Kaczynski and multiple other hermits have extolled the virtues of doing absolutely nothing...

Kaczynski and multiple other hermits have extolled the virtues of doing absolutely nothing, when you truly escape society's hold.

Thousands of years of discussion, theory and mental anguish and all it ever took was a walk up into the mountains or the woods to find inner peace. They describe feeling at one with the world, rather than separate from it. They describe an ecstasy just from existing, how simple things like a hot bath or some porridge are suddenly incredibly pleasurable experiences. You just do nothing, you don't read, you don't work, you don't do anything at all. You just sit and watch the world, like the monkeys do. That's all it ever took to not feel an anxious, depressed mess every day.

But society will never push this, because it's a damnation of society. Society is a virus, everything you throw at it just gets absorbed and it adapts to it and makes it part of itself. The only winning move is not to play, just walk away.

Attached: GettyImages-454070160.jpg (2991x1682, 1.32M)

Deep down we all know that Ted is right.

Defeatist retards ITT; humanity was born to tread the stars, not sit in the trees and eat oatmeal like a fucking monkey

Egotistical delusion.

Humanity wasn't born for anything other than to exist. We're not special at all, we're not any more important than bed bugs.

>teleology
get out, brainlet

not really, to fear what we can create is to fear reality and ourselves. Problem is the people in power and how they use it, parents putting their kids in front of an ipad the moment they are born, etc.
We can be great but instead we live in a burger-punk society where the only goal is capital accumulation, pleasure and eating burgers in our cars.
Blaming technology is blaming an abstraction on top of the way society is organised. It's worthless.

Human consciousness can only move forward. We can't just go back to being cavemen just because we feel like it

>Living in the wild
>Cavemen
Educate yourself before spewing such bullshit.

Technological society on the scale we've had for the past 200 years is too much too soon. We're not equipped to handle it and won't be for millions of years, if ever.

It's bad for us, simple as that.

"I love those nations of astronomers: Chaldeans, Assyrians, pre-Columbians who, for love of the sky, went bankrupt in history." -Cioran

nasa is currently more concerned with making sure to force women and trannies on Mars for political reasons instead of making actual scientific achievements

Attached: 1561907906474.jpg (1920x1271, 656K)

Humans, at their core, want to create.

In almost all western civilizations you already can sit around doing nothing, getting by with welfare. Where are all those enlightend people this should produce then? Right. Because it's not about sitting around, doing nothing.

There are other's, handy people, that leave society pretty much behind, equipped with a few tools, building a hut somewhere in the woods, hunting, working on their home, collecting wood, and so on. Those people are the ones that report that their life feels like it has a purpose. Because it has. If they don't tend to their home, collecting food or wood, they will fucking die out there. There's numerous documentaries on that topic.

So what's the reason that we're so unhappy in our societies? We have too much freetime on our hands, allowing us to begrudge others that seemingly have it better than us. We don't create with a purpose anymore. We work in jobs in which we don't see the end result of our work. We're not a carpenter anymore who constructs a door from start to finish. We are factory workers who grind down panels of wood all day every day, doing nothing else. We have office jobs where we don't create anything meaningful at all.

>Humans, at their core, want to create.
Source: My ass

Fuck Civilisation, fuck society, fuck your bullshit.

Wow, those are some persuasive arguments...

>In almost all western civilizations you already can sit around doing nothing, getting by with welfare. Where are all those enlightend people this should produce then?
It only works in nature, you know, the environment we existed in for hundreds of thousands of years before cities and towns? Doesn't work if you're sat in your fucking room retard.

I just think that humans at their core want to avoid discomfort. sometimes that means creating something, other times it means getting away

Persuade me not to fuck your face because of your basic bitch observations. You need to read more on the subject before you come out with shit like "WELLL ACKSHUALLY PEOPLE SIT AROUND ALL DAY PLAYING PLAYSTATION SO HOW COME THEY'RE NOT ENLIGHTENED??!?!?!?!!? CHECK MATE ATHEISTS".

Go ahead then. Collect your welfare once a month, buy food, return to the woods. That's not too much contact with society, is it? Then you have comfort and can be in nature all day.

Man... still no arguments, only insults. No value in talking to you. Now you'll reply with more insults. That's fine. This is the last (You) you'll recieve from me.

Don't post in threads where you know nothing about the topic

Real life isn't 40k dumb nigger. Also you can't tread on a star, it's really hot.

>Kaczynski and multiple other hermits have extolled the virtues of doing absolutely nothing

I thinks that's a false characterization. They didn't become hermits to do nothing. They became hermits to escape society

christopher thomas knight was a shy dude and just wanted to live away from people. that's why he went out into the woods and lived there. you can't do much if you're living out in the woods because no electricity.
christopher thomas knight did read books he stole from nearby cabins. he didn't do absolutely nothing

Attached: Dx5N1rvVsAwdGL5.jpg (828x1164, 98K)

Society has become too complex for its own good.

Attached: cursed chihuahua image.jpg (632x632, 223K)

well said

i think being a hermit in a van is better than being a hermit out in the woods

if you have disability and receive neetbux you could live a very comfortable hermit life in a van with free wifi hotspots all around you

reply to this post if you're fucking retarded

Attached: cheers.jpg (553x568, 37K)

It's time to take the leviathanpill

Attached: Fredy Perlman.jpg (220x337, 40K)

>virtues of doing absolutely nothing
You clearly didn't read anything Kaczynski wrote, he emphasized life necessary work above pointless activities, much less "doing nothing." He's even said on multiple occasions that that kind of lifestyle was extremely hard work and that people need to stop romanticizing it and thinking it was just sitting around and relaxing. Quite frankly it's pretty sad that he needed to point that out since you think it would be intuitive that having to live on your own, off of nature would be tremendous amounts of work.

>all it ever took was a walk up into the mountains or the woods to find inner peace.
That's what Ted did, there was a particularly pretty place near a cabin he used I believe, and the last time he went there there was a highway being constructed through it, that's what set up off.

>to fear what we can create is to fear reality and ourselves.

I think the main thing he highlights is that we don't make any of that shit ourselves. Even people who still "make" things are basing it off of previous work. Almost nothing we have in this lifetime could be "created" by a single individual. Look at the things around you and try to count all the things that you could make yourself completely from scratch. My guess is not much, I have a spoon by me, and I could probably make something like that out of metal given enough time. But simple things, even like the 12 wine bottles couldn't be easily crafted without relying on some other form of production.

beautiful user, truly beautiful, all your posts are golden, all your thoughts are my bliss

You can experience that stuff while still doing stuff. In fact it makes the stuff funner. Just do the reading and feel the joy of it. I'm really big into not feeling pressured to do anything. That's what makes doing the stuff you want fun.

lol

So go live in the woods. Why are you here trying to convince others to do it?

To exist, as a human, implies action

>DUDE BILLIONS OF GIANT FLAMING BALLS OF GAS ! SO INTERESTING AND UNIQUE !
Those that fantasize about space exploration don't realize how boring it will actually be.
We have everything we need here, if we could stop being a bunch retarded animals that can't stop breeding because "mah desires" we might be able to create a small utopia right here instead of millions of hellhole mining colonies on shitty planets.

Based retard

sun's going to go out eventually my dude

And?
Are we competing for "the longest surviving specie" title that gets us +1000xp for our next reincarnation?

well, I mean, you eat don't you?

i disagree with crowley on most things, but he was very astute that every truly great member of humanity (one that has transcended) has rejected society at one point for a life of an ascetic hermit. jesus, buddha, mohammad, and even our friend uncle ted here.

remember frens, the kingdom of god is inside of you!

>dude like lets just go extinct lol
I'm glad troglodytes like you are not responsible for public policy. Enjoy your ticks and sunburn, cleetus

I don't think public policy is thinking that far ahead.

Yes?
Doesn't mean one shouldn't accept the fact that humanity will end at some point. Until our sun dies we have 3 billion years still that leaves plenty of time to do a bunch of dumb things down here we don't need to go on more than that.

>accept the fact that humanity will end at some point
There's no reason why that has to be when the sun goes out if he have the means to continue on.
The same reason why you eat, when you are hungry and you have food at hand.
>we don't need to go on more than that.
No more than you need to go on and do whatever "dumb things" you have to do in the future. And I guarantee that the entirety of mankind will make better use of the time earned through space exploration than you will of your natural lifespan.

Actually it's really interesting to me as a STEMfag.

Brehs should I purge the remnants of belief in 'humanity' and 'progress' and 'humanity progressing'? I still have the desire for this 'humanity' to dominate the universe and make wondrous things all throughout. I realise all of this shit litters our media and academia. Even the notion of humanity is on the same level, though that's an even more deeprooted topic. Is it reasonable to accept it as a part of who I am and go along with it, while not being fanatical about it? I still can't shake human solidarity and technological wonders, though I've largely removed material fetishism from my mind, especially economic.

Excuse me, did i advocated for collective suicide accidentally?
Never did i said that, or even stop progress and innovation.
However there is nothing out there for us that isn't already here. What do humans want? To be happy and fulfilled. Do you think humans 1000 years ago were objectively less happy than now? Do you think we will find happiness hiding behind a neutron star?
If we establish a self sustaining life right here where we can enjoy our lives and the company of each other we will be much more happy than by working ourselves to death by exploiting more resources for more people for more spaceships for more planets for more resources for more people eternally.
Space colonisation will make us suffer much more. And if your worry is the fact that by staying here humanity will eventually go extinct. Well the universe might contract into a singularity or be swallowed by a black hole in the end and kill us anyway. Fleeing forward is not the solution for our collective wellbeing.

>Excuse me, did i advocated for collective suicide accidentally?
You did.
"we don't need to go on more than that."
As in, let's just let our species die.
But let's move on from your retarded question to the rest of your post.
>However there is nothing out there for us that isn't already here.
Lebensraum, cosmic wonders, potentially other forms of life, more resources, etc.
>we will be much more happy than by working ourselves to death by exploiting more resources for more people for more spaceships for more planets for more resources for more people eternally.
Maybe you missed the memo, that's how society works on Earth already. No one except trust fund babies and people on the dole are getting a free ride.
Your dreamlike communist state is never going to appear like you want it to.
>Well the universe might contract into a singularity or be swallowed by a black hole in the end and kill us anyway
Sure, and I could get hit my a meteorite in a few days and die, but I'm still going to eat tomorrow.
Your ideology is one of suicide, one of slow death, not one of life or of living.
You are right that humans want to be happy and fulfilled, but the prerequisite to those things is being alive, something you are filling only by definition and certainly not by disposition.

By expanding, we give more people more ability to be happy, we expand our pool of energy, we fulfill our desire for exploration, we allow ourselves to more deeply explore the origins and the fate of the universe, as we have always done, as we will always do. We could of course all commit suicide, now, or later. But the ball will keep getting kicked, because humans generally prefer to be alive rather than dead, and they prefer the same for their children. Exploring space and expanding civilization is about maximizing the potential happiness in the universe, by replicating ourselves as much as possible, and by providing said replications with the resources to do whatever they please. The end of the universe is not necessarily the end of us (by us I don't mean humans as they are today, but rather the far far descendants of intelligent life) either, as we have no true idea what technology may come in the future. We could have said the same in europe before we colonized the new world, and we could have said the same in africa before some of us began to migrate north. Ultimately, people like you and those ITT will remain here on earth and die or stagnate, while others, those who uphold the fundamental nature of humanity, will keep moving onward.

>Your dreamlike communist state is never going to appear like you want it to.
He's not even correct on that point, humans wont have to work themselves to death; if we have the resources for interplanetary existence we most certainly will have the resources for automation. Why create a small utopia on earth when you can create a large one throughout the milky way?

Is recognizing the fact that humans die in an average of 80 years "suicide" ? No i do not advocate suicide, but i do not hide by thinking humanity will endure for eternity. Spending your entire life desperately looking for an elixir of eternal life is wasting your time and energy, worrying more about surviving than living in the present is the key to an unhappy life. I accept death so that i may enjoy the time i have instead of worrying about enduring for no reason.
>Lebensraum, cosmic wonders, potentially other forms of life, more resources, etc.
And how would that make us more happy exactly than enjoying ourselves right here and now with what we have ? Creating needs that are far away is counter productive to our own happiness.
>Your dreamlike communist state is never going to appear like you want it to.
With people like you around that's for sure.
Communist and capitalist are ideologies of eternal growth which is not my case. But exactly, growth requires sacrifice, but self sustenance would require much less sacrifices. Tell me how would space colonization make us more happy when most of humanity will have to work tirelessly in mines or dangerous/difficult jobs until their last days without themselves seeing the "wonders of space" which will be reserves for a special few. It seems fun to think ourselves looking down a new planet but is the millions of dead and suffering human brothers worth it ? Is it that wondrous for them ?
And again once space becomes routine it won't be so wondrous to us anymore. Just like Asia was a dreamland full of dragons and incredible beings of wonder until it started being just normal and the wonderment disappeared.
Memento mori. It is the only way we can actually look back on what truly matters to us.

>By expanding, we give more people more ability to be happy
By creating much more that have to sacrifice their lives for other's happiness. Moving forward implies surplus and surplus. I'm not for stagnation or for freezing down, but for innovation to create a self sustaining virtuous cycle for us instead of eternally moving forward in a vicious cycle of expansion that never truly satisfies us.

I could reverse this question back at you, why create a large utopia through the milky way when we can create a small one right here with the same means ? Why is trillions of happy humans better than billions ? Are we counting the potential happiness of lives that do not exist ?

>Is recognizing the fact that humans die in an average of 80 years "suicide"
False equivalence. Essentially, what we're talking about is standing in the middle of the road with a car approaching quickly. We could step aside, or use your argument and say "I do not hide by thinking humanity will endure for eternity." Avoiding the car is not to say that you believe you will live forever, but rather that you would prefer to continue living rather than to die.
>Tell me how would space colonization make us more happy
Earth will become utopian in the future under your argument. If we multiply happiness by 10, or 100, the net happiness has improved. We can do both; you're talking about arbitrarily restricting ourselves to earth for no reason whatsoever.
>but is the millions of dead and suffering human brothers worth it
There is no reason this is likely or needs to happen; and any person who would make this journey would be doing so willingly. If it takes the death of 1000 to secure the happiness for 1 billion, then the net happiness has objectively improved.
>It is the only way we can actually look back on what truly matters to us.
And yet, I should think, you would not avoid a cancer treatment because it gave your life meaning, you would not remain in the street when a car was approaching, and you would continue to live your life deep into the foreseeable future, so long as living is possible for you.

Why not kill all superfluous humans if you're in power when true automation occurs?

>By creating much more that have to sacrifice their lives for other's happiness
What are you even talking about here?
>Why is trillions of happy humans better than billions
Because we are talking about improving the amount of happiness.
>Are we counting the potential happiness of lives that do not exist ?
We are talking about the future, and therefore are by definition talking about people who do not exist.

Because I'm not a psychopath.

It was rhetorical lol, a lot of people in power are.

We are not talking about a single being, among many, who may live up to 80 years old and may have a nice life worth remembering when he passes of old age in his bed, we are talking about millions upon millions of people who will alternatively starve and be scorched alive by the sun as it enlarges into a red giant (as is the projected course of our local star). There is no reason they need to be burned alive, if they have the technology to leave the planet. Humanity is not reaching the end of it's natural life like you propose, rather it is allowing itself to die unnecessarily.
You are shortsighted, you talk flippantly about the death of our species because you are entirely sure that you will not see it and because you have no descendants who would bear witness to the greatest horror mankind could ever experience.
You talk as if you are the captain on a ship and we are going to stay at port because it is nice and comfortable and really, if we would all just be nice to one another it could be paradise, but the reality is quite different.
We are not at port, we are at sea and we can see the storm coming, but unlike an ordinary storm in an ordinary sea, we know for a fact that it will destroy the ship and every soul on board.
>self sustenance would require much less sacrifices
Would it? History tells us otherwise, of every name and kind of utopia that has ever had it's construction attempted, the results have been nothing but disastrous. You may screech (for this is what your naive idea sounds like), but the world will not change for it, and humanity itself will not change, especially not for the yelps of someone who has never done anything.
Your utopia will never exist. Life and freedom are the best outcomes that anyone can hope for, the antithesis of your sterile, dead Earth.

Source?

You are making a false equivalence because you imply that you can step out of the way of the car.
If the possibility is present yes i will step away from the car. But if it is impossible i will enjoy my time before it hits me instead of worrying about it hitting.
And this might be something you won't accept but i refuse to throw people in front of the car to be crushed in the hope that i will endure afterwards.
I live today in a comfortable life with a decent job. But i realize that i am lucky and that for this comfort there is millions suffering and dying because of international competitivity. This is something that bothers me. And this is something that will only increase if we keep this mindset of feeling forward mindlessly like cornered animals. In the end we could go to space i suppose if we feel the need to. But we should proceed much more slowly, intelligently and without leaving people behind to suffer for a few. Establishing a colony is obviously going to be a tremendous effort for us to provide the kick starting resources and for the colonist to establish themselves and begin exploitation. Plus this might create interplanetary conflict and class warfare of the second rate citizens on industrial planets feeling restless by having to provide for the overly luxurious living conditions of those on earth.
My main point is that we should be doing rational progressive expansion that seeks to go from an equilibrium situation to another instead of leaving millions behind to suffering and agony for a few to enjoy more than they probably should and fall into debauchery.
And we certainly don't NEED whatever is out there. It is only luxury to do so and it would only be out of boredom and restlessness that we would truly want to go there. Humans have satisfied themselves here for millennia, why suddenly we couldn't anymore especially with living conditions far better than before ?
Did people had a need for internet when it didn't exist ?

You can't even go TO Space. It's a dimension or a vista OF the foreign or the terminal. At most, if you would somehow be IN Space, it would no longer be Space, but simultaneously Earth and nothing.

>What are you even talking about here?
The more people there is, the more work we need to supply them, the more self sacrifices will be needed just look at the world today.
>Because we are talking about improving the amount of happiness.
What is this "amount of happiness"? 2 happy humans is the same as 10 happy humans those that don't exist don't count.
However it is more difficult to keep trillions of humans happy than it is billions. Especially if we reproduce mindlessly like we do today without accounting for our productive rate.

Far enough distance from Earth would make it not Earth.

>If the possibility is present yes i will step away from the car.
Then we are in agreement about expanding civilization, because though we do not know how many cars there are to dodge, we do know that we can avoid immediate cars (or extinction events) for as long as possible.
>And this might be something you won't accept but i refuse to throw people in front of the car to be crushed in the hope that i will endure afterwards.
You are throwing nobody; humanity goes willingly to explore and colonize civilization, you can stay on earth, but you cannot force others to stay and die with you as well.
>leaving millions behind to suffering and agony
But this is not a point of argument, our central disagreement is about whether we should stay on earth and create utopia or expand and create utopia as far and wide as possible. We can do both simultaneously, we have both the resources to secure a comfortable existence for everyone and the resources to colonize near-earth asteroids and mars. That is a separate discussion about the implementation of said future society.
>And we certainly don't NEED whatever is out there
You could (and would have) said the same about colonizing the new world. Everything we do besides eat shit and sleep is a luxury, this is means almost nothing.
>Humans have satisfied themselves here for millennia
There are a class of humans who are satisfied by the most barely acceptable circumstances, who are overjoyed to live in tribes and hunt animals under the sun, on this we do not disagree. But there is also a class of humans who explore, invent, and move our species forward; increasing the longevity and comfort of their brethren. It's fine to say you strive for nothing more than earth, but it is not fine to say nobody else should be allowed to explore or expand for such arbitrary reasons.
>Did people had a need for internet when it didn't exist ?
Again, needs outside of basic bodily functions are subjective. If you think internet is such an evil invention, you can easily stop using it. You can also easily go back to the plains of africa and join a tribe; but if you instead enjoy the current standard of luxury we enjoy, you should join those of us who wish to continuously improve the human species, through technological progress, expansion, and scientific advancement.

space: "the near vacuum extending between the planets and stars, containing small amounts of gas and dust."
Autistic literalists BTFO

>The more people there is, the more work we need to supply them, the more self sacrifices will be needed just look at the world today.
Interstellar travel and expansion is always coupled with automation; and if you think otherwise you could easily apply the same logic to earth as it is now.
>2 happy humans is the same as 10 happy humans those that don't exist don't count.
No, and humans that don't exist absolutely count if the entire discussion is about people who do not exist.
>However it is more difficult to keep trillions of humans happy than it is billions
This is not necessarily true for space faring civilizations, and again, this logic could easily be applied to earth.

I'm for bettering civilization, if expansion is needed for this then sure. But expansion for expansion is the problem i have.
>humanity goes willingly
"Humanity" yes. Individuals not so much. You think the kids that die mining sulfur for our electronics are willing pioneers of the future ?
>our central disagreement is about whether we should stay on earth and create utopia or expand and create utopia as far and wide as possible.
Not it is not. I said if leaving Earth becomes something we materially can afford to without requiring the forced march of millions then sure. My problem is this mentality of "progress" for some because they "need" it but do not care about the others. Just like today we launch spaceships to international stations from Kazakhstan, a country of horrible poverty. Let's fix our mess back home first. We are not in a hurry. We do not need anything out there (Ever in my opinion) in the near future.
>You could (and would have) said the same about colonizing the new world.
Indeed i would. Considering all the bloodshed it led to and how in the end today we still need more and more.
> It's fine to say you strive for nothing more than earth, but it is not fine to say nobody else should be allowed to explore or expand for such arbitrary reasons.
I'm not forbidding anyone. But warning that needs are cruel masters. And blindly following them in the hope of betterment leads to nothing but disappointment. Again not to say that we should just sit around, but just think about our next step instead of rushing towards it. We need more resources probably from space but maybe we could start by cutting down our own consumption and production here ? Do we need to make upgrades to our electronics every 6 months instead of say 2 years ? Then we could focus our remaining resources to indeed going to space if that fancy us. And more safely too.
But not by rushing forward without securing our own backyard.
> If you think internet is such an evil invention, you can easily stop using it.
I didn't say that. It was just to point to the fact that we do not have needs toward things that we do not know about. So creating too many needs for things that are far away and very difficult to attain is just needlessly frustrating ourselves.

>I'm for bettering civilization, if expansion is needed for this then sure. But expansion for expansion is the problem i have
Based, then we have nothing more to discuss

>Finkel then asked him what he did to occupy his time.

>"For a little bit of the time he read some books, did the crossword... but really that did not occupy the majority of his time. What he did was what you and I might call 'nothing'."

>If the idea of sitting alone, for half an hour, with nothing to do - think of being stuck, alone, in a lift, while your phone is sitting on your desk - is a little terrifying, then try imagining what it would be like confining yourself to a little clearing in the woods, for days, weeks, months, years…

>"When I asked Chris Knight to explain this nothingness, he had some pretty interesting things to say," Finkel says.

>"First he was never for a moment, in all 27 years, bored. He was never lonely. He said that he felt almost the opposite of that. He said he felt utterly and intricately connected to everything else in the world. It was difficult for him to tell where his body ended, and the woods began. He said he felt this utter communion with nature and with the outside world."

>he emphasized life necessary work above pointless activities, much less "doing nothing"
He said he sat around for many hours at a time doing literally nothing and was never bored, he worked to stay alive obviously but a lot of his days were spent just being part of nature, sitting and watching.

>you could easily apply the same logic to earth as it is now.
Yes precisely, and i see that instead of automation, which is currently costly, we take the cheaper approach of low wage workers.
It is currently much more profitable to have thousands of worker of Asia produce T-shirts that is it to invest in a new automatic machine that do the same. Otherwise we would have already automated everything. It is this type of logic that will make space colonization much less glamours than we think if we don't change our ways.
>the entire discussion is about people who do not exist.
I don't get your point. Can you explain how is it better to have 10 happy humans instead of 2 ? There is more but is that it ?