TED KACZYSNKI IS RIGHT!

Technological Slavery (2009)
Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How (2016)

He was right about the problem but was unable to come up with any real solution. The truth that he didn't want to confront was that the only way out is through. Only through the technological annihilation and rebirth of humanity into a new kalpa can we escape this terror.

Not possible according to human nature.

his ideology was literally "tfw to smart too have friends might as well destroy everything because I'm lonely"

Oh yeah? so what did your favourite attention whoring cabin dwelling autist say about preventing rival societies from retaining their technology and ruling over you after you've disposed of the last of your tech? Absolutely nothing, because he didn't think that far ahead. IQ means nothing when you don't have a realistic grasp on basic human behaviour.

You have merely skimmed over the wikipedia summary and perhaps read a few chapters of the manifesto, otherwise you would have come across this:

TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY

>207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

>208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans’ small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans’ organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until rather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

> 209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.

>210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for “progress” is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.

> 211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally “advanced”: Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

>212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can’t predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

Pay particular attention to paragraph 212.

If it wasn't for technology you wouldn't even know who this faggot is lmao. There's a reason he got caught and that's because he's fucking retarded. Why do you make these threads every day? throw your computer out the window if you don't like them so much

>Oh yeah? so what did your favourite attention whoring cabin dwelling autist say about preventing rival societies from retaining their technology and ruling over you after you've disposed of the last of your tech?
If you would have bothered to read the literature you are unsuccesfully attempting to debunk you would know the answer to this question already.

>Absolutely nothing
Demonstrably false.

>because he didn't think that far ahead. IQ means nothing when you don't have a realistic grasp on basic human behaviour.
He had a more realistic grasp on human behaviour than most psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists, and he most certainly has a grasp of it that infinitely dwarves your own.

So what was his grand solution to keep the chinks from keeping their tech? Surely if his method is so carefully thought out and you understand him as well as you claim to you would be able to answer this

>flu vaccine huh? Well if it wasn't for the flu virus you wouldn't even have that.

Not without technology, without advanced modern technology dependent on the large scale organisation of modern industrial society.

Of course it's possible. Are you unfamiliar with human history prior to the industrial revolution?

The flu vaccine isn't distributed via the flu virus itself retard

>If it wasn't for technology you wouldn't even know who this faggot is lmao.
If it wasn't for technology he wouldn't have had anything to say, and there would be no reason for me to know who he is or promote his ideas, obviously. Your argument essentially amounts to this "technology is good because you can use it to find out how bad it is."

You are not very bright, are you?

Nice reading comprehension retard. Would you like to try again?

I can answer this perfectly well, but surely if you've read his work, as you claim, then you wouldn't need to answer the question in the first place, and would instead by debating his solution rather than incorrectly asserting that it doesn't exist, and he has never even considered one. Do your own homework if you want to be a snotty little faggot of a shill.

>I can answer it but I won't because that's your job j-just look into it dude
So in other words you don't have an answer

There is absolutely no lack of comprehension on my part, only yours. Try reading the source material you are unsuccessfully trying to debunk before you try to debunk it, next time.

Attached: 1562543721714.png (1062x942, 301K)

I don't have to read anything, you're advocating for neo-ludditism but refusing to explain the process of how. The burden lies on you. If you understand Kaczynksi perfectly, then you would be not only able to but happy to refute me. You can't, so you won't. "read my fucking pamphlet" is the least successful form of spreading ideas.

>u r dumb dumb head lololololol
the absolute state of your argument

I do. It's right there in all of his published works. You claim that he doesn't even address it, that he's too stupid to have even thought that far ahead; therefore it's obvious you haven't even read any of his work. Read it, realise how wrong you are, and then if you still have objections, come and find me and I'll gladly debate you. I'm not wasting my time on morons.

The fact that the extent of your debate skills is "read it" proves you have nothing to debate. If you were able to answer this question you would, but you can't, so you won't. This conversation will continue in such a cycle indefinitely because you're too autistic and retarded to admit you have no idea what you're talking about and merely assume someone smarter than you has done all of the hard work.

Answer my fucking question retard

>I don't have to read anything
You do if you want to have a chance at accurately debunking literature you haven't read, or before making demonstrably false statements about what is or isn't contained within it.

>The burden lies on you.
The burden does not lie on me. You said, and I quote "so what did your favourite attention whoring cabin dwelling autist say about preventing rival societies from retaining their technology and ruling over you after you've disposed of the last of your tech? Absolutely nothing, because he didn't think that far ahead."

So, it's very clear you are making false statements about books you've never even read, because he does actually say a great deal about this very subject, repeatedly, throughout all of his published works. If you'd read them, you'd know that, and we would instead be debating his solutions and not whether or not they even exist. So the burden is all on you. Read the material that you clearly don't understand and are completely ignorant of, then we'll debate.

No.

>just read his work bro i dont have to explain my arguments to you even though ive ostensibly read his work and should be able to answer your question if i actually read it just watch this 8 hour long youtube video lol xd
There's a smuggie for this faggot behaviour out there somewhere but I don't have it

If you've read the work, you should be able to summarize his argument. You can't because it doesn't exist. Kaczynski didn't account for other civilizations retaining their technology and using it to steamroll people.

You're equivalent to commies telling people to "READ CAPITAL" when people btfo their shitty ideology

Attached: 92af506521167b8982298a4d3d3e944700bccd001db1907b82de7419d3e7016a.jpg (1080x1408, 483K)

It isn't about debunking you absolute fucking retard, it's asking you how you're going to do it. How are you going to prevent others from keeping their technology? How? Answer the question. If you can't answer the question, it's because your ideology is half-baked. Telling me it's been answered yet somehow being completely unable to cite even a single example shows you know you're wrong. Why can't you answer the fucking question? The burden is not on me to prove your ideology for you, that's your job.

Congratulations, you're a mighty fucking faggot.

>If you've read the work, you should be able to summarize his argument. You can't because it doesn't exist. Kaczynski didn't account for other civilizations retaining their technology and using it to steamroll people.
And if YOU would have read his work, you would know how utterly false these claims are.

>It isn't about debunking you absolute fucking retard, it's asking you how you're going to do it. How are you going to prevent others from keeping their technology? How? Answer the question. If you can't answer the question, it's because your ideology is half-baked. Telling me it's been answered yet somehow being completely unable to cite even a single example shows you know you're wrong. Why can't you answer the fucking question? The burden is not on me to prove your ideology for you, that's your job.
It's funny because he tried to debunk other arguments against his retarded anprim ideology in but when confronted with the other-civilizations argument, he simply retreats and meekly tells you to "r-read h-his works i-it e-explains it all i p-promise"

So clearly he is willing to summarize, just not in the case where other civilizations retain their technology -- why? Because Kaczynski had no argument for this and the britfag is engaging in mere sophistry.

I encourage you to post a single example of Ted's grand plan to keep the Chinese from retaining their tech and absolutely dominating the west after every last retard has dismantled his loom

dude fucking leafs are retarded. we should just send all the niggers to canada they will fit in perfect

>It isn't about debunking you absolute fucking retard, it's asking you how you're going to do it.
It has everything to do with "debunking," because that's exactly what you're trying, and failing, to do. You're not asking how it could be done, you're just flat out refusing to acknowledge that he even addresses the subject; even going so far as to claim that he says nothing about it. Why are you making claims about the contexts of books you've never even read, and clearly do not understand?

You can't summarize Kaczynski's argument because he didn't have one regarding the "other-civilizations" problem.

Feel free to prove me wrong, but if you don't reply with a summary or excerpt I will continue to assume he doesn't have a solution to this problem with his faggot ideology and I shant be giving you another (You)

>he even addresses the subject
He doesn't. If he did, you would've posted an excerpt by now.

The real redpill is realizing that not only was ted right about the dangers of technology, but that it is utterly unavoidable.
We are doomed to a dystopian future followed by societal collapse due to resource depletion.
We WILL return to a natural lifestyle, but only after a hard reset.

Hmmmm.

Attached: IMG_2019-09-15_09-06-57.jpg (1080x1080, 629K)

>195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a “democratic” industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.

And that's just a brief snippet. He goes in to much greater detail than that.

They're shills.

Your tendency to regress to defensiveness instead of addressing my concerns shows you're thinking emotionally instead of logically. There is a very simple question and if your method is refined then you would have a very simple answer beyond "DUDE READ IT LMAO". Believe it or not I don't have to read the entire unabridged works of L Ron Hubbard to dismiss Scientology as being trash.

>We should just attack everyone until they stop printing circuit boards dude
wow what a meticulous plan, you're right Ted really did think of everything

Typical 70 IQ amerimutt protest in lieu of anything of substance

He spends the majority of the opening chapters of Anti-Tech Revolution: Why And How (2016) dealing with this exact topic in a very thorough and comprehensive manner.

Again, if you would have bothered to read the source material you are unsuccessfully trying to debunk and make false statements about, you would already know this.

This is where the wheels come off. Global revolution is as much a fantasy when Kaczynski advocates it as when Trotsky does. More even, since Kaczynski isn't promising the revolutionaries loot.

>That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking
Lol such a naive retard ideology. I'm sure the Chinese will willingly abandon technology because some anprim retards in the west are asshurt about the internet. Good luck with your meme ideology. It will never work, just like all forms of anarchism. Power abhors a vacuum.

The "out" as you put it is essentially breaking into the stars and effectively colonizing more space. Not even necessarily as a physical construct, but more as a metaphysical one. Up to this point technology has shrunk the human perception of distance. This is primarily what needs to be amended. With distance comes difficulty and with that, purpose. Karen can't perceive a relationship with some Chad that's 5 lightyears away, reducing the competition pool while redefining individuals within localized areas. Until we break it with even newer tech, than it repeats. Its cyclic like everything else is.

>Power abhors a vacuum
but trees and frogs and deer in the forest!!11 no fair!!11 remove compyooder!!1

Attached: 1540527861678.jpg (638x558, 64K)

>Your tendency to regress to defensiveness instead of addressing my concerns shows you're thinking emotionally instead of logically.
You didn't express any concerns you just called Kaczynski a retard, called me a faggot, and made demonstrably false claims about literature you've never read. It is you, and not me, who is obviously thinking and debating emotionally and not logically.

>wow what a meticulous plan, you're right Ted really did think of everything
Industrial Society And Its Future was necessarily a very brief summary because he published it in the newspapers. It had to maintain brevity for that reason, and it had to be short enough for for everyone to read.

If you would like a more detailed explanation of this, he obliges you, and completely destroys your emotional and poorly reasoned arguments, here:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-the-technological-system-will-destroy-itself

That is a section taken from his latest book (although it has been revised and updated since upon publication). So you can now clearly see, that you are wrong. Your little leaf mate is also wrong. And I have been baiting you to reach this point since the outset of this thread, and you both fell for it. You amateurs.

See

Russia and China are irrelevant without Western innovation. When Western innovations stop, so will they.

Now let's take a look at some excerpts:

> Our discussion deals with self-propagating systems. By a self-propagating system (‘self-prop system’ for short) we mean a system that tends to promote its own survival and propagation. A system may propagate itself in either or both of two ways: The system may indefinitely increase its own size and/or power, or it may give rise to new systems that possess some of its own traits.

>The most obvious examples of self-propagating systems are biological organisms. Groups of biological organisms can also constitute self-prop systems; e.g., wolf packs and hives of honeybees. Particularly important for our purposes are self-prop systems that consist of groups of human beings. For example, nations, corporations, labor unions, and political parties; also some groups that are not clearly delimited and lack formal organization, such as schools of thought, social networks, and subcultures. Just as wolf packs and beehives are self-propagating without any conscious intention on the part of wolves or bees to propagate their packs or their hives, there is no reason why a human group cannot be self-propagating independently of any intention on the part of the individuals who comprise the group.

I'll have to give that a read at since point. I didn't realize he had put ot something new.

> If A and B are systems of any kind (self-propagating or not), and if A is a functioning component of B, then we will call A a subsystem of B, and we will call B a supersystem of A. For example, in human hunting-and-gathering societies, individuals are members of bands, and bands often are organized into tribes. Individuals, bands, and tribes are all self-prop systems. The individual is a subsystem of the band, the band is a subsystem of the tribe, the tribe is a supersystem of each band that belongs to it, and each band is a supersystem of every individual who belongs to that band. It is also true that each individual is a subsystem of the tribe and that the tribe is a supersystem of every individual who belongs to a band that belongs to the tribe.

>The principle of natural selection is operative not only in biology, but in any environment in which self-propagating systems are present. The principle can be stated roughly as follows:

>Those self-propagating systems having the traits that best suit them to survive and propagate themselves tend to survive and propagate themselves better than other self-propagating systems.

Calling a retarded person retarded is not emotional, rather it's quite pragmatic.
>I was just troleing you lolololol rekt hehe now what
Didn't take very long for you to start eating crayons. Nowhere in that body of text does it invoke what incentive our enemies would have for dismantling their technology parallel to us. Again, more fundamental misunderstandings of basic human behaviour from an autist who spent his entire life avoiding people.

Yes, you willl. comparing Kaczynski's revolution to fucking Trotsky's is simply unforgiveable.

> This of course is an obvious tautology, so it tells us nothing new. But it can serve to call our attention to factors that we might otherwise overlook.

>We are about to advance several propositions. We can’t prove these propositions, but they are intuitively plausible and they seem consistent with the observable behavior of self-propagating systems as represented by biological organisms and human (formal and informal) organizations. In short, we believe these propositions to be true, or as close to the truth as they need to be for present purposes.

>Proposition 1. In any environment that is sufficiently rich, self-propagating systems will arise, and natural selection will lead to the evolution of self-propagating systems having increasingly complex, subtle, and sophisticated means of surviving and propagating themselves.

>Natural selection operates relative to particular periods of time. Let’s start at some given point in time that we can call Time Zero. Those self-prop systems that are most likely to survive (or have surviving progeny) five-years from Time Zero are those that are best suited to survive and propagate themselves (in competition[1] with other self-prop systems) during the five-year period following Time Zero. These will not necessarily be the same as those self-prop systems that, in the absence of competition during the five-year period, would be best suited to survive and propagate themselves during the thirty years following Time Zero. Similarly, the systems best suited to survive competition during the first thirty years following Time Zero are not necessarily those that, in the absence of competition during the thirty-year period, would be best suited to survive and propagate themselves for two hundred years. And so forth.

> For example, suppose a forested region is occupied by a number of small, rival kingdoms. Those kingdoms that clear the most land for agricultural use can plant more crops and therefore can support a larger population than other kingdoms. This gives them a military advantage over their rivals. If any kingdom restrains itself from excessive forest7clearance out of concern for the long-term consequences, then that kingdom places itself at a military disadvantage and is eliminated by the more powerful kingdoms. Thus the region comes to be dominated by kingdoms that cut down their forests recklessly. The resulting deforestation leads eventually to ecological disaster and therefore to the collapse of all the kingdoms. Here a trait that is advantageous or even indispensable for a kingdoms short-term survival—recklessness in cutting trees—leads in the long term to the demise of the same kingdom.[2]

>This example illustrates the fact that, where a self-prop system exercises foresight, in the sense that concern for its own long-term survival and propagation leads it to place limitations on its efforts for short-term survival and propagation, the system puts itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to those self-prop systems that pursue short-term survival and propagation without restraint. This leads us to

Do any collections have both? Maybe this one?

Attached: https___images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com_images_I_51AxMWr4UeL.jpg (1200x1780, 150K)

>Proposition 2. In the short term, natural selection favors self-propagating systems that pursue[3] their own short-term advantage with little or no regard for long-term consequences.

>A corollary to Proposition 2 is

>Proposition 3. Self-propagating subsystems of a given supersystem tend to become dependent on the supersystem and on the specific conditions that prevail within the supersystem.

>This means that between the supersystem and its self-prop subsystems, there tends to develop a relationship of such a nature that, in the event of the destruction of the supersystem or of any drastic acceleration of changes in the conditions prevailing within the supersystem, the subsystems can neither survive nor propagate themselves. A self-prop system with sufficient foresight would make provision for its own or its descendants’ survival in the event of the collapse or destabilization of the supersystem. But as long as the supersystem exists and. remains more or less stable, natural selection favors those subsystems that take fullest advantage of the opportunities available within the supersystem, and disfavors those subsystems that “waste” some of their resources in preparing themselves to survive the eventual destabilization of the supersystem. Under these conditions, self-prop systems will tend very strongly to become incapable of surviving the destabilization of any supersystem to which they belong.

Okay now tell us what's forcing China to comply

> Like the other propositions put forward in this essay, Proposition 3 has to be applied with a dose of common sense. If the supersystem in question is weak and loosely organized, or if it has no more than a modest effect on the conditions in which its subsystems exist, the subsystems may not become strongly dependent on the supersystem. Among hunter-gatherers in some (not all) environments, a nuclear family would be able to survive and propagate itself independently of the band to which it belongs. Because tribes of hunter-gatherers are loosely organized, it seems certain that in almost all cases a hunting-and-gathering band would be able to survive independently of the tribe to which it belongs. Many labor unions might be able to survive the demise of a confederation of labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, because such an event might not fundamentally affect the conditions under which labor unions have to function. But labor unions could not survive the demise of the modem industrial society, or even the demise merely of the legal and constitutional framework that makes it possible for labor unions as we know them to operate.

>Clearly a system cannot be effectively organized for its own survival and propagation unless the different parts of the system can promptly communicate with one another and lend aid-to one another. Moreover, in order to operate effectively throughout a given geographical region, a self-prop system must be able to receive prompt information from, and act promptly upon, every part of the region. Consequently,

That will literally never work. If we both agree to destroy all our technology, some people will be inclined to keep their guns locked away in attics or whatever and then come and use their superior technology (guns) to kill you and take your food so they don't starve as a result of detechnologized food production.

Kaczynski should have known his ideology was unviable from a game theoretic standpoint, being a mathematician and all. Sad.

zero resemblance
If you have 80 IQ you shouldn't post shit on the web. If you suddenly take out the largest cog in the interconnected mess that is the world economy everything falls apart. Countries are never autarkic, The late Bronze Age, for example, saw formerly self-sufficient palace economies rely more heavily on trade, which may have been a contributing factor to the eventual Bronze Age Collapse when multiple crises hit those systems at once.
Bronze is created from mixing copper with tin. As the demand for bronze increased, so did the demand for copper, and the copper trade was a major industry of the era that dominated regional trade routes. However, it was tin that really defined the need for more expansive trade. Tin is pretty rare, and most tin mines available to Bronze-Age people were relatively small. So, in order to make bronze, societies often had to import tin from far away.
>Water people attac, Minos gets BTFO by an island erupting and everything went to the shiter
Modern trade is 1000x more complex then sailing around for thin.
If you take out China's biggest trading partners and oil suppliers China gets the big collapse time. China has minuscule amounts of oil and is in massive need for food imports.

You're an idiot for thinking he meant just the US. It's meant to be a total solution you fucking retarded dick sucking nigger tranny faggot. Kys kike.

>Proposition 4. Problems of transportation and communication impose a limit on the size of the geographical region over which a self-prop system can extend its operations.

>Human experience suggests:

>Proposition 5. The most important and the only consistent limit on the size of the geographical regions over which self-propagating human groups extend their operations, is the limit imposed by the available means of transportation and communication. In other words, while not all self-propagating human groups tend to extend their operations over a region of maximum size, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups that operate over regions approaching the maximum size allowed by the available means of transportation and communication.

>Today there is quick transportation and almost instant communication between any two parts of the world. Hence,

>Proposition 6. In modern times, natural selection tends to produce some self-propagating human groups whose operations span the entire globe. Moreover, even if humans are someday replaced by machines or other entities, natural selection will still tend to produce some self-propagating systems whose operations span the entire globe.

>Current experience strongly confirms this proposition: We see global “superpowers”, global corporations, global political movements, global religions, global criminal networks, etc. Proposition 6, we argue, is not dependent on any particular traits of human beings but only on the general properties of self-prop systems, so there is no reason to doubt that the proposition will remain true if and when humans are replaced by other entities: Natural selection will continue to produce or maintain self-prop systems whose operations span the entire globe.

How come you post on the internet instead of living out his revolutionary principles?

And it will never fucking happen because it's not realistic. Keep dreaming. Technology will march on.

>this entire post
>American IQ
And why would China relinquish technology? Try reading the words on the computer screen before you start crying next time.

> Let’s refer to such systems as global self-prop systems. Instant worldwide communications are still a relatively new phenomenon and their full consequences have yet to be developed; in the future we can expect global self-prop systems to play an even more important role than they do today.

>Proposition 7. Where (as today) problems of transportation and communication do not constitute effective limitations on the size of the geographical regions over which self-propagating systems operate, natural selection tends to create a world in which power is mostly concentrated in the possession of a relatively small number of global self-propagating systems.

>This proposition too is suggested by human experience. But it’s easy to see why the proposition is true independently of anything specifically human: Among global self-prop systems, natural selection will favor those that have the greatest power; global or large-scale self-prop systems that are weaker will tend to be eliminated or subjugated. Small-scale self-prop systems that are too numerous or too subtle to be noticed individually by the dominant global self-prop systems may retain some degree of autonomy, but each of them will have only local influence. It may be answered that a coalition of small-scale self-prop systems could challenge the global self-prop systems, but if small-scale self-prop systems organize themselves into a coalition having worldwide influence, the coalition will itself become a global self-prop system.

>We can speak of the “world-system”, meaning all things that exist on Earth, together with the functional relations among them. The world-system probably should not be regarded as a self-prop system, but whether it is or not is irrelevant for present purposes.

the dude owned more guns than your rn of the mill NRA member.

A Jow Forumsack reviewed the first one: vjmpublishing.nz/?p=10585

> To summarize, then, the world-system is approaching a condition in which it will be dominated by a relatively small number of extremely powerful global self-prop systems. These global systems will compete for power—as they must do in order to have any chance of survival—and they will compete for power in the short term, with little or no regard for long-term consequences (Proposition 2). Under these conditions, intuition tells us that desperate competition among the global self-prop systems will tear the world-system apart.

>Let’s try to formulate this intuition more clearly. For some hundreds of millions of years the terrestrial environment has had some degree of stability, in the sense that conditions on Earth, though variable, have remained within certain limits that have allowed the evolution of complex life-forms such as fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In the immediate future, all self-prop systems on this planet, including self-propagating human groups and any purely machine-based systems derived from them, will have evolved while conditions have remained within these same limits, or at most within somewhat wider ones. By Proposition 3, the Earth’s self-prop systems will have become dependent for their survival on the fact that conditions have remained within these limits. Large-scale self-prop human groups, as well as any purely machine-based self-prop systems, will be dependent also on conditions of more recent origin relating to the way the world-system is organized; for example, conditions pertaining to economic relationships. The rapidity with which these conditions change must remain within certain limits, else the self-prop systems will not survive.

It appears as though we've broken the autist

Guns are a product of the industrial revolution.

When you can't even live by your own ideology because it is self-defeating and game theory suboptimal, why should I take you seriously?

>Notice that the crucial factor here is the availability of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, as a consequence of which there exist global self-prop systems. There is another way of seeing that this situation will lead to radical disruption of the world-system. Students of industrial accidents know that a system is most likely to suffer a catastrophic breakdown when (i) the system is highly complex (meaning that small disruptions can produce unpredictable consequences), and (ii) tightly linked (meaning that a breakdown in one part of the system spreads quickly to other parts).[4] The world-system has been highly complex for a long time. The new factor is that of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, as a result of which the world-system and all global self-prop systems are now tightly linked. Until relatively recently, self-prop systems were local phenomena, hence the destructive effects of their competition also were usually local. Today, because global self-prop systems compete worldwide, because they are tightly linked, because the world-system as a whole is tightly linked, and because technology provides global self-prop systems with colossal power, global disaster sooner or later is a near certainty.

> An obvious answer to the foregoing arguments will be to assert that destructive competition among global self-prop systems isn’t inevitable: A single global self-prop system might succeed in eliminating all of its competitors and thereafter dominate the world alone; or, because global self-prop systems would be relatively few in number, they might come to an agreement among themselves whereby they would refrain from all dangerous or destructive forms of competition. However, while it is easy to talk about such an agreement, it is vastly more difficult to actually conclude one and enforce it. Just look: The world’s leading powers today have not been able to agree on the elimination of war or of nuclear weapons, or on the limitation of emissions’ of carbon dioxide.

>But let’s be optimistic and assume that the world has come under the domination of a single, unified system, which may consist of a single global self-prop system victorious over all its rivals, or may be a composite of several global self-prop systems that have bound themselves together through an agreement that eliminates all destructive competition among them. The resulting “world peace” will be unstable for three separate reasons.

>First, the world-system will still be highly complex and tightly linked.

> Second, prior to the arrival of “world peace” and for the sake of their own survival and propagation, the self-prop subsystems of a given global self-prop system (their supersystem) will have put aside, or at least moderated, their mutual conflicts in order to present a united front against any immediate external threats or challenges to the supersystem (which are also threats or challenges to themselves). In fact, the supersystem would never have been successful enough to become a global self-prop system if competition between its most powerful self-prop subsystems had not been moderated.

>But once a global self-prop system has eliminated its competitors, or has entered into an agreement that frees it from dangerous competition from other global self-prop systems, there will no longer be an immediate external threat to induce unity or a moderation of conflict among the self-prop system. In view of Proposition 2—which tells us that self-prop systems will compete with little regard for long-term consequences—unrestrained and therefore destructive competition will break out among the most powerful self-prop subsystems of the global self-prop system in question. This argument of course assumes that the most powerful self-prop subsystems will be “intelligent” enough to distinguish between a situation in which their supersystem is subject to an immediate external threat, and a situation in which their supersystem is not subject to an immediate external threat. The assumption, however, seems highly probable.

> Benjamin Franklin pointed out that “the great Affairs of the World, the Wars Revolutions, &c. are carried on and effected by Parties.” Each of the “Parties”, according to Franklin, is pursuing its own collective advantage, but “as soon as a Party has gain’d its general Point”—and therefore, presumably, no longer faces immediate conflict with an external adversary—“each Member becomes Intent upon his particular Interest, which thwarting others, breaks that Party into Divisions, and occasions…Confusion.”[5]

>Franklin’s statement doubtless represents somewhat of an oversimplification, but history does generally confirm that when large human groups are not held together by any immediate external challenge, they tend strongly to break up into factions that compete with one another regardless of long-term consequences. What we are arguing here is that this does not apply only to human groups, but expresses a tendency of self-propagating systems in. general as they develop under the influence of natural selection. Thus, the tendency is independent of any flaws of character peculiar to human beings and the tendency will persist even if humans are “cured” of their purported defects or are replaced by intelligent machines.

>Let’s nevertheless assume that the most powerful self-prop subsystems of global self-prop systems will not begin to compete destructively when the external challenges to their supersystems have been removed. There is still a third reason why the kind of “world peace” described above will be unstable.

It's great to see that your clipboard works but none of this addresses the fundamental flaw of being a participatory ideology

Attached: 1552637890622.jpg (462x244, 27K)

>By Proposition 1, within the new “peaceful” world-system new self-prop systems will arise that, under the influence of natural selection, will evolve increasingly subtle and sophisticated ways of evading recognition—or, once they are recognized, evading suppression—by the dominant global self-prop systems. By the same process that led to the evolution of self-prop systems in the first place, new self-prop systems of greater and greater power will develop until some are powerful enough to challenge the existing global self-prop systems, whereupon destructive competition on a global scale will resume.

>For the sake of clarity we have described the process in simplified form, as if a world-system relatively free of dangerous competition would first be established and afterward would be undone by new self-prop systems that would arise. But it’s more likely that new self-prop systems will be arising all along to challenge the existing global self-prop systems, and will prevent the hypothesized “world peace” from ever being the in the first place. In fact, we can see this happening before our eyes. The most crudely obvious of the (relatively) new self-prop systems are those that challenge law and order head on, such as terrorist networks, drug cartels, and hackers groups (e.g., Anonymous, or the now-defunct LulzSec[6]). Such self-prop systems not only can disrupt the normal course of political life, as drug cartels have done in Mexico and terrorists have done in the United States; they even have the potential to take control of important nations, as drug cartels arguably have come close to doing in Kenya.[7] A subordinate system that a government creates for its own protection—its military establishment—can turn into a self-prop system in its own right and become dominant over the government, either replacing it through a military coup, or exercising effective power behind the scenes while allowing the government to retain the appearance of full

>...sovereignty.

> Probably more significant at the present time are emerging self-prop systems that use entirely legal methods (new corporations are continually being formed; some grow powerful enough to challenge older corporations and gain covert political power) and those that try to keep their use of illegal methods to a minimum (as in the case of the movement that recently overthrew Hosni Mubarak in Egypt). Legal self-prop systems are especially important in those parts of the world where democracy is firmly established, because democracy gives new groups the opportunity-to compete for (and possibly win) power by legal means. Two competing, entirely legal self-prop systems that have arisen in the U.S. during the last several decades are the politically correct left and the dogmatic right (not to be confused with the liberals and conservatives of earlier times in America). This essay is not the place to speculate about the outcome of the struggle between these two forces; suffice it to say that in the long run their bitter conflict may do more to prevent the establishment of a lastingly peaceful world order than all the bombs of AI Qaeda and all the murders of the Mexican drug gangs.

>Some people may imagine that it would be possible to design and construct a world-system in such a way that the foregoing processes leading to destructive competition would not occur. But there are several reasons why such a project could never be carried out in practice. Here we mention only one of the reasons: the extreme complexity that the world-system would necessarily have, and the impossibility of predicting (especially at long term) the behavior of complex systems.[9]

> It will be objected that a mammal, (or other complex biological organism) is a self-prop system that is a composite of millions of other self-prop systems, namely, the cells of its own body. Yet (unless and until the animal cancer) no destructive competition arises among cells or groups of cells within the animal’s body. Instead, all the cells loyally serve the interests of the animal as a whole. Moreover, no external threat to the animal is necessary to keep the cell faithful to their duty. There is (it will be argued) no reason why the world-system could not be as well organized as the body of a mammal, so that no destructive competition would arise among its self-prop systems.

> But the body of a mammal is, a product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution through natural selection. This means that it has been-created through a trial-and-error process involving many millions of successive trials. If we suppose the duration of a generation to be a period of time Δ, those members of the first generation that contributed to the second generation by producing offspring were only those that passed the test of selection over time Δ. Those lineages[10] that survived to the third generation were only those that passed the test of selection over time 2Δ. Those lineages that survived to the fourth generation were only those that passed the test of selection over time 3Δ. And so forth. Those lineages that survived to the nth generation were only those that passed the test of selection over the time-interval (n-1)Δ as well as the test of selection over every shorter time-interval. Though the foregoing explanation is grossly simplified, it shows that in order to have survived up to the present, a lineage of organisms has to have passed the test of selection many millions of times and over all time-intervals, short, medium, and long. To put it another way, the lineage of organisms has had to pass through a series of many millions of filters, each of which has allowed the passage only of those lineages that were “fittest” (in the Darwinian sense) to survive over time-intervals of widely varying length. It is only through this process that the body of a mammal has evolved, with its incredibly complex and subtle mechanisms that promote the survival of the animal’s lineage at short, medium, and long term. These mechanisms include those that prevent destructive competition between cells or groups of cells within the animal’s body.

>But once self-prop systems have attained global scale, certain crucial differences emerge that make the selection process highly inefficient.

> First, at each trial in the process of trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, there are too few individuals from among which to select the “fittest”. In a biological species there ordinarily are, at the least, several million individuals from among which the “fittest” in each generation are selected by their ability to survive and reproduce.[11] Self-prop systems sufficiently big and powerful to be plausible contenders for global dominance will probably number in the dozens or possibly in the hundreds; they certainly will not number in the millions.

>Second, in the absence of rapid, worldwide transportation and communication, the breakdown or the destructive action of a small-scale self-prop system has only local repercussions. But, where rapid, worldwide transportation and communication have led to the emergence of global self-prop systems, the breakdown or the destructive action of anyone such system shakes the entire world-system. Consequently, in the process of trial and error that is evolution through natural selection, it is highly probable that after only a relatively small number of “trials” resulting in “errors”, the world-system will break down or be so severely disrupted that none of the world’s larger or more complex self-prop systems will be able to survive (see Proposition 3). Thus, for such self-prop systems, the trial-and-error process comes to an end; evolution through natural selection cannot continue long enough to create global self-prop systems possessing the subtle and sophisticated mechanisms that prevent destructive internal competition within complex biological organisms.

> Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-prop systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth’s climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth, that among biological species none will be left alive except, maybe, some of the simplest organisms—certain bacteria, algae and the like that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions.[12]

>The theory we’ve outline here provides a plausible explanation for the so-called “Fermi Paradox”. It is believed that there should be numerous planets on which technologically advanced civilizations have evolved, and which are not so remote from us that we could not by this time have detected the radio transmissions of those civilizations. The Fermi Paradox consists in the fact that our astronomers have never been able to detect any radio signals that seem to have originated form an intelligent extraterrestrial source.[13]

>According to Ray Kurzweil, one common explanation of the Fermi Paradox is “that a civilization may obliterate itself once it reaches radio capability. This explanation might be acceptable if we were talking about only a few such civilizations, but [if such civilizations have been numerous], it is not credible to believe that every one of them destroyed itself.”

wow it's so much easier to read now that it's low contrast, deformatted and only being posted in small interrupted segments.

>Kurzweil would be right if the self-destruction of a civilization were merely a matter of chance. But there is nothing implausible about the foregoing explanation of the Fermi Paradox if there is a process common to all technologically advanced civilizations that consistently leads them to self-destruction. In this essay we have argued that there is such a process.

II.

>Our discussion of self-propagating systems merely describes in general and abstract terms what we see going on all around us in concrete form: Organizations, movements, ideologies are locked in an unremitting struggle for power. Those that fail to compete successfully are eliminated or subjugated.[15] The struggle is almost exclusively for power in the short term; the competitors pay scant attention even to their own long-term survival,[16] let alone to the welfare of the human race or of the biosphere. That’s why nuclear weapons have not been banned, emissions of carbon dioxide have not been reduced to a safe level, the Earth’s resources are being exploited at an utterly reckless rate, and no limitation has been placed on development of powerful but dangerous technologies.

>The purpose of describing the process in general and abstract terms, as we’ve done here, is to show that what is happening to our world is not accidental; it is not the result of some chance conjunction of historical circumstances or of some flaw of character peculiar to human beings. Given the nature of self-propagating systems in general, the destructive process that we see today is made inevitable by a combination of two factors: the colossal power of modern technology and the availability of rapid transportation and communication between any two parts of the world.

Wouldn't surprise me if this anprim nonsense is promoted to discourage whites from turning towards NatSoc ideas.

Just remember to sage.

> Recognition of this may help us to avoid wasting time on naïve efforts to solve our current problems. For example, on efforts to teach people to conserve energy and resources. Such efforts accomplish nothing whatever.

>It seems amazing that those who advocate energy conservation haven’t noticed what happens: As soon as some energy is freed up by conservation, the technological world-system gobbles it up and demands more. No matter how much energy is provided, the system always expands rapidly until it is using all available energy, and then it demands still more. The same is true of other resources. The technological world-system infallibly expands until it reaches a limit imposed by an insufficiency of resources, and then it tries to push beyond that limit regardless of consequences.

>This is explained by the theory of self-propagating systems: Those organizations (or other self-prop systems) that least allow respect for the environment to interfere with their pursuit of power here and now, tend to acquire more power than those that limit their pursuit of power from concern about what will happen to our environment fifty years from now, or even ten years (Proposition 2). Thus, through a process of natural selection, the world comes to be dominated by organizations that make maximum possible use of all available resources to augment their own power without regard to long-term consequences.

>Environmental do-gooders may answer that if the public has been persuaded to take environmental concerns seriously it will be disadvantageous in terms of natural selection for an organization to abuse the environment, because citizens can offer resistance to environmentally reckless organizations. For example, people might refuse to buy products manufactured by companies that are environmentally destructive. However, human behavior and human attitudes can be manipulated. Environmental damage can be shielded, up to a point, from public scrutiny; with the help of public-relations firms, a corporation can persuade people that it is environmentally responsible; advertising and marketing techniques can give people such an itch to possess a corporation’s products that few individuals will refuse to buy them from concern for the environment; computer games, electronic social networking, and other mechanisms of escape keep people absorbed in hedonistic pursuits so that they don’t have time for environmental worries. More importantly, people are made to see themselves as utterly dependent on the products and services provided by the corporations. Because people have to earn money to buy the products and services on which they are dependent, they need jobs. Economic growth is necessary for the creation of jobs, therefore people accept environmental damage when it is portrayed as a price that must be paid for economic growth. Nationalism too is brought into play both by corporations and by governments. Citizens are made to feel that outside forces are threatening: “The Chinese will get ahead of us if we don’t increase our rate of economic growth. Al Qaeda will blow us up if we don’t improve our technology and our weaponry fast enough.”

>this anprim nonsense
>The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

You just can't stop getting BTFO, can you? I'll come back to you in a minute when I'm finished what I've started.