The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

I mean, he was 95% right on diagnosing the problem but his solution proposed is idiotic and unworkable

Not unlike Marx, I guess. At least Ted killed fewer people

It's the only solution possible to the problems we face.

Those great places are getting more and more plentiful.
People aren't dying at 40 anymore. And quality is increased, if you want to pay the price.
>There's so much shitty literature
You are having a "highlight reel" effect. If you are taking any specific period of time, say 1650-1670, and comparing that to your last 20 years of media experience. But you probably are only looking at 7 pieces of literature from that time, and comparing that to the millions of books released in the last 20 years. The truth is, there was a lot of crappy literature released at that time, but people don't look at it historically, or talk about it. There is more good literature now, there is also more bad literature now, because there's generally just a lot of material coming out these days.

Attached: Extreme poverty.png (1200x847, 101K)

A lot of pollution is going down.
I don't know what you define as waste, because two definitions apply in this case.
>use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
"we can't afford to waste electricity"
And
>(of an area of land, typically in a city or town) not used, cultivated, or built on.
"a patch of waste ground"
The former is more relevant. That's more of a side effect of material wealth, and being able to afford not being cautious. Before you only could spend time to do laundry once a month, and had to be careful, as any stain on your shirt or pants would be there for weeks. Now we can do laundry every other day, and can afford to be less careful. People being more wasteful with water and electricity isn't ideal, but I would rather them not spend the effort worrying about it, and worry about something more important.
As for the second, the amount of waste is down, there's been more development than ever. Because wilderness does kind of suck to live in, it's hostile and everything wants to kill you.

Attached: air pollution.jpg (618x374, 68K)

Nonsense.

I don't think Marx ever killed anyone directly. Closest were maybe his parents out of utter disappointment at the worthless neet their son became. Read his dad's letters sometime, some depressing shit right there.

You're just dismissing what I am saying.
Is it really hard to believe that there is more recycling, and less waste than ever because of it?
That various parts of pollution, especially air pollution, have been dropping since the 70s?
That there's less destruction of wilderness, primarily because land is no longer the prime vector for the economy like it used to be in the past, where exploiting every natural resource was how your economy boomed. Because now the primary vector for your economy is human capital, people who can make stuff without regard to their environment.

Attached: john stossel.jpg (512x512, 55K)

>You're just dismissing what I am saying.
Yes I am.

Industrial society wasn't too bad but what followed it was a disaster so yes
In short hard times strong men yadda yadda you know the rest

Attached: factory parking lot.jpg (800x621, 108K)

is a very complex issue.

In standart of living, the poor of this days have a way better higher standard of living than before the industrial revolution. So, in some way, this is positive.

Psicologicaly speaking i believe that humanity went down after the industrial revolution. Alienated, the amount of mental disordars and all that shit.

I think that is time to find a balance between Teds ideas and this posmodernity we are living.

Remember kids, if you make more than $32,000 a year, you are in the 1% globally. Anyone in the 1% whining about the world is simply too stupid enjoy life, and should just kill themselves.

>250 years into the Industrial Revolution
During the Neolithic Revolution a dependency on land agriculture fucked up society as well. It resulted in a limited diet, which in turn led to poorer health for the average person, a decrease in height and strength (manlets) and susceptibility to new diseases (all archaeologically proven). Nonetheless, populations grew rapidly, because people ate and shagged which is all you need. Population density increased, leading to social strife and more disease. When populations grew too big, demographics were culled though ritual warfare and human sacrifice.When there were labor shortages, kinsmen or neighbors were enslaved. By this point there was no way out. The multi-disciplinary approach of the hunter-gatherer way was replaced by labor specialisation. People lost skills and became dependent on civilisation. Self-sufficiency was lost. Sound familiar?
Yet, after 8 millennia, here we are.

Attached: jade.jpg (602x1088, 411K)

No, he wasn't.
Apologism for technological advancement is SJW tier drivel. Anarcho primitivism is an anti human fedora tier ideology.

Attached: 1526354976981.png (1920x1080, 1.76M)

You just exposed yourself as being an ignorant retard. He was written quite extensively denouncing and criticising anarcho-primitivism. He's definitely not an anarcho-primitivist.

has written*

Spiritually speaking he is right. The industrial revolution, and countless other technological revolutions before it always take man from a place where he was spiritually adept into a place where he must spiritually adapt. His soul and his purpose (work) were aligned. He knew what to do from birth to death. Why is technological progress disaster for the soul of the human race? It changes our phenomenological understanding of the world so often that we cannot think straight from week to week much less from birth to death. What truths carry forward?
So far it's just genes and memes.

Attached: 1530492177437.gif (320x269, 826K)

he was right, I think
he and people like him have inspired me a great deal in life. I still remember vividly how I felt in one moment after I have read some criticism of technology by Ellul, Kaczinsky, and Tolkien, that it was an example of true out of the box thinking, because it is so omnipresent, hardly anyone ever questions it