>why would I formulate an argument to someone's fantasy of what an author writes about? insane. Nothing I wrote is fantasy. Ted wrote that and states right there that he finds it repellent despite the fact that the only societies that don't work in that fashion are the ones that didn't grow or advance in any way for thousands of years and are currently in the process of being culled, i.e., the only societies that don't work on that fashion are the ones that eventually go extinct. You still aren't providing any argument to what I wrote.
>It is a mistake to to think of ISAIF as being anti technology. Right, but it's clearly anti-technophile, technophile being that of the industrial technophile, the person who satisfies the power process via industrial technology. What he is against is technology that he can't control, which is perfectly reasonable, but anyone reading him should take note that there are people who can control modern technology and what he is writing isn't a matter of math or logic but of personal suffering and moralizing.
Austin White
>the person who satisfies the power process via industrial technology Yeah I agree that's the weaker part of his argument. He wrote some counterargument for this by saying that they don't really control technology or they are unthinking types who don't have a strong desire for autonomy but he can't really prove that these people are in a small enough percentage of the population and the ones who'd be better off without technology large enough to justify a worldwide revolution. His arguments are still valid for certain people though, and it is a lot of people which explains why he is so popular. I do think that whether he is writing out of ego or personal suffering is irrelevant.
Parker Murphy
your second paragraph is fantasy, completely made up. TK never said anything remotely like this. Read Ellul if you can't stand TK because his take on what is technique/technology and where you draw the line between industrial tech and "low-tech" is 100% ripped off from Ellul. Honestly just read Ellul. > anyone reading him should take note that there are people who can control modern technology absolutely not, it's one of his main arguments. The elites don't decide which discoveries will be made/implemented. No, they ask the scientists/engineers for advice on what is the most efficient way to govern through technological means. See? It's the scientists who are calling the shots - and these people don't decide which discoveries they'll make, it just happens and they give the tools to politicians. But that's the old way, nowadays technocrats are coming to power because it is more efficient this way, one less step. Politicians will soon be a thing of the past.
Carson Butler
no it's one of his strongest arguments. read my comment below yours. nobody steers the technological vessel. nobody decides which discoveries will be made. nobody is in control of anything technological, at best they can further increase their power but they are NOT in control. A discovery made tomorrow could comletely topple the current hierarchies. Nobody is in control.
Henry Jenkins
>no one today can or does control modern technology Want to know what's fantasy? This is.
Justin Brooks
of course he is defending his view. that's not a cope.
this is completely wrong, both in your interpretation of Ted and the historical reading Ted is not against technology meaning ways of doing things better. he is against industrial society, technologies that force us to participate in large cooperative systems that take away freedom and removes things from our control.
fires, glass, carts, hand tools, etc are all great pieces of technology that don't require factories and dependency on a giant system. you can make them yourself or one specialist can.
factories, cars, electricity, insurance, x ray machines, Netflix , etc are all technologies that require social organizations to function.
the reason why your reading of history is wrong is these technologies have only been around for about 100-150 years. almost everything before that was like the small scale technology
cars, x ray machines,
Alexander Williams
> scientists are calling the shots
imagine believing this
Tyler Torres
not an argument
lmao, this is my first time using that bugman line, but you didn't address my argument though.
1. Do scientists decide which discoveries will be made? 2. Are discoveries GUARANTEED not to topple current hierarchies?
Then how can technology be possibly controlled?? The very nature of technological DISCOVERIES is that they are unpredictable. Two questions and your shit opinion has been refuted.
David Bell
>1. Do scientists decide which discoveries will be made? No, the analysts and financiers do.
>2. Are discoveries GUARANTEED not to topple current hierarchies? No, but they are measured so that the probability that they will is lower.
>Then how can technology be possibly controlled?? By placing the control in the hands of those with money and incentivizing the increase of money which results in incentivizing cooperating with the analysts.
It's not civilization that has a degree of unpredictability about it, by the way, but life itself. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say—are you saying life is undesirable?
Noah Edwards
Wow. Damn. How can someone be this retarded?
This has to be the biggest failure in logic I have ever witnessed in my life. Following your line of thought, cavemen ought to predict every possible discoveries, as should we. Therefore discoveries cannot exist as we conceptualize them before we even bring them into existence. Holy shit.
