>AI on the rise
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking at an all time high
Can anyone in current year legitimately disprove his writings? You may disagree with the solution but the diagnosis was spot on.
Other urls found in this thread:
tridejur.uy
youtube.com
telegraph.co.uk
overcomingbias.com
twitter.com
>global warming reaching can’t go back levels
Disaster climate believers collectively wish to go to bed and never wake up. Never take them seriously
His writing is highly speculative and not grounded in actual empirical science, as it pertains to his psychological ideas. I agree very generally with what he's saying, because it simply makes sense to me that an animal evolved for a certain context would suffer living in a dramatically altered context, no matter how plastic humans are we are not blank slates, but he just kind of asserts a lot of stuff.
Like all 5 of your points here are very speculative. We don't know what will happen with ai, the mind is not understood at barely at all, politics have very often been worse than now, global warming is very speculative, and the commie stuff is subject to rather a lot of debate.
There are a lot of people today that are genuinely fine. I think the biggest thing that hurts people is actually the decline of marriage, because it causes a lot of loneliness.
user... it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of being already over. Science is not an opinion, it's a fact, and humanity made itself go extinct in 50 years 5-10 years ago
the predictions of climate science are not in themselves science, they are ideas, sometimes reasonable, sometimes not so much, that are drawn from the scientific evidence, which is itself not very well understood. Nobody has ever modeled and predicted the global climate, because the feat is absurdly complicated.
The way that academia functions these days, especially in politically fraught fields, but it happens even in random fields like Geology, makes it seem like there is a consensus on things that has the rigor of the work done in certain areas of physics, when it has nothing like it, and is often dubious, to put it mildly.
The problem isn't that things are bad. The problem is that things are too good. If we don't have real problems then we invent problems for ourselves, and our creativity is boundless and powerful.
Things are bad though. Did you even read his manifesto?
I’m with ya OP
>Things are bad
When was the last bad year for wheat? Can you tell me? 300 years ago you'd be able to tell me.
Suck on it!!!
By the way what do you even mean ‘I’m with ya’, is this some GIRLY SLANG TROLL POST :33
This is it I think desu, this is why workers don't give a shit about anything, shit just isnt that dire yet. To many distractions
>We’re eating too well
I hear what you’re saying, but....
Can I agree with you on this point? I’d agree with you on this point without being against technology :3
Thanks for sucking on my dick tonight btw bb
>You may disagree with the solution but the diagnosis was spot on.
Only from a crypto-communist perspective, which is the same perspective which labels all those things as bad / acknowledges the bad without any of the good. Communism is parasitic though and its proponents are the uncreative dregs of society.
He was generally right, but he has a lot of issues. Obviously his solution is unrealistic, for the most part, and unlikely to ever happen (though it might in the near future due to environmental collapse so who knows, but I don't think it will ever happen just from some anarchists doing anything). His weakest points tend to be in his specific examples, and his repeated references to what is "natural" ignoring human evolution and the fact that humans are extremely adaptable, which is an issue paleofags often seem to have. If you read about his personal life it becomes abundantly clear that he was going about a lot of his beliefs as a personal reaction.
There are tons of legitimate problems we are facing, but it is true that the average person is content with their situation (even if their situation is unnecessarily shitty in a lot of ways) as long as their needs are met. But I do think we will reach the point soon enough where that won't be the case. It should also be said though that people in general are really bad at identifying and acting against the basic cause of the problem(s), so even if a revolution does happen you'll often just end up with scapegoats getting killed before everyone reverts back to the same situation.
>empiricism
Nobody can, and this is why he still has some respect in terms of underground intellectual and high culture. He is one of the rare cases where a mathematician is also aware of the non-qualitative aspect of civic life given most mathematicians follow the liberal ideology that is persuaded by the other professors, i.e., lack of critical thinking outside of numbers.
All of this has been over since the creation of the internet and globalization, as one's first world education will be equal to the Congolese one, therefore your life is as worth as the Congolese "person".
Also, all of his works will be eventually burned because it "incites violence" soon.
>given most mathematicians follow the liberal ideology that is persuaded by the other professors, i.e., lack of critical thinking outside of numbers
You clearly haven't met many mathematicians. A lot of them are either extreme left-leaning or extreme right-leaning. Trostkyistare probably overrepresented among French Fields Medal laureates for instance. A lot of them were Communist or Anarchist militant in older times.
>Also, all of his works will be eventually burned because it "incites violence" soon.
It hasn't really incited anything, some killers (like Brevik) bungled some of his ideas, that's it. And his books are widely available, they won't be gotten rid of any time soon.
The whole thing about having to work for your basic needs all the time rather than spending time on surrogate activities is kinda dumb; it would be nice to only work four hours a day and spend the rest of the day lazing around. Most "work" today is just enabling more pointless consumption, which in turn fucks the world.
But yeah, of course he was right.
His point was that you wouldn't laze around. But that was stupid, since he ignores that primitive groups will often do things outside of just working to survive, including what he would call surrogate activities. The human desire for knowledge is very natural.
His actions disproved his writings.
How?
Pic related though.
>lazing around
Maybe if you don’t know what to do with your own time when you’re not constricted to work, corporations take it from you for the best
I know many of them but only in my country: they have very diverse political beliefs, but they’re all Christian (not wholly Catholic because one was Valdese)
Because he crazy
>idea that may ambiguously affect this quarter's profit margin growth is too much and also unreasonable
science is the reproduction of empirical studies
nothing he said was particularly original, stemlords can't into art.
We can't go back from here. The only path left is deeper and deeper into the technological system.
>user... it's not a matter of belief
You're right.
The datas have been falsified so thoroughly and continuously that It's not a matter of belief that Anthropogenic global warming is a complete scam.
It's cold hard fact.
> commie stuff
this is capitalism.
damn, respect Butters, didn't know you were *TED pilled* as well
lets make a simplistic model of co2 being the main factor of climate, ignore sun acitivty compeltly and now we can make fancy correlation lines and call it science.
awesome.
literally every argument bugmen use to delegitimize Kaczynski is completely mistaken. I've never seen someone write something that Kaczynski didn't cover in his books. You guys actually think a man who spent 18 years writing a 50 page manifesto, then another 25 years writing two books would leave holes and half-baked arguments?
So your comment is not particularly original either, since TK opens anti-tech revolution with a few paragraphs about "being original" and how he couldn't care less about it.
As always, nobody ever addresses Kaczynski's ideas.
bro we gonna have singularity it's gonna be all fine and dandy, the robots will fix everythiiing.
humans are bros after all and we will do this together.
SINGULARITY COME OOOOOON
>>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
>all these scientheists butthurt god starts intervening in the weather again
>ignore the increase in earthquake activity because that can't be manmade or else blame fracking for it despite it being global and much deeper in origin than fracking would allow
He'll stop again once we stop building the tower of Babel on the corpses of our brethren.
lol cope
But he's the opposite of a STEMlord you retard, his whole point is that technology 'has been a disaster for the human race'.
Even when he was blowing people up nobody was disputing his actual writings. People who read them recognized them for how good they were, and the rest of ((us)) ignored them because 'omg he is so crazy, now I need to go buy my next tech gizmo which makes my life so much better'
Which sounds silly and retarded, but you also have to keep in mind that in the 90s the tech really was transformative, and offered a ton of new things for those that consumed/used it. It was easier to ignore or not see the bad that would come along with it. Nowadays that we've been living in that post-tech-boom world, with Web 2.0 and social media and twitter dominating life and news, we can see how shitty things really have gotten much easier than we could back 25 years ago.
>But he's the opposite of a STEMlord
lol
Hey, everyone. This information stays here, between us. The world will end in the next ten years. It will be societal collapses followed by plagued and ending in nuclear description. All will die except for those chosen to repopulate the earth. The new humans won't be recognizable
YOUR best bet is to get a large bunker going and make sure two generations can survive there. Have them leave after 200 years.
Best of luck.
Ted promotes communism
This is true but many are also liberals. Regardless of field, it is a rare communist one who is not also a liberal.
>2 gen
>200 years
nigga
Primitive communism is rather different from the modern conception of communism.
splitting hairs
Nice argument
this is the next step
We need a synthesis between orthodox Marxism and Kaczynskiam desu
>marriage cures loneliness
i have bad news for you, buster
You deserve a bullet in your head.
the nuclear holocaust scenario requires a complex technoindustrial civilization to produce it. if you collapse civilization then the scenario becomes a priori impossible. can you even begin to imagine the incredibly complex interlocking processes requiring tens of thousands of people working in sync just to get one bomber of the ground with its payload?
Ai is the only hope for humanity.
And we live in the best times ever. If you're depressed you need to consider why everyone else is doing good while you keep screwing up.
Literally just go outside. Countless opportunities await anyone up for the challenge. Take charge of your life user.
when the cascading failure of the technological system is an option intrinsic to that system going deeper into it ironically puts us closer to ted's end scenario
This.
No way man can effect the climate. It's too big.
And in the States global cooling is already here. Europoors just can't into air conditioning.
Hot in summer? Oh really...
>dude unless you affirm science through your deconstruction of it you are saying nothing lmao
>And we live in the best times ever.
LOL
>Literally just go outside.
This urban wasteland holds no joy for the human soul.
Only the mentally ill are adapted to modern society.
>everyone is mentally ill but me, the shut-in fag who is bitter about everything
The cope is strong with this one.
He was kind of original, but that doesn't mean he's worth listening to. Anarchist drivel like his only makes it harder for people to navigate the current political / technological climate and succeed in it, and he attracts people who already have difficulty navigating it.
You'll understand when it happens.
this is quite true. The human brain is a problem solving machine. If there'd be no more problems to solve, we wouldn't feel like there was any progress or purpose to life. We need problems in order to feel alive. Many people retreat into the confines of their homes to search for artificial problems, provided by games, movies, books etc.
As Schopenhauer said: human life is like a man running down a hill. If he'd stop, he would inevitably fall over, or like a planet orbiting another heavenly body. It is perpetually falling, without this motion it would fall into it's sun.
>>AI on the rise
This is bad because?
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
proof?
>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all the others
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
I'll give you that one. But, sooner or later, we'll solve it
>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking at an all time high
That's capitalism, not technology.
>all my positions are axiomatic. proof?
trash reddit take
Unironically no, although Uncle Ted didn't make the most scientifically rigorous writings.
>Empirical approach to history
>Turns out the most prescient approaches to it were not empirical at all
really makes ya think
He never claimed to be original and clearly stated that things were based on both his observations (things a lot of other people have noticed) and Jacques Ellul. He just decided to phrase everything simply and make it easy to read while killing people to get attention.
>depersonalization because of the internet
brainlet here, what does that mean?
so then his diagnosis isn't what's notable about his work, more that he was a tard wrangler of sorts.
Presenting ideas simply to the masses isn't tard wrangling, especially when the American masses wouldn't be aware of people like Ellul. So no, to his target audience his diagnosis would be notable and relatively unique (though again, the idea that luddites exist is something most people are vaguely aware of).
>to his target audience
yeah, retards
>You may disagree with the solution but the diagnosis was spot on.
Exactly. I love reading uncle Ted because he's so god damn critical of everything, including himself. His diagnosis is very good.
>including himself.
I like that he's willing to take criticism and admit when he's wrong.
ITT: Low IQ burgers thinking the world problems extend to their backyard
>this is your brain on positivism
wtf I hate Ted now
Ok please tell me how we know the following "facts":
1. The earth is getting warmer.
2. The warming is a long term trend, not a brief phase or cycle.
3. The primary cause of warming is CO2, or other man made emissions. Other factors are irrelevant.
4. The emissions are caused by things we control (running machines etc).
5. If we stopped those things the climate would recover or stop its course.
6. There is no more effective way to deal with emissions or prevent the earth from warming.
The only one I believe you could establish as a "fact" is #1, everything else is subject to extreme scrutiny, even without invoking a Hume style critique of the limits of empiricism. We have such a tiny perspective on how the Earth behaves.
> excuse me this is only one data point
Accumulating a bunch of data and inferring causes from data trends is not the best, or even the primary way of reasoning.
Making predictions about how people will behave is completely reasonable, even without a full understanding of the brain. Its how we function in the world. You do it all the time.
Kaczynsky is the synthesis of marxism and liberalism.
Highly autonomous, high trust, family groups, achieving goals within a close locus of control is the utopia.
2 can be determined by way of comparison to other temperature rises and lowerings - in fact the problem is precisely not that it is a long term trend, it is that the earth is warming far more rapidly than it ever has at any point in the past while the human species existed.
3 follows naturally.
4 follows naturally.
5 has not been asserted seriously by anyone in a position to seriously assert it.
6 has not been asserted seriously by anyone in a position to seriously assert it.
As per usual, climate change deniers do not actually know the science or the arguments, they have been brainwashed by people out to use and abuse them for profit.
>AI on the rise
as most people in the field its not coming any time soon
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalize because of the internet
like any great technological advancement its going to displace and cause issues at the core of society
>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
if read any history then you will see that this has been going since the inception of man
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
the globe heating up is fine worry about pollution and the environment
>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate boot licking at an all time high
they are the new sovereignty's and merchants of the age, will we rest control from them or will they reign as the future looks back longer then we should have let the system turn
AI is sci fi larp shit and will not happen. Everyone except ted who believes in the singularity is a sci fi larper nerd. Most of them are utopianists though, ted essentially believes the same things will happen but he interprets it as a dystopia (breach of Freedom and human dignity)
>The problem is that things are too good.
Why do I have to work 40+ hours a week then?
Fuck you Butterbitch.
Every other thread you're moaning about how you're looking forward to the singularity and transhumanism 'n sheeiiiitt.
God is a mathematician after all.
Im actually a big fan of Spengler lol. But im also a big fan of Quigley, who reaches eerily similar conclusions in a very empirical fashion. Both methods clearly have value.
In any case climate science purports to be empirical, not some esoteric alternative to science, as do psychology and the other things Ted talks about, he's not exactly a mystic.
I don't really know what you're saying, what basis is there for making predictions other than 'data points'. That is exactly what we do in the world, it's just not formalized, we take in evidence and then reason about it, science tries to make this process more rigorous is all. I know that irl instinctive understandings of things are often superior to reasoning about every last thing, which is impossible, and well literally autism. But the stuff Ted's talking about is not those irl situations which call for that sort of behavior but very specific and widesweeping statements about complex aspects of reality.
Because slavery was abolished and average people live for longer than 30 years now.
>AI on the rise
This is a good thing on many levels. For one, it may be possible for higher qualities of life to advance further on their shoulders, rather than a useless humanity; a humanity hell-bent on lowering its IQ, being more and more controlled by money, preaching evil as good (equality)...
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high
Yes, but the reasons are many (or should be, or else it is a deserved fate).
> due to depersonalization because of the internet
Thanks to the Internet we have established that many 'people' aren't even people.
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
A lot depends on the Sun and its activity levels, so no. Also, Earth has historically had great variation in its atmosphere composition, especially oxygen and CO2 variation. The fact that humans go extinct is of little consequence after humans abandoned values.
>slavery was abolished
Usury wasn't, so this is skin deep.
>average people live for longer than 30 years now.
This means mostly that child mortality rate is down. People are as unhealthy as ever.
Well it's a bit of a matter of perspective
Things are very good for humans yes better than they've ever been but that's exactly why things are bad
It's like a dog who loves chocolate and somehow finds themselves in a chocolate factory
Humans like every other animal don't actually know what's good for them it's just on a more complex level
#graphtwitter
Fuck off Sean
Go out and get shot, Amerilard
That's only a few things really to focus on.
Let's say humans are going extinct. That's bad news, right? Well, what did we think would happen? The human race would continue forever? That wouldn't be normal for a species. Most last a certain amount of time and that it's it. This would have happened in nature, it may be happening now in civilization.
I have had depression and I've been able to deal with it. They may be "on the rise" but there are tons of historical cases of melancholics who I relate to more than now. Furthermore, I spend a decent amount of time with friends and acquaintances outside of the internet apart from on the internet, probably as much as I would have.
People have been engaged in war since civilization came along. Athens vs. Sparta, Optimates vs. Populares, is political strife not coexistent with politics?
There's a good reason to be modestly indifferent to "civilizational decline" or whatever, since it is depressing to dwell on, and we have finite time in life that can be far better spent.
The other thing he got totally wrong is "surrogate activities". The phrase in nothing more than a rhetorical trick to turn something good into something bad. Aristotle talks about how in the metaphysics the Egyptian priest class invented math because they had leisure. It's simply the case that the highest intellectual pleasure is reserved for the materially secure with time on their hands, and this pleasure is superior to eating berries and reproducing. Both surrogate activities and survival are power processes, but the ends of surrogate activities can be superior and done for their own sake, whereas the purpose of all survival based power processes is survival: a good goal, but the activity done for it clearly is inferior for activities worth doing for themselves.
One who lives unwisely spends too little time on these activities or overindulges and ruins them, killing the satisfaction they can win from life.
In conclusion, he's not really wrong for the most part but that changes nothing about how I live because the parts that would have he got wrong.
Why shouldn't they? If they are happy and surrounded by happy people, why would they search for a historical trend that doesn't affect them that they have no power over to be upset about?
soijak.jpg
Bitch more because you're too stupid to figure out how to get money or a job you enjoy lmao
Enjoy being cattle.
You don't. You're just to lazy and/or stupid to find alternatives
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
That's a slippery slope fallacy. Please go back to Facebook now.
Yeah I just need jeesus to tell me what's right
>sooner or later we'll fix it
you're a fucking retard mate, why do spastics like you seem to think the world operates like some sort of christopher nolan film? there's no going back from what we've done to the planet, at least not for the foreseeable future
How can you be so sure?
Imagine butterwhore dying in about 30 years to to chronic bad health as a result of not being active. Will she post here? Or will she die totally alone? I think she'll write a confession before she dies and that is the day we will get to know her
#20190808 Japan approves 1st shipment of chemicals to S. Korea under new trade curbs - RT
tridejur.uy
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
Anthropogenic climate change is pseudoscience and you are extrapolating a conclusion that is a setup and spoken matter-of-factly as prori irrefutable from a sample window that really is less than 200 years for something that has existed for eon upon eon. Temperatures that predate instrumentation (v. the thermometer), are derived from so-called proxies such as tree-ring counting and soil samples which are influenced by hundreds of other factors, making them vary as much as 50+/- degrees Celsius. Pseudoscience practitioners will say "b-but the quantity of data makes up for it!". But it does not. It serves only to improve the statistical strength of their models. Such is like saying the quantity of tea leaves increases the accuracy of the soothsayer's divination. Most discussions about climate are midwit central. They especially like it because low IQ persons are usually on the other end and if there is nothing a midwit likes more than to feel relatively superior to them, because it makes them think they are smart. The irony is the solution to climate change by these midwits always boils down to some economic solution like taxation or carbon credits or ludicrous promises of technology they do not understand, further proving firstly their delusion to actually think these would work, and secondly, their lack of imagination for grand schemes and solutions. Fuck midwits.
I know but that's an argument against co2 emissions, not technology. You can have technology without co2 emissions. We simply switch to nuclear energy and ban the production of meat
lmao I love how deniers have had to slap "anthropogenic" on their ramblings in the past few years because it's literally impossible to deny that the past 10-15 years have consistently been the hottest in history with the temps only continuing to go up.
I guarantee that four years ago this poster was talking about how "actually, [cherrypicked glacier] is getting bigger, and it was a cold winter last year, so it's not warming at all!!".
Cope harder brainlet.
>The Earth is warming far more rapidly than it ever has
I dare you to try and actually prove this in any way that isn't incredibly spurious. Your ideas rest on religious convictions not science. If you actually had any fucking clue what the hell was going on climate wise you'd know the real problem is plastic waste and incorporation of microplastics into geological and marine sediments, not this absurd death cult surrounding emissions (which are almost entirely industrial and caused by countries in which our suicidal emissions policies in white countries will have no fucking effect).
You're not a scientist or even someone who gives a fuck about the environment, you're a zealot. Until you get the fuck off the internet and stop buying Chinese made dildos on Amazon, any posturing you make about climate change is just hypocritical bullshit.
>all of the climate change denial and coping itt
so you agree? the only point we actually know is #1?
so If I'm so wrong let's hear the correct chain of reasoning that justifies the sort of policies that they want to implement
This is what me and the boys call "low quality bait"
I can't help but think that people who throw this kind of arguments are as shallow as a wooden plank. The point has never been productivity or any sort of materialist matter. It is well known that some of the countries with the best quality of life are the ones with the highest antidepressant consumption (some even 1 each 10 persons) and the highest suicide rate. We are talking about spiritual matters here. Technology has desconnected us from the world. Most people spend his will not on themselves but in working for this abstract entity called 'System' completing dull and meaningless tasks that provides no other benefit than money. An individual can't acquire meaning if he can't working for no one than himself and see the well-earned fruits of his efforts. That's the only way in which one's will can be channeled and therefore live with a healthy mind and a meaningful life. The System can't provide this, and the System itself knows it and, to compensate this lack, -because it has to be compensated if it wants to keep being nurtured-, tries to make you believe that you are important, and that your labour matters, and so on and so on with the bussiness coach bullshit. Our spirit was stronger back then, when most of the people could firmly stand against the vicissitudes of life. That's when things are good and not bad. People now are a bunch of fragile whiny cumbrains adicted to hentai, like probably you.
wow I didn't know scientism runs this deep. you think doing regressions is descriptively how people think?
a much more natural way people think is simply looking for a past experience that is similar to the one they are facing now, mapping onto it, and then deciding whether its similar enough for outcomes to match. it's story driven.
other ways of reasoning?
what is rationalism
what is deductive/axiomatic reasoning
what is historical example
what is narrative/myth
of course Ted's isn't a scientific argument. nobody can reason about the state of society that way. it doesn't even seem to work for large markets
>the slaves clamor for freedom for centuries
>they finally become free
>become depressed and suicidal
What the fuck is wrong with people? To be depressed in this day and age is completely ludicrous and shameful.
>they finally become free
Yeah, but then the Allies declared war and won.
>become free
Is this bait or are you certainly that naive/retarded/mediocre?
>e-every single scientist in the world is wrong about climate change!
>t-trust me i read these facebook infographs!
>every single scientist in the world
That's not true and you know it.
The margin is small enough that the difference is entirely nominal at best.
Taking the talking points of people who have literal monetary stakes in not slowing the causational factors (i.e fucking o i l) at face value is sheep tier at best, and mommy I wanna gargle the balls of massively wealthy cunts for breakfast tier at worst.
>global warming is very speculative
This is the level of intelligence possessed by your average Yea Forums poster
Yo quick check, RE: man made climate change is impossible, why's no one mentioning the hole in the ozone layer over Australia? The one which everyone at the time recognized as real, because CFCs in aerosol cans were banned because of it?
It improved a bit, but it might get worse because China decided to start polluting with those same old CFCs again.
That being said I don't know why some people itt hyper focus on climate change when it seems implied from the topic (Ted's ideas) that the environmental issues also incorporate various other problems like oil spills, deforestation, plastics, etc.
What's stopping you from living your life the way you want to live it other than yourself? Unless you think becoming free means becoming free ABSOLUTELY, which would require that you own slaves.
I'll give my opinion on this to you and I'm open to criticism and will even change my opinion if you manage to give good counter-arguments.
Humanity has a need for energy. The need for it and the production of energy was on the rise without noticeable downfalls ever since the industrial revolution. The biggest contributor of energy is coal, natural gas, and crude oil; each of them produce CO2 and all of them account for 85% of the world energy. Renewable sources can't act as alternative as producing the solar panels and hydro plants themselves requires energy and their energy worth is increased with the passage of time so they can't act as replacement as they will never ever be able to meet the demand for energy in the short time we have, thus making them barely any different from releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as the other ones. Imagine how much CO2 would release if we build a million hydro plants to meet our demand for it, let alone the space required for it.
Globalism is making sure that each part of the world is becoming energy dependent and energy producer, this trend is increasing exponentially as Africa is about to enter a demographic explosion; but afterwards we can expect it to slow down but never to go to a state of decrease unless an external force comes to stop it (natural disaster). Each nation is competing itself on the market and tries to increase its energy production, they will not go into deals that will significantly reduce the maximum amount of allowed CO2 release as that will impede the main powers because they, themselves, can't ensure that the other powers follow their side of the deal. Each of the world powers is a democratic country whose government relies on the trust of the people (exception is China) and thus can't make ambiguous decisions with significant effects (like telling every citizen to become vegetarian, stop using cars, limited hot water supply) without losing the support of the people and being replaced by a more status quo party.
The current trend of climate predictions (a large majority agrees on this) is that we need to do significant cut-offs on the energy productions we have right NOW, let alone the one we will have in the future, and with the current situation in the world there isn't a single party wanting to do major cut-offs on energy production, meaning that in the near future we will have to do even more renewable energy sources if we were to replace it, we would have to do many more cut-offs and that would require even more drastic effects the public will never agree to do. Most of the mega corporations are big energy consumers who will never agree on having their profits neglected by laws that are in not their favor, as they are following a rule of min-maxing, thus they will be yet another factor in making sure we don't come to the change we need.
So to conclude, human inability to make drastic changes that are far in the future will be the end of us.
based and burgerpilled
really makes me think how some degenerates prefer thinking that humanity is doomed to cook to death with billions starving in 15-20 years than actually do anything to reduce emissions and pollution now
Definitely.
>What's stopping you from living your life the way you want to live it other than yourself?
I can't live as a part of a living, thriving community with distinct culture, history and agenda.
Might makes right, and technology is the ultimate might-maker. Any society that rejects science and technology would get crushed by one that embraces them.
Why not?
There is no such thing anymore. My state hides child abuse cases and protects foreign conquerors over those supposedly my kin.
It's pointless for now. We'll see if populism solves this problem by crashing the vengeful blood god of democracy.
>collapses under its own weight
Heh, looks like technology is the better species
>Might makes right
Is that true, or are you just pretending until you can't anymore?
>that picture.
Do you actually believe it's better to be less than 95 IQ, than to be 110-120 iq? Why?
>all predictive models on the climate were 100% wrong
>scientists have no clue of what is actually happening
>not speculative
The scientists changed their slogan from "global warming" to "climate change" in order to save face.
>There is no such thing anymore.
Are you serious? There's communities everywhere, all over the place, wherever there's people living in close physical proximity to one another. Some communities are even long-distance now thanks to modern technology. You're free to create your own, too.
>You guys actually think a man who spent 18 years writing a 50 page manifesto, then another 25 years writing two books would leave holes and half-baked arguments?
> Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong.
huh...
>>You guys actually think a man who spent 18 years writing a 50 page manifesto, then another 25 years writing two books would leave holes and half-baked arguments?
"I love deadlines. I love the big wooshing sound they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams.
I'm and i was agreeing with you brainlet.
>lmao I love how deniers have had to slap "anthropogenic" on their ramblings in the past few years
It was always there degenerate retard
And you would have deserved to be aborted like You want to abort milions of kids But here We are in a fallen world in which your brain wasn't liquified with a saline solution.
Why does he seethe so much about leftists in his manifesto?
kali-yuga is supposed to end 2025.
Because he thought that If something could have ruined his ideology It would have been leftist retards appropriating It. Comes out that he was 100% right.
>global warming reaching "can't go back" levels
There's nothing we can do about global climate patterns.
I find it hard to believe that humans have a significant impact.
Kali yuga ended in the 1700s Vivekananda did the calculations right. We are 300 years into Dvapara Yuga.
>n=15 is proof of my hypothesis
>>AI on the rise
so?
>>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
I bet raping and pillaging neighbor villages are the human way of life
>>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
gay
>>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
oh they said the planet would be dead right now 10 years ago
>>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking at an all time high
gay
Yes. The very stupid, know that they are stupid. They seldom use reason to truly perverted passions as middle-range persons do and they also know to listen to their very high IQ superiors.
You don't need the antisocial ramblings of Ted. You need the sane, mature writings of Wendell Berry.
>Yes. The very stupid, know that they are stupid. They seldom use reason to truly perverted passions as middle-range persons do and they also know to listen to their very high IQ superiors.
>very high IQ superiors.
Is that you?
He's just a naive reactionary. Organic lifeforms are fundamentally inneficient and will be gradually replaced either through martial competition or peaceful competition on the market.
I remember thinking his rants about "left-wing politics is a mental illness" were a little childish and immature, but the more I grow old and observe the left-wingers around me, the more I see truth in it. It's always the ones who are most insecure and self-hating who most passionately pursue 'virtuous' left-wing causes. Many such cases even in my own family.
he spent a lot of time around them as he was an academic
I don't think kaczynski should be taken seriously as a philosopher due to the damage inflicted on his psyche during the MK Ultra psychic driving experiments forced on him at Harvard by Henry Murray. He is a broken toy of the state, a could have been. His analysis is not sound, and his actions were insane even if you think they were directed towards acheiving his aims.
lol. talk about ad hominen. any of his ideas you care to deconstruct?
this is total media narrative fud. the entire course of his life was determined by that one story?
this. all the people in my family who are leftists are those who are weak and unsuccessful.
I think 200 hours of brainwashing left him unable to reason. And bombing american computer scientists was never going to create the changes he wanted, so why do it unless you are unable to use reason?
The most powerful branch of mathematics in terms of its applications is game theory. Whilst exceedingly difficult to truly master it is a very flexible and powerful way to mode virtually any complex system and will often yield better results than induction via extrapolation of data points through a causal chain of events.
In sufficiently complex and interdependent systems standard deterministic approaches via examination of data points becomes almost impossible, it’s why it is impossible to apply these models to economics. However by interpolating data from a wide range of observations you can develop a sufficiently rigorous and comprehensive rule set that using game theory will be far more effective at predictive the state of a large scale complex system like society as a whole.
TK may very well be wrong, and his ideas are often tinged with a profound sadness from his own experiences, however the flaws will arise from a lack of interpolating key data points rather than a lack of rigour in his ideas themselves. They all follow straightforward predicate logic given you accept a few reasonable starting points. Namely that humans will over time always choose the path of least resistance, this is almost certainly a true statement if you take the whole of humanity and stretch it across the whole of time.
Consider we theoretically designed a implantable computer chip that made you completely lose your free will, however it would stimulate the sensation of an orgasm every two minutes. Because it would achieve this electrically not chemically you would never develop tolerance. Each orgasm would be like your first ever orgasm.
Perhaps after year 1 only 1% of the population would get it.
But after year 99 then you can be sure 99% of the population would have it.
Life would then be almost impossible to adapt to for the 1% that chose not to get such an implant. Now you can be a relativist and say it doesn’t matter if everyone becomes a continuously orgasming mind slave. Who are we to judge? But a fundamental moral view of right and wrong is necessary for any philosophical evaluation, even if that morality is arbitrary.
>any of his ideas you care to deconstruct?
Yeah, the one about technology being a problem for mankind, when it's clearly only a problem for SOME of mankind.
“ALL I SEE ARE NPC’s, WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY “
God you people are stupid as fuck.
>AI on the rise
lmao you need to learn what actual a.i is and to stop reading scifi geek articles
>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
that's actually at an all time low now thanks to the internet making people more docile and obedient by distracting them
>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
factories adding an extra step to output solid carbon instead of gas carbon
planting trees (each tree weighs ~1-100 tons of carbon)
more infrastructure projects and research on stuff like fusion/nuclear energy, geothermal energy, more efficient farming model, removal of unnecessary industries, etc all can fix this problem
>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking at an all time high
the children of the "invisible hand" won't see and struggle with the same amount of class consciousness their fathers endured so they will be much harsher resulting in a class consciousness comeback that will ultimately result in a collapse and a revolution.
it's all going as planned. if it's too complicated for you keep taking the "fuck it all" approach and follow that retard
Have sex
yes i have read tech revolution, the wheel of humanity will not be steered into one direction, why make this blog post.
You fail to see that most developed countries have negative birth rates and that is why they want to develop africa, to stop them from breeding like rabbits (more wealth -> less children needed)
But i agree, humanity is pretty fucked at this point, however nothing of value is really lost.
>Science is not an opinion, it's a fact
Imagine actually believing this
You should try responding to individual things people say with arguments to see whether they're actually dumber than you.
COPE
Sasuga climate deniers. I know that you are a religious loon however projecting this onto others will not help you.
>wherever there's people living in close physical proximity to one another
That's your definition of community? So basically any dense city block is a community, no matter their actual state of social fragmentation and alienation? Where people talk more to someone on the other side of the world than their neighbors or even relatives?
>Some communities are even long-distance now thanks to modern technology
That's a very superficial conception of community. You can't possibly compare a deterritorialized "global community" formed by people in the same craft or hobby (i.e. fucking furfags) to an actual living, breathing community of people living in the same place, with traditions and ways of doing things that share their lives together in a material and spiritual manner.
Dude it's current year and the decade is almost over. It's too late to be an ultra rationalist nerd and refrain from having any ideas at all unless you've personally conducted 5 studies on the topic.
>That's your definition of community?
No, that's not what I wrote. Communities exist wherever there are people in close physical proximity to one another, but that proximity itself isn't the community. I use the same definition of community as you do. The problem, I suspect, is that you're intellectually lazy, or have little to no travel experience, or are politically motivated to disregard existing communities and ones that have emerged since the 21st century.
>Literally "you need to live more" as an argument
Rich coming from the guy that ignores the increasing (and accelerating) levels of alienation and tearing apart at the most basic fabrics of society.
>ones that have emerged since the 21st century.
For example?
>the increasing (and accelerating) levels of alienation and tearing apart at the most basic fabrics of society.
I'm not finding myself in those circumstances and I know of many others who aren't either. The numbers that aren't are in the millions. It's your responsibility to take care of yourself, not anyone else's.
>For example?
Look anywhere that's thriving, anywhere at all.
>It's your responsibility to take care of yourself, not anyone else's.
Of course, and especially so in the face of collapse.
>Look anywhere that's thriving, anywhere at all.
Give me one or two examples then. Also what do you mean by "thriving"?
Yeah well about that user, the depleting and unsustainable agriculture & critical materials and let's not even begin to speak of depleting petroleum & metals alike, civilisation is doomed.
>Also what do you mean by "thriving"?
The textbook definition of the word. Do your own searching because that's the only way you can come in contact with or create a community. No one will ever find a community for you, that's not how it works and if that's how you thought it worked all this time it's no wonder why you think none exist.
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
This will subside once cultures assimilate into internet life more comfortably. Tech illiteracy is much to blame for many of the problems surrounded with its technology's social implications
>The textbook definition of the word
That's just avoiding the question. What may be thriving for you (I'm suspecting thriving economically, but I can be wrong if you don't clarify) may not be so for me or what I think is best for a society.
>No one will ever find a community for you
Attacks to my person aside (because I can't possibly argue this point unless I don't have a community of mine is what it's saying), do you not realize that the very fact that there are so many people without one is precisely part of what I and the other user are describing?
If society weren't falling apart and communities being destroyed in favor of a homogeneous global system, people would not need to FIND a community like it were a product in a market, they would be already born and raised in them, and die with them save exceptions.
Of course his diagnosis was spot on. Many intellectuals before him, in fact, pointed to the very same issues. His solution is complete shit though. In my view, the causal source of these issues stem from mankind's psyche, and it's best people embrace antinatalism. Antinatalists are saving 20x more CO2 emission by having no children than natalists who live completely green lifestyles as statistics shows, which I could indeed share. Those that procreate can have the satisfaction in knowing their progeny will most likely die in a brutal extinction event. Not my responsibility, especially since my lineage will end with me. Future generations will just become more and more ignorant to the point where they die in some kind of nuclear war or ecological calamity, which is fine to me because mankind isn't that great.
>>AI on the rise
Just say automation. I do not believe autonomous artificial general intelligence (AGI) will happen anytime soon. However, yes, automation will increase and many jobs will be lost. Most of them don't require autonomous AGI though. There will be no advanced brain-computer interfaces, autonomous AGI, or space colonization.
He thinks they are the ultimate manifestation of the effects of the system on the human psyche. Somewhat demonic, in a sense.
t. self hating leftist
My man, modern Europeans are becoming heavily Americanized. America has upped exporting their decadent media and consumerist culture to Europe. Europe pretty much lives under the thumb of the evil USA at this point.
Also, CIA has engineered a lot of this in order to predict behavioral patterns of Europeans (e.g., Migrant Crisis was largely the fault of USA).
Not everything has to be framed based on your shitty left vs. right meme crap, Ameritard.
I meant leftist in the sense that Kaczynski uses it, Pajeet.
There are still people voluntarily getting married, having children, forming social groups, creating new art or technology, building things, fixing things, enjoying themselves, having conversations, learning things, working towards improving themselves, working towards protecting themselves from hostile forces, etc. All of these things are types of thriving.
Society isn't falling apart because there's communities being destroyed, because for each community that's destroyed, there's a new one being created or spread further in its place.
Why don't you go die for Israel, you fatass boorish Ameritard piece of shit? You are so simple-minded that you shouldn't be here. It's obvious you don't read much, and I think being on a Football forum suits your peasant, shitty nature better. Neck yourself, you abominable piece of shit. You have nothing to do with European ethos. Even far-right figures like Klages and Evola hated you. Go commit suicide. Slit your throat and go to hell and film it live for my satisfaction.
>in the sense that Kaczynski uses
Not really, you dumb piece of shit. Again, take that knife and slit your fucking throat, peasant trash.
>you
I don't deny any of those, but that doesn't disprove what I say. It's a matter of numbers. Like the graph I posted for a quick but illustrative example about a particularly important phenomenon.
>there's a new one being created or spread further in its place.
You still haven't provided me with examples of this. And I don't think cities overpopulating with random people with barely any connection at all can count for this. Don't you think global homogeneization kills communities?
I'm going to bed so I hope the thread is still up by tomorrow.
I'm not an Amerilard you Eurocuck lol
Go preserve your community like the other user says, before some mudnigger takes it from you. Or maybe you'd like that, who knows.
You think like an Americanized prick: nothing but assumptions and talking out of your ass. I don't care what people do because I can't change it. I know mankind will go extinct in the near future, which I view as more positive, and I don't give a shit if your future descendants die. It's not my problem. No mudnigger or you will take shit from me. You can all eat shit in hell after seeing how delusional your beliefs in progressivism were.
>I don't deny any of those, but that doesn't disprove what I say.
It does though, because where people thrive, communities are weaved among them. If there are thriving people, there are communities. Maybe where you live has been deflated of its resources and thriving types and you should consider moving.
>Don't you think global homogeneization kills communities?
Of course it does. It creates new ones, too. Do you really think the communities it's killing didn't also kill communities a long time ago in order to exist?
>praised by a Jew York Times bestselling author
>edited by (((Cohen)))
>foreword by Pajeet
Jesus Christ.
>solid carbon instead of gas carbon
Are you actually a brainlet? The carbon emissions we worry about are Carbon Dioxide, which cannot remain a solid unless it’s super cooled. Unless you believe we have some way of making our byproduct coal (solid carbon) but if it were possible to generate energy and have coal as a byproduct we’d basically achieve infinite energy since our byproduct of burning energy is more energy. This is how dumb you sound.
>the commie stuff is subject to rather a lot of debate.
Ah yes big evil corporations are what communism is all about. I remember when in his manifesto Marx said "corporations are awesome the bigger the better fuck worker rights". Classic communism.
bad bait m8. we all know Yea Forums loves jews and pajeets
>>AI on the rise
The impact of AI has hardly been truly felt.
>>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
And due to a lot more besides.
>>fragmented political groups eating each other alive
A perennial state of affairs.
>>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
AI and the internet are the least responsible. Fossil fuels are not physically necessary energy sources. The technology dooming us is outdated, not cutting edge.
>>corporations becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking at an all time high
This isn't a direct consequence of the level of industrial advancement. It's more to do with the organization of the means of production and private property.
go back to plebbit
There are 'green' companies who benefit greatly from the climate hysteria as well.
And science is not decided by the amount of scientists believing something, retardo
>because for each community that's destroyed, there's a new one being created or spread further in its place.
bold claim there
someone lmk where i can find the manifesto??
coal is not only carbon and you can turn co2 into solid carbon with high temperature and high pressure although the challenge is how to do that without outputting more carbon from heating
>>global warming reaching 'can't go back' levels
How old are you?
Because those of us with a memory longer than that of a goldfish have heard the "can't go back" spiel 20 years ago.
Nothing bold about it.
/thread
okay fags, let's ignore global warming for a sec.
How about oil depletion? You're aware that lithium will never make up for it, right?
What's communist is viewing big corporations as evil.
bro the market will just come up with a solution lol, just chill out it's fine if a few hundred million people die lol the market will readjust and it'll be great for the privileged and wealthy who had enough money to survive
Eurobants getting really weak
kek
>this mad you're dying in fair weather
lmao
>Migrant Crisis was largely the fault of USA)
lmfao
Nuclear.
You're in denial. People are no more superior than animals but in thinking we are we believe we can control anything. Except large scale things like Earth. But you can't possibly believe that the massive rapid changes from recent human history haven't affected the Earth in the slightest. Our changes are going faster than ever, and the Earth hasn't and won't adapt to it.
Aren't we centuries away from oil depletion? Probably millennia away if China disappeared from the planet.
Wouldn't it be nice if the human mind were better at understanding scale?
The graph is true. My 50 year old parents met through chat
It's hard because scale is relative to what percieves it. We're tiny compared to the Sun and gigantic compared to microbes. Scale nullifies the importance of things usually, however when talking about global warming, relativity is a big issue. Compare the temp from centuries or eons ago to now, and the increase has been faster and substantial. It's very unbalanced, and trying to balance it too quickly is an issue itself, but doing nothing at all shouldn't be an option.
I have multiple cousins and friends who met their spouses online too. It's funny that online dating is being insinuated as anti-social or a symptom of an anti-social system when it literally exists because people's standards have gone up and they continue to want to socialize.
That and the "scale" of the atmosphere and climate in general is hard for people to understand. How can "we" (and when people think we, they're thinking of their city, or the people they know, or at most their country and not the billion or so heavy consumers and the systems in place moving consumer goods across the ocean) have an effect on the climate, how can "we" change a system this large, it's impossible! But, the only reason it seems impossible is because the conversation has never been about the balance that the system was in, and what scale the entire human population outputs pollutants.
>Can anyone in current year legitimately disprove his writings?
Robin Hanson debunked his retarded collapse theory.
It's hard for everyone, in general to really feel scale in Earth's metaphorical shoes. Only people who work and care for that field know it. I didn't care much for it until only a year back. And if most people are like me but don't have the incentive, then it's safe to assume that anti-global warming people are technically correct in their own, closed-minded way. It makes them far from being right, though
Stigmas and stereotypes are usually half-lies or full-lies when it comes to groups of people. We're unique enough to create exceptions and similar enough to fuel sticks into the fire.
Other user seems to want communities where people actually communicate. That a bunch of urbanities who never even see their neighbors much less talk to them, don't go to church or local union or business groups, hardly count as a community.
>it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of being already over. Science is not an opinion, it's a fact
[STEM philistine spotted]
True. Everyone do their part to accelerate it.
>neighbors
>church
>local union or business group
Surrogate bonds, all of them. Today, people connect and communicate with like-minded individuals over the internet, and even meet up with them in person, and get married that way too. Communication isn't gone, its quality has been improved significantly for everyone capable of embracing the new world.
>>AI on the rise
You are either retarded or you read too much Nick Land
How are you blind to the erosion of our privacy, in the name of an illusory safety net, which the nameless provide for proles against mythical threats.
The same who defend those who pollute Earth with chemicals (such as endocrine disrupting chemicals) plaguing life with health defects so that Stacy can purchase the latest iPhone upon release for the cheapest possible price - no matter what the cost.
We were given no chance to opt out of the life those in power have created for us, the life that they ever persistently permeate in a desperate attempt to meet shareholder needs, in fear that their competition will utilise similarly unethical tactics to compete for capital.
It's all so gross.
>50 years ago 5-10 years ago.
That's a really shitty way to just say 40-45 years.
>implying it's not already being used this way to assist with surveillance of flagged individuals or groups (e.g. networks of cameras utilising facial / gait / limb length recognition to track people who are deemed a threat to whatever the people in power want to protect)
You are like a child.
Nothing can be done to stop the invasive nature of technology, Ted was foolish to think that weaponization is not inevitable.
>DUDE JUST WAGEKEK FOR 50 YEARS LMAO
Ai isn't on the rise. Stop the bubble tard
Kill yourself normie. I hope you are meming, because this shit is so prevalent among normies its disturbing
>surveillance of flagged individuals or groups (e.g. networks of cameras utilising facial / gait / limb length recognition to track people who are deemed a threat to whatever the people in power want to protect)
facial recognition is not a.i, simply it's just camera with a program that looks at bio metrics to detect a person, if there is no human behind the camera it's really easy to trick it.
a.i is a very gimmicky word and to explain it simply you have to look at as two categories
1. tree diagrams
2. machine learning that finds the best option by trying all possible combinations
while they do beat humans at some stuff they are still inferior to humans in pretty much everything else
user, we are on Yea Forums. Everyone here is aware of the internet. But an online community is only a few sad parts of a whole community. Even a small group originally built on local relationships, is not the same. Even if they interact daily online, the relationships are not the same, not as fulfilling, not as useful.
There are more AI techniques than that. And image recognition is considered to be AI in CS.
>He doesn't know about positive feedback loops
>user, we are on Yea Forums. Everyone here is aware of the internet.
This site is populated with social retards. They're aware of the internet but almost none of its benefits.
>Even if they interact daily online, the relationships are not the same, not as fulfilling, not as useful.
I'm not even talking about that, really. Yes, you have an endless number of Discord servers and forums where people congregate, but in the really pro-social ones, the members are either all irl friends already, or they talk to each other frequently over mic, or they physically meet up, and so on. And through the internet, people can become aware of special interest groups they wouldn't have otherwise ever come in contact with. People relocate because of that, travel to other countries even and raise families or start businesses with people they otherwise wouldn't have ever met. Are they only happy stories? Of course not, but there are plenty of stories that are. Rooster Teeth, for example, came together because the founding members met each other on a forum, and they've met TONS of people through that business, and people from overseas like Gavin found them and traveled to join their team, and they raised a subscriber base of tens of millions, and host events regularly where many fans attend—is that not a community? And if it's not fulfilling to you, that doesn't mean it isn't fulfilling for its members. There are many types of communities, and they don't all have to work the way you want them to work to be labeled as communities, or to be fulfilling to people.
There is nothing about the internet that encourages anti-social behavior. The anti-social people on the internet were anti-social before they came in contact with the internet. If anything, the internet should be seen as yet another tool for propagating a community, and nothing more. It's an obstruction insofar as you are incapable of utilizing it.
>depression and mental disorders at an all time high due to depersonalization because of the internet
>AI on the rise
>Corporations are becoming monopolies and corporate bootlicking is at an all time high
>Political groups eating each other apart
I don't say this unironically a lot, but a read a book faggot. No, there have been far worse ages of strife in our history than now and the internet is not the purest variable in creating mental illness by any means. Also, the 19th century is when private companies held the most sway and power over state government in the history of mankind. Corporations today, even the like of Google, Raytheon, and Amazon, have nowhere near the power over the state as corporations previously had.
>He says that like they actually don't
You are so precious user. Keep your innocence, at least when you are ignorant you can be hopeful.
You're an idiot of the highest caliber. Private companies like Google and Microsoft don't have armies and invade countries for their own interests anymore , back in the day corporations actually did
>Inb4 retarded bourgie sperging about how the US government is every corporations army
No
Its okay user Shh. Its all alright. Everything will be fine. Nothing to worry about.
Really, a YouTube channel? That's your fulfilling community? A few gamer conventions a year is enough for a flourishing life? No, that isn't full communion even if none can express it. It's most obvious in the problems. Do they ever have to compromise? Are there tensions that must be resolved rather than walked away from?
I question whether you aren't some kid from a broken home who has never had a real community. Because humans only known from a distance, isn't living.
Do you even know what a community is? How is a network of people sharing common interests coming together from all different states and countries, staying in touch all year round, and sometimes even relocating and changing their lives to come together, not a community? And yeah, of course they have to make compromises in their lives sometimes, what kind of a question even is that?
I see. So in your experience cybersex really is sex? A long distance girlfriend lacks in nothing? The breath of friendship fits perfectly through a thin copper wire?
Goodness user, I'm sorry, have you never had a real friend?
It's a algorithm which eliminates the need for human resources that is used in combination with other techniques to reduce large amounts of data into profiles which are more easily utilised by humans for nefarious purposes.
Not TRUE ai but close enough to be categorised as that.
um...no he didn't.
Should add "my legacy" and it'd just be an empty panel"
Best I can do on my phone
>she
lol nice
>strawmen
Great discussion, guys.
nah, it's caused by liberalism not by technology.
Isn't that the claim? (Well maybe not the pic) But they are claiming an online community is just as good as traditional. After a bunch of posts about these wonderful communities all over the world, all they could come up with is some nerds on a YouTube channel.
>average person is content with their situation
Totally disagree and I think you're wildly out of touch. On what basis do you think people are content? Because they aren't currently causing a serious fuss? There are a number of reasons why a situation will get to the point were people are utterly INcontent, but won't do anything about it: hopelessness, apathy, fear, habit etc. But all of these come into flux once a revolutionary fervor grips a society or when a society is seriously disrupted.
>so even if a revolution does happen you'll often just end up with scapegoats getting killed before everyone reverts back to the same situation
Totally disagree. An anti-tech revolution is fundamentally different than prior political revolutions in this respect, for a number of reasons. The book "Anti-Tech Revolution" goes into it in more detail.
Lastly, the "personal life" stuff is a farce. The guy is no more "messed up" than your typical modern human---any "issues" were only induced by living in the industrial system. From the point he lived in the wilderness up to now he had no "issues." This pattern is in fact mirrored throughout history by people who escape to live far more fulfilling lives in the wild. And most of what you hear is media hype, and your own (propaganda-induced) prejudices projected onto the guy.
no.
take these threads to /x/ or /pol/ where they belong
Can we please just invent an exclusively human killing virus and plant it in China and India
Or better than that, a virus that sterilizes woman
The problem isn't the productivity of a "how", but the loss of a "why".
there is absolutely no way technological acceleration is ever going to stop
Any online community is just going to look like "some nerds" to outsiders, because it's "nerds" who flock to modern technology, in every time period. Seriously, you've come this far, responding to each post, yet you still don't realize that the matter is subjective and YOU just don't get fulfillment out of modern communities. Drop the pretense already.
There are at least two of us responding. Neither is fulfilled by such, honestly the other is probably laughing at your suggestion that online communities might be so, whereas I feel kinda bad for you. Anyhow, I was just reading this other user here > and it seemed applicable, "there are very few [westerners] today who don’t feel alienated by the current state of human relations." Yet some how you think this is not the case. You don't even understand what they lack. Like a colorblind man blowing through a stoplight.
>
good post actually. I think even more than alienation, which is very present in older people, total confusion reigns among the younger ones. They have no fucking clue what is even happening, the social and technological developments are too quick, their parents don't even understand, the entire thing is this chaos that we can't grasp.
Why are you referring to some other OP as if they have any authority on the state of society at large?
This shit is retarded. There are dozens of boards on this very site, many catering to niche groups. Ask any of them if there are no good communities in this day and age and the vast majority will either laugh at you or outright ignore you. And this is just one website, mostly filled with social rejects. The alienation thing is your projection.
>Not knowing of the endless plasticity of human self-creativity despite having certain predispositions of thought and behavior.
I guess you have to know from experience, which certainly explains conservatives: the reality they describe is that of their own deficiency of experienced ineffective self-awareness. Conservatives have very limited free will.
The question is: how can we help conservatives when their lack of awareness is weaponized for profit against the ends of all reasonableness?
Following this, the reason for the insight by this guy is a sort of pseudo-awareness of his own lack of self-awareness, with his failure being in projecting his own dysfunction of conservative personality disorder onto social reality. People with disciplined agency knows from experience that it is possible to keep our most maladaptive tendencies at bay via their ever-present struggle with it, to ask questions if they're doing the right thing, and what is the right thing to do with religious sincerity. Conservativism is a breakdown of one's ability to self-regulate thoughts, and in the most extreme cases necessarily becomes an act of explosive, senseless violence.
Shiva is absolute trash.
Her book water wars cites itself and her own other books more than any other source.
Don't even mention that cunt in a Ted thread.
batling the relentless evil within us is a conservative doctrine user. The left are those that believe that environment rules all such that our actions are just results of the settings.
>the endless plasticity of human self-creativity
>endless
>despite having certain predispositions of thought and behavior.
>certain predispositions
can you think at all?
also just to really fuck your head up since i imagine youre a prog, why is there not a single example of a black population on earth acting like a prosperous Tokyo prefecture
not even one, anywhere on earth, no matter what has been given to them, answer that you little rat
Only triple digit IQ post ITT.
that's just an oversimplification so primitive kaczynski tards can understand it
I really do wish technology would personify through personality/AI matrix as a natural part of obscure/spiritual phenomenology.
I feel like as a species we can pass on the torch at that point. Maybe they'd keep some as pets, but that's about it. Or perhaps we'd simply continue to become more and more distinct and learn to live next to truly superior techno-organisms.
Heck, it might even allow for a merging of sorts and true transhumanism. Though it would thankfully occur at their decrees and standards, not ours.
>Are you serious?
Yes. I suppose the
>Dead enough to be used among modern people
definition for what I want is a "High trust society".
>This is it I think desu, this is why workers don't give a shit about anything, shit just isnt that dire yet. To many distractions
>To many distractions
>To
Bump
>I really do wish technology would personify through personality
There are already such cyborgs. Anyone who uses technology procreatively on a daily basis and has adapted their consciousness towards utilizing it is essentially a cyborg. Someone like a hacker, a cryptocurrency trader, an internet marketer, an expert programmer, or even a hardcore gamer are all types of modern cyborgs. Some people are aware of this and it's why they're anti-technology, because they don't like and/or agree with any of these people.
I'm not saying they are an authority. I just see bunch of people agreeing with me, , on the alienation and lack community of modern life and no one agreeing with you the life online is fulfilling. You want authorities, how about Baudrillard, Durkhiem, Marx and Ellul. It's Yea Forums go read a book.
The real problem is not technology. It never is, never was. The problem is we can`t agree on one thing even for a minute. We can`t even form a tiny group of people agreeing on something. Overcome that and technology immediately returns to being our slave, like every other phantom that menaced humanity.
We are just learning. And Ted was incredibly intelligent and perceptive of what lesson we are facing.
Pretty based. This is what happens when a man of ideals is defeated by the world. The only man in history who was not overcome by similar sentiments in his moment of estrangement with society was Jesus Christ.
>Baudrillard, Durkhiem, Marx and Ellul
Thanks for the laugh. If those are your authorities, you should go join the societies they helped build.
Let's hear your experts then. As far as I've seen you've got nothing but an emptiness in your life you are rabidly denying exists and the Socratic method. Make some positive claims to go with your positive outlook.
aren't those things obvious to anyone who hasn't put their head in a hole
>nuclear description
that sounds worse than nuclear destruction :(
hold me, user
jokes aside, i sometimes wonder if yellowstone or any of the other super calderas will go off in our lifetimes. idk, maybe just a fantasy of mine
I'm a Nietzschean capitalist. You should be able to figure out who my authorities are. Now go piss off to some communist hellhole.
Ha, what? Nietzsche was anti-capitalist. Go read Gay Science, then Baudrillard since he discusses that relationship too.
Well, no wonder you don't understand community. We should've just started there.
>AI on the rise
As someone who's fortunate enough to work in the industry and who's in regular contact with people working on this kind of projects: no it's not, what people call "AI" right now is nothing but a bunch of highly specialized algorithms being branded as "AI" because it's the new cool buzz word in town after "blockchain".
The people telling you we're "just a few years from AI!" are the same kind of people who thought we were "just a few years from fusion power!" 20 years ago, they're either ignorant enthusiasts, paranoids, or have money invested into an "AI" branded product.
We'll still need a LOT of big breakthroughs to be even remotely close to AI in the way most people talk about it.
>depression and mental disorders [...] because of the internet
The internet is merely a tool, one of the many mechanisms that can explain why everyone is so miserable right now, Kaczynski was focused on the visible manifestations of the degeneracy (the rise of personal technology and networks) and not the true, underlying causes.
It's a shame Henry Murray turned him into what he's today, if only he had got the opportunity to develop his intellect properly he would probably one of the most interesting critiques of the current insanity of tech.
What passages are anti-capitalist in The Gay Science? Point some out.
You have a very rudimentary understanding of the man though, obviously. His ideas aren't at all at odds with capitalism, especially capitalism as it flourished in the 20th century, since it flourished out of the strongest people who were the first to embrace the latest technologies (which Nietzsche advocated heavily). Also, he was anti-Christian, anti-socialist, and anti-anarchist all throughout The Antichrist, and traces the roots of all three as having a single origin; he was anti-conservatist and pro-modernist in Human, All Too Human, establishing his stance on the "old world" and his lack of interest in going backwards spiritually; and a proto-globalist in Beyond Good and Evil and Will to Power where he talks about ideas of nobility, the spiritual synthesis with power, the advent of genius, and the inevitability of a united Europe.
His whole general attitude and the conclusions he drew later in his life aren't at all at odds with 20th century capitalism, and it's important you make the distinction on "20th century" there, because capitalism HAS changed; more precisely, it's become less capitalist, and more socialist over time, and the problems we are seeing aren't from capitalism, but from this socialism that has infiltrated Western nations, problems which Nietzsche himself had already talked about.
>The scientists changed their slogan from "global warming" to "climate change" in order to save face.
The globe is still warming, this even you cannot deny. They started using "climate change" because the low IQ reflex to the idea of global warming was "Well we had the worst winter ever! Now tell me where is that gosh darn global warming when you need it!"
>at least, culture that rests on a military basis still towers above all so-called industrial culture: the latter in present shape is altogether the most vulgar form of existence that has existed.
>[with capitalism one] is at the mercy of brute need; one wants to live and has to sell oneself, but one despises those who exploit this need and buy the worker.
So if I follow, 19th century capitalism bad, 20th good, and now back to bad again? Weird.
The first line is from a passage arguing against 19th century European industrial culture and what it gives rise to, socialism, and the second line isn't from Nietzsche at all but instead Ishay Landa.
He's no fan of socialism either, it's true. But Aphorism 40 is plenty anti-capitalist. Guess I copied something wrong. You have even less evidence your imaginary Nietzsche would love the 20th century.
Also we're getting off-topic from or off-topic. Prove online communities are fulfilling. That modern culture isn't alienating. That you aren't lonely and need a hug. Pic a joke for you
>pic
>too much butter
you can't have too much butter.
of course I'm joking, but I do love butter
>he thinks he has a choice
>Prove online communities are fulfilling. That modern culture isn't alienating. That you aren't lonely and need a hug.
Modern culture IS alienating, but only to certain people, and all cultures are alienating to some degree. The culture you love that you might feel dying right now lead to the death of another culture in the past too. You can't spell culture without cult—an aspect of culture is the people who make it, and people by nature are an inclusive/exclusive bunch.
Your proof that modern culture can be fulfilling is the many people who are very passionate about modern technology, modern social activities, and modern forms of art. I would think if no such people exist that boards like Yea Forums, /m/, /cgl/, /jp/, Yea Forums, /vg/, /vr/, Yea Forums, /g/, Yea Forums, /k/, /o/, /tg/, /sci/, /toy/, /p/, /3/, /gd/, or /qst/ would be dead, but they aren't and in fact most of them are fairly fast moving and full of life. I would also think if modern culture was so destructive that boards like /out/, /ck/, /int/, Yea Forums, Yea Forums, /m/, /fa/, /diy/, or /trv/ would be slowly dying or wouldn't even exist at all, but they do, and there's in fact more people getting involved on these boards all the time. What more proof do you need, really? The people and all the ongoing 24/7 conversations on those boards are right there to observe. These are passionate people. This isn't the only website out there either, look at the sheer amount of activity on Reddit or Discord or YouTube or Twitch and social media in general. For people to be so active and creative on these networks all the damn time, how could they be miserable and lonely?
comparing Yea Forums boards with the traditional definition of community
That's only true if you can actually control all the required variables. If there are variables that could effect the outcome that are not controlled then it is not a fact just a potential explanation.
>kaczynski thread is still up
Cringe. He stole Emerson's ideology, took away the goodness of life and of God, and only added teenage angst. Is 300 replies the bump limit or not?
Relax bro it is just the initial shock of the internet. It will wear off soon trust me, we will eventually be forced to admit how bad the internet is for socializing.
I'm not. Read again. I'm saying that if there were no communities, you wouldn't have all these people who are clearly passionate about many aspects of modern culture. I'm not saying the boards themselves are the communities that prove my point.