be the guaranteed end result of abandoning industrial civilization.
Sure, because this Globalised Market - nuclear family destroyer, Think Tank / Advertisement henchmen promoting - transexual post human identity supporters is not a form of Tyranny.
A sentimental wank. All those two paragraphs are.
Hudson Ross
Just enjoy the ride
Landon Torres
This is why we need a flood (nuclear war) like in the bible to restart.
Jaxson Lee
There's nothing any individual can do to change the inevitable course of our planet.
The most you could do as an individual is insulate yourself from the outside world as best as you can by living simply and self-sufficiently so that if and when the inevitable collapse happens, you will be far removed from it all.
Cleave to the Earth while you still can, and cherish every minuscule treasure that you can find, for eventually it will all become just another distant, hazy memory.
based brit bong. Afterall, you don't have a license for your own opinions, do you!?
Jason James
But there is still no academic consensus on how agriculture took-off. How can they write this?
Christian Watson
Ah yes, because there's no academic consensus on the origins of agriculture, we should just let the theories of far right terrorists be disseminated without criticism across social media and nobody should bother trying to provide alternative perspectives of his work to those offered by Alt Right propagandists.
John Wood
>when the inevitable collapse happens yeah and you'll look like an idiot until that happens if it happens at all and will be out of touch with everything and nobody will find you interesting
Camden Myers
why doesn't anyone make a latest interview of him? he's not even dead
who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks of you? the surest road to mediocrity is ensuring that you conform to everyone around you.
i can't think of a single good reason why anyone should feel superior or have higher authority than someone else by willingly suppressing their individualism and choosing instead to follow the herd like a blind, dumb animal.
Juan Ramirez
Would anarcho primitives be against stem cells regrowing limbs, a cure for cancer, and genetic engineering? Imho in an ideal world the only technology that should be allowed would be those that better humanity and not those that isolate and make for cheap labor.
Cooper Wright
yes, Because every one of those technologies will have unintended consequences, just as penicilin did, just as all of modern medicine did, and just like the green revolution did, all of these are technologies that were unequivocally meant to "better humanity", but their consequences were simply not worth it.
Noah Johnson
he addresses this in one of his points i believe
Levi Harris
Can you name the consequence of someone losing a limb and regrowing it with stem cells? What about parents genetically engineering their children so they turn out strong and without any risk of inherited diseases? How is that a negative?
Mason Ross
some people wont be able to afford to genetically engineer their children and it will further the divide between the upper/bourgousie classes and the lower classes, creating an artificially enhanced superhuman class and a slave class. he talks about this if you read his manifesto. as for the stem cells, the effects of artificially preserving your body's health should be self evident, but other than those one effect i prophesy is the proliferation of jobs with high mortality/injury rates
Luis Bennett
>rationalwiki LMAO. Are you gonna cite Hitler on communism next!
Carson Gutierrez
>If industrial civilization were to collapse, billions of people would starve to death, but not before turning against each other for food and resources, potentially killing billions more. And this is bad... why?
Zachary Howard
>as for the stem cells, the effects of artificially preserving your body's health should be self evident
Not sure what you mean by this. Sometimes people get hurt and either lose a limb, get blind or paralyzed. I'm not sure when, but one day stem cells would have the ability to fix these problems. The rest of your argument regarding the divide of classes I can understand, but stem cell therapy and a cure for cancer can cure countless in the future.
I actually agree with a lot of anarcho primitism. I believe that industrialization further isolated man. Reverting back to hunter gatherer mode can remedy many modern day problems from unemployment to even incels. But the problem is not many are going to be on board with lower health standards. I think that's one of the reasons technology advances in the first place. If a meteor hit tomorrow and we all had to start from scratch, I don't see any reason we wouldn't industrialize in a couple hundred years again.
Brody Kelly
What I meant by that part is that our bodies have always been a limitation. If we can act without the fear of losing a body part that limitation will be lifted and change our society in radically different ways. For example it would change our concept of justice if every injury could be healed, change how we wage war or ease regulation on dangerous jobs. Another point would be the similarity in causation between injury and death and so on
Logan Russell
Based vocarooposter
Michael Roberts
Sure. What about my second paragraph regarding man kind's tendency to gravitate toward civilization with the knowledge and technological means?
Asher Bell
Watched Last of the Mohicans last night >tfw you will never hunt in virgin forests with your adopted father and brother
Hunter Cruz
I’m not an anarcho primitivist, I’m different from the guy you responded too who talked about penicillin. I would argue however that if we were set back to a preindustrial era it would be impossible to industrialize again due to the fact that we have exhausted all our surface level iron and coal deposits. As for the lower health standards, people tend to value their own caprice before that stuff
Brody Lewis
The first point is just retarded: “it’s wrong to prefer hunter gatherer society because it was eventually replaced by agricultural society.” I mean, if it hadn’t been replaced, there would be no point to having this conversation. Humans and humanoids lived as nomadic hunter gatherers for millions of years. We’ve been farming for ~12,000? Empire was hardly inevitable.
The second point is stronger, but you shouldn’t be forbidden from criticizing industrial society just because a transition away from would at this point look pretty ugly. You can still say something sucks even if it’s too late to change it.
Colton Phillips
Ted wrote a very passionate "appeal to nature" fallacy.
He doesn't realize that there is nothing but nature.
Jordan Gomez
wrong, it will be a individual who will save it, or it will not be saved. Theory of great man, ever heard of it.
Jayden Rogers
entire article is a straw man as ted is about conserving the infrastructure of life also known as the inhabitable planet we call earth. if technology is not stopped, it will destroy the planet more likely than saving it from destroying it. Industrial revolution will bring more problems in the long term than it has solved. Renewable energies are not solving the problem, singularity will never happen as imagined, even if it would happen, it would not be used unambiguously. The history of mankind shows that the direction of mankind is not easily controlled in one direction. One party will do XY, the other party will do another thing and so on.
To think that once we have something like singularity the human society will become rational about things is fundamentally ignoring the fact that humans never acted rational as a mass entity. There is always the problem of every system trying to survive, short term > long term. This is seem nowadays, Humankind should have never become the niggers with missles that they are now, we are destroying ourselves due to our inability to be non power hungry. It has always been like that but technologoy gave us the tool to fuck up everything on a global scale. One can only hope for a nwo like conspiracy who will eradicate most humans from the planet. Sad but true.
Logan Garcia
This is the dumbest thing and I keep hearing it from every pseud who probably hasn't even read it. If your definition of nature is so inclusive that it basically means "all that exists" then your definition is meaningless and useless, Ted, and other people like him, clearly aren't using your definition, so you're talking to the air when you're using it. also. >implying that appeal to nature isn't a perfectly reasonable heuristic, when you're actually using a meaningful definition of the word
Kayden Nelson
then refute the argument you fixed fucking faggots
Asher Parker
the rest of the thread already tore it open a new asshole. so they don't need to.
Aaron Smith
the anthropologist that lived with one of the last primitive tribes in the Amazon said that the entire society and that of the neighboring tribes was constantly on edge of being ambushed by another tribe. they were on eggshells all the time and this resulted in a fairly complex system of protocols for dealing with sharing local resources i.e. it was a constant cold war with intermittent bloody ambushes. he said that his colleagues in Australia observed the same thing. man is a bastard, civilization or no.
on the upside, there was not a lot of work to do. four hours of labor was a busy day.
James Wood
you still do need some people around though
Grayson Sanders
after multiple days of practicing my loud reading on mic i also feel like putting all my thoughts in audio files. Do other anons also do this?
