Why Kaczynski is wrong

Jayden Ross
Jayden Ross

What Kaczynski says in his 2015 book, 'the Anti Tech Revolution, how and why':
Human individuals and groups, and in general Self-propagating systems, behave egoistically, and thus make short term decisions that benefit them vs long term decisions that might benefit society as a whole.
Societies are chaotic systems that cannot be predicted and thus cannot be steered.
Technology augments the reach of such systems to global scale.
In the end, humans will self-destruct by means of technology and render the planet inhabitable but for micro-organisms.

Attached: 1546354764508.jpg (118 KB, 700x933)

Easton Fisher
Easton Fisher

stfu city slicker

Attached: sneed.jpg (104 KB, 1280x720)

Evan Rivera
Evan Rivera

But he is wrong. Here is why:
Humans are by nature capable of developing technology.
Humans have had the same intellectual potential for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g.: human remains recently discovered in Greece, the older found outside Africa, dated at -210000 years)
Technology is not the cause but the amplifier. The cause is the very animal nature of the human-ape. If technology is removed, humans will eventually develop it again.
THE FACT THAT IN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, NO HUMAN SOCIETY HAS RENDERED THE PLANET INHABITABLE

This last point is important. The older machines we can find in archaeological sites are most commonly those of the Greek and the Egyptians; we can infer that the builders of certain temples and pyramids before them also had such machines. But these are all findings belonging to historical times, i.e., 10000 years old at most. There is no technological evidence from older times than that, but lets assume it has not been found yet or it has been kept secret. We have reached technological criticality in that little time, there is no natural reason preventing our ancestors from having done so as well. There should have existed 210000/10000=21 global civilizations capable of nuking the planet, and yet here we are.

The only way to explain this is the existence of an external force, unaccounted for by Kaczynski, that has been periodically exterminating humans as soon as they have reached advanced technology. This force must be much superior to humans otherwise humans might have eventually found the way of defeating it. This force must be the watchers. But the watchers have a mission. They watch because they are the keepers.

In the end all the degeneracy and environmental damage don't matter. The ayyss will take action before it is too late. Enjoy your tech toys while you can.

Attached: 1548930509247.jpg (12 KB, 275x183)

Carson Thomas
Carson Thomas

exactly. Ted was 100% correct.

Connor Roberts
Connor Roberts

Explain

Michael Smith
Michael Smith

If you remove the /x/-tier shit from your posts, which I did, you are basically agreeing with ted.

Andrew Reed
Andrew Reed

There is no technological evidence from older times than [10,000 years]
There is plenty of evidence. I'm surprised that a Spaniard would say there isn't, given that the Pyrenees are one of the world's main hotspots for Paleolithic and Mesolithic finds. However, I think what you mean is high technology, and the thing about that is, simply, that there wasn't anything more advanced than hand tools, slings, spears and bows at that time. Human technological development has had a few major innovations followed by growth spurts: agriculture and the domestication of animals (which allowed human populations to grow from maybe 50,000-100,000 per country to several million per country), mechanical labor-saving power (like windmills and plows), steam engines and combustion engines (which allowed for much more productivity and much-increased mobility and migration across the world) and electricity (which allowed for even more complex labor-saving devices as well as near-instant global communication). 10,000 years ago, none of those things existed.

We have reached technological criticality in that little time, there is no natural reason preventing our ancestors from having done so as well.
The problem is that they didn't have any frame of reference. I talk about windmills, but just 3000 years ago not a single person in the world had ever thought of them. Similarly, electricity was little more than a novelty in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century because no one had ever conceived of using it for industrial production, communication or lighting, and before that no one even knew how to harness electricity. Try putting yourself into the shoes of a hunter-gatherer 10,000 years ago who sees lightning and knows only to fear it because his uncle died on a mountaintop after being struck by it. Do you expect him to learn what we've learned through trial and error over the course of 10,000 years? That's just unrealistic.

Ayden Fisher
Ayden Fisher

In addition to , you also need to think of global populations. The more people there are, the higher the chance that one of them will invent something.

But for the first 250,000-ish years that Homo Sapiens existed, the population was tiny. Just 70,000 years ago, there were only an estimated 10,000 anatomically modern humans alive in the world (we know this because of modern genetics, a field that incidentally only emerged in the last century). Think of a random sleepy small town in the Spanish countryside, if you please, and see how many world-changing inventions came from there in the last thousand years. Or look at Australian Aboriginals, who lived in a natural state like that - a small population, spread out over a large amount of land - until living memory. You can't expect 10,000 people (the world's population, circa 70,000 years ago) to produce as many innovations as 60,000,000 people (the Roman Empire circa 0 AD), 90,000,000 people (Europe circa 1500), 150,000,000 people (Europe circa 1800) or 152,000,000 people (the United States circa 1950). Again, it's this range of inventions, slow at first due to the world's tiny human population and then incrementally faster, that jumpstarted what we know conceive of as civilization.

Jonathan Campbell
Jonathan Campbell

I think what you mean is high technology
Exactly. Of those hypothetical technologically advanced civilizations that could have existed, where are their machines? Where are their roads? There is nothing older than 10000 years (and if something appeared at -20000 years, I can still make the case that there is nothing older than 20000 years, and so on).

There is nothing pointing to an endless cycle of civilizations. But if there was at least one that achieved the stage we are at today, then why is the planet still habitable?
a)Kackynski is wrong and technology is good (cannot possibly be, some ape will end up launching nukes)
b) That civilization wasn't able to develop technology (contradicts human natural capabilities)
c) They developed advanced technology but an external force prevented them from using it

Isaac Johnson
Isaac Johnson

10,000 anatomically modern humans alive 70000 years ago
How can this be if the animals are programmed to reproduce? This fact is actually indicative of a hard reset, supports my ayy hypothesis.

Isaiah Gomez
Isaiah Gomez

then why is the planet still habitable?
You know dinosaurs couldn't live in todays world because the CO2 levels are way too low for them to be able to breath.

Ian Gray
Ian Gray

He is a retard, if you want a critique of technology or rather a critique of cybernetics then read Heidegger

Jackson Davis
Jackson Davis

jearónimo de sousa

Attached: porcos-capitalistas.jpg (42 KB, 348x325)

Jack Morales
Jack Morales

Are you done posting this sneed shit?

Bentley Parker
Bentley Parker

Again, you're dealing in counterfactual hypotheticals. There is no reason to assume there was ever a civilization this complex. There is zero evidence for any of that, and on a scientific/carbon dating/geological level we know fairly well how the natural world developed (when plants, trees, sea life and land life emerged, when apes and humanoids started diverging from other mammals, et cetera), so there really isn't any room for anything more than bands of humanoid hunter-gatherers prior to a few million years ago. After that, we have a fairly clear picture of what happened where and when.

One, because hunter-gatherer societies had an extremely limited carrying capacity. They had to migrate seasonally or semi-annually to feed themselves, so they had to control their number of live births to avoid a Malthusian crisis. You still see this in some isolated tribes in the Amazon rainforest - they've been there for the better part of 10,000 years, yet they still live in thatched huts and their total population still has not exceeded one thousand. That's just the limitation hunter-gatherer lifestyle. It's also why agricultural societies were able to replace hunter-gatherer societies so easily: early farmers had ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred times as many people on their side because agriculture allowed for a much larger population on the same land area.

And two, because at the time - circa 70,000 years ago - there was a period of rapid and serious global cooling following a massive volcanic eruption. This made all other human populations - there were perhaps a few hundred thousand humans worldwide - go extinct. Only a small percentage of humans survived this period, and they are the ancestors of all living humans today. The various ice ages in Europe have had a similar effect, causing most humans to migrate back south or get stuck in relatively warm pockets. This, too, bottlenecked human population growth.

Connor Torres
Connor Torres

has this guy ever spoken on tape? or is it all just letters?

Dylan Ross
Dylan Ross

because primitive humans die a lot, fucktard
this thread is awful and you should be ashamed

Attached: ted-kaczynski-on-leftists.png (152 KB, 1200x1630)

Ryan Parker
Ryan Parker

Checked. But he died in 1976, how could he have known about cybernetics.

Parker Foster
Parker Foster

sneed

Justin Morris
Justin Morris

TED!'s ideology is political nihilism taken to the absolute, ultimate extreme. To be as genuinely misanthropic as he is would require literal autism.

Nathaniel Clark
Nathaniel Clark

look, at some level of consumption, it's too much and we will feel that a lower level of technology is more pleasant to us.
saturation does happen, but not for everybody.

Grayson Anderson
Grayson Anderson

It has its famous manifesto, 'Industrial Society and Its Future', then a second boo 'Technological Slavery' from 2010, which is the manifesto plus other letters and essays, and the last book I mention in the OP is from 2015, it is part of a greater book he is writing but he wanted to print the part he had finished before he died or was prohibited to publish any more.
He is still in jail so no tapes.

Jonathan Garcia
Jonathan Garcia

He was right about "leftists". I'm just discussing technology in this thread.

Zachary Murphy
Zachary Murphy

Cybernetics is older than 1976 and Heidegger understood it as some kind of unificatory technical theory which doesn't think about its own grounding

David Kelly
David Kelly

only bands of humanoid hunter-gatherers prior to a few million years ago.
Isn't it weird that we have been in this planet for millions of years, but only in the last 6000 we reached advanced technology and a population of 6000 million? What happened 12000 years ago that couldn't have happened before?

hunter-gatherer societies had an extremely limited carrying capacity.
Gobekli tepe destroys your limited hunter-gatherer

Attached: 1562749207380.jpg (142 KB, 864x486)

Blake Reyes
Blake Reyes

Fundamentally, that's what it is. Not just for humans, but for the planet as well. We're already using up more resources than the planet can handle, and the middle class is growing in developing countries, so it's only going to get worse. The standard of living we have now, worldwide, is too high, and cannot be sustained for more than maybe one century more until severe ecological and resource issues arise.

Samuel Butler
Samuel Butler

kill yourself kike

Jaxon Cook
Jaxon Cook

Isn't it weird that we have been in this planet for millions of years, but only in the last 6000 we reached advanced technology and a population of 6000 million?
Not at all. Again, I explained this: the population was only able to grow because of certain innovations, most notably agriculture. But those innovations took a lot of time because there weren't many people so the chances of those innovations being made were low for the first 200,000+ years of our existence. Once agriculture emerged, the process began to speed up immensely.

What happened 12000 years ago that couldn't have happened before?
The climate was good in the modern-day Middle East, and some populations began to farm. Those populations quickly became far larger than the surrounding hunter-gatherer populations, who either adopted agriculture as well or disappeared under waves of migrants/invaders from agricultural populations. With this larger population, the chance of innovations arising increased massively, and it sort of went on from there. Only now, we're coming up on the limits of what the human mind and the planet's ecological systems can handle, so we're seeing a lot of craziness and environmental disasters happening, and that's only going to get worse in the next 50-100 years until either we come to terms with our limitations or we fuck ourselves irreparably.

Ethan Brown
Ethan Brown

Didnt this guy have a 140 IQ?

Jose Ward
Jose Ward

no population because of no agriculture
but no agriculture because of no population
Nice circular reasoning.

Agriculture btw was teached to humans by a certain host of civilizational gods that many old cultures talk about (essentially ayys). If we could have discovered it on our own, we would have done so way before the last 10000 years. What you propose makes no sense. Population should have been greater, and agriculture and tech must have been discovered sooner..

Jaxon Foster
Jaxon Foster

or the other way around. The watchers are who gave us the technology, too much technology at once, so we could destroy ourselves

Gavin Jenkins
Gavin Jenkins

The climate was good in the modern-day Middle East, and some populations began to farm.
This by the way is an old narrative. You are essentially stuck in the 80s. It was believed that first it was the agriculture, then it was the city, and finally it was the temple. What we see in Gobekli Tepe is that there was a massive temple but agriculture is nowhere to be seen, and no large city has been found.

Elijah Adams
Elijah Adams

This actually makes sense. What the ayys give, the ayys take.

Ryan Myers
Ryan Myers

You’re underestimating the propagation of technology we have in this cycle.

For instance we can find handgonnes or equivalents as far back as the 1200s. There is a depiction of a flamethrower from antiquity. German gunsmiths built multiple-shot firearm systems in the 1500s. Yet these were never adopted in any meaningful numbers, Nobles being more than willing to shell out cash for complex weapons of war like the English with the ridiculously large Trebuchet they didn’t end up really using. Yet they didn’t have these things because they didn’t know about them.

I can pull up several firearm design choices from over a hundred years ago that are more advanced in some crucial aspects than what we have today. They never caught on due to lack of knowledge.

But I know about them because of the Internet. But it’s not just that, information has been so well preserved,protected, and passed on throughout this civilization cycle that’s likely beyond any of our predecessors. Even with events like The Library of Alexandria burning.

I think we can make it this time.

Juan Nelson
Juan Nelson

No, bud. Nice try, but you don't know your enemy well enough to indict him!
Kaczinsky based his thesis on Alvin Toffler's The Third Wave
In order to discredit his argument, that the Digital Revolution will remove the authority of the Constitution due to surveillance and population control, one must first invalidate Toffler.

If it'd been a snake....

Ethan Davis
Ethan Davis

as an example, many people do want to grind their own coffee, even though they could get a ready product for a lower price.
This means that when that a lower technological level is more optimal for them.
Doing a little work becomes a more pleasant choice than doing no work at all.

Zachary Cruz
Zachary Cruz

the ayys are probably so advanced and high IQ that whe they looked at us for the first time they already knew there would be a war eventually between us, before we even had an idea about them.
Then their idea of war was just to give us the handgun as a gift, with which we will shoot ourselves.
Kazchinski had a good idea though, that there will be anti technology revolutions, if we make it that far, because of the automation doctrine. So automation will save us ironically by waking us up to the nightmare

Leo Ortiz
Leo Ortiz

that there will be anti technology revolutions
There wont. Humans are lazy and technology makes life easier. There might be a revolution against technologically-enabled tyranny, but I also have my doubts about that, as millennials and the ones after them have their noses stuck to a phone 24h a day.

Lucas Cook
Lucas Cook

Societies are chaotic systems that cannot be predicted and thus cannot be steered.
Jewish media blatantly steers it. The whole anti-white push in recent years was due to them giving the rhetoric positive attention and thus credibility in the minds of the public. The BLM thing, which was almost entirely a media creation, had, and still has, millions of people wanting cops to die, for no legitimate reason. Black males are considered sexually desirable because they have promoted them in music and mainstream/pop culture for so long. The reason anyone thinks "far-right," "Nazis," and "white supremacists" are bad is because of media propaganda. Flamboyant homosexuality and trannies are completely due to media.

Jonathan Reed
Jonathan Reed

Yeah, I also thought about this. I think he means societies cannot be steered back into the good direction, because he is speaking in the context of societal decay.