When did you realize that he was right about almost everything?
When did you realize that he was right about almost everything?
Nathan Price
James Hernandez
He's right about everything, not almost everything. Literally everything he wrote was right.
Point any flaw in his writings, I dare you.
Protip: you can't.
Camden Cooper
Recently, but how can we actually put his work into practice? How can we, as human actually go back in terms of technology? Is such a thing even possible?
Hudson Taylor
>Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.
You cannot expect the whole humankind to support and become neo-Luddites. As long as a small fraction of society is well-organised, revolution is likely to succeed as history has proved.
Ryder Brooks
>Killed dogs
Literally scum. Also he's wrong to note problems began at the Industrial Revolution, traves back to "Enlightenment" specifically having God/Church replaced by "science and progress"
Cameron James
He does recognise that problems that ultimately lead to the Industrial Revolution started during the Enlightment:
>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.
However, problems began with the Neolithic Revolution; and you can trace back the roots to the problems even more.
Where did you get that information about him killing dogs?
Daniel Sullivan
I respect him but most of what he wrote in his manifesto wasn't very profound. Also most humans deserve to be exterminated and AI will easily outshine even the brightest humans.
Xavier Phillips
a few weeks ago
Camden Evans
you have no appreciation for what humanity has given you. you are spoiled
Nathaniel Stewart
> let's just discard everything achieved in the previous millenium, LMAO
Yeah, he's definitely right.
Jaxon Campbell
AI shall never be created. If you support AI, you hate life.
Lincoln Rogers
>Also most humans deserve to be exterminated
No. You in particular should probably be exterminated though.
Chase Wright
There is much more insight than simply discarding scientific and social achievements.
Luke Nguyen
The Enlightenment is literally the most important movement in human thought in the entire history of mankind.
James Thomas
It was the moment that ensured the expansion out of its limits of Western civilization and the current globalised world is a direct consequence of it.
You can consider it as a positive thing, but at the same time you can consider it as the beginning (or the first triggering) of the end.
John Thompson
when at lowest he ever found himself to be, in bouts of darkness and seeing nothing but abysss, he wanted to be a tranny/ had AGP fantasies.
this is what the modern world does to you.
Benjamin Martinez
The problem is that what he said isn't measurable and therefore cannot be proven
A lot of what he said is subjective
I wholeheartedly agree with him tho
Adrian Watson
Makes me chuckle because after reading this guy all other politics, ideologies, etc. just became completely and utterly irrelevant
Samuel Turner
He killed innocent humans too you know lol. Don't get me wrong this guy is right but let's not pretend he isn't a terrorist.
Camden Wright
>obese sub 80 IQ westerners who are unable to walk and travel on moped deserve an equal right to live!
The average human is simply mediocre at best. Most humans meaninglessly waste resources to entertain themselves and distract themselves from everything that makes them feel bad until they die. These humans and this system deserve to be destroyed. I don't understand how anybody can disagree that population control and killing of weak humans needs to happen soon, there's no way society can continue like this.
Also I wouldn't mind paving the way for a being more intelligent than I am. I am not insecure about a robot being more intelligent than I am.
William Martin
But user! They have an equal right to live, they are human too!
Chase Young
Everyone observe - this is what statists actually believe and this is why the system legitimately needs to be destroyed.
Jason Gomez
>sub 80 IQs who are too retarded to live independently and would quickly be dead to their own devices without industrial medical care deserve to live!
Hudson Powell
>unable to form an independent opinion so I must dickride Kaczynski
>also unable to form a counterargument with a contrasting opinion
>"teehee fellow echochamber hiveminders, look at this person who disagrees with us. So ridiculous, right?"
Daniel Moore
Don't worry environmental disaster will happen in a hundred years or so and force civilization to restart anyway
Some say it's already happened before
Brody Turner
>muh dogs!
First time i've heard that claim about him and it's completely irrelevant. People that place animals on any kind of pedastal are stupid to do so and weak
Andrew Jones
Ted stated that he doesn't encourage using murder as a way of resisting the industrial system for those who view murder as a morally bad action. He killed people who he didn't consider to be innocent, to begin with. Yes, he was a terrorist, nodody's going to deny it.
You're stepping into Linkola's field and you're not wrong in many aspects. The industrial system is unsustainable, there is no way this civilization and this planet can keep on this track. However, if you actively support IA and the advance of technology, you're on the wrong path, senpai.
Jose Ward
Shit version of Linkola.
Hunter Torres
"Kill all fatties" is not an argument deserving of a serious response
Ayden Hill
change.org
if you want less ted kacsunzky haters sig peit difutition
Ethan Morgan
>How can we, as human actually go back in terms of technology? Is such a thing even possible?
daily reminder that the stresses of climate change will cause most of techno-industrial society to collapse within your lifetime
Jordan Edwards
Reminder that this great man was once caught fucking one of his neighbours farm equipment.
Evan Hall
You're both right. The environmental consequences are the consequences of the Industrial Revolution more likely to cause the disintegration of this civilization.
Not really, just a different perspective. Ted's more focused on the bads of technology. Linkola despises modern civilization because of its effects on animal and plant life.
Are you guys from Montana or something? How do you know so many urban legends about Ted killing dogs and fucking whatever you mean by 'farm equipment'?
Christopher Scott
There is no right or wrong path. I like the AI path because it's a more plausible future than everyone suddenly deciding they want to live in villages and cabins.
Humans clearly aren't meant to live in societies this large and haven't adapted yet, any type of government of this age will always be a clusterfuck. I believe AI will be able to adapt to massive futuristic civilizations unlike a human would.
Cameron Green
But what is the point of a future without consciousness? Bostrom puts it best when he says that a humanless future world of AI would be "like Disneyland without the children"
Mason Russell
AI will not be able to understand life as it will be unable to experience it. For sure, it may recreate life and manage ecosystems following logical ways, but it will happen just because it's programmed to do so.
If you ask me, I think that a planet without humans will be far more natural than it is right now with the pressure of current civilization. However, if we go extinct and we left IA here to replace us, I'm very upset on the idea that maybe technology will follow its path of Nature destruction rather than turning into Nature conservation.
Maybe you are right after all, but there is a lot of techno-optimism in your views, senpai.
Luis Harris
ted had to transition in time
see, anons, if you have those thoughts act on them before you become a crazy terrorist too
Noah Campbell
I think he was just a mega autist who couldn't function in society and was driven crazy when he couldn't escape from it.
It's definitely a problem that humans are overcrowding the world and destroying the wilderness, as well as not letting people be more independent. But almost all his criticisms of industrial technology come with positives too, especially when compared to feudal times or the ancient world. If industrial society collapsed, we would just go back to those societies which had a lot of the same issues as well as others of their own. The agricultural revolution was probably a bigger change and it's not something you can really put back in the box or prevent people from doing. Just calling all art or anything people have an interest in a surrogate activity is incredibly dismissive as well.
His bombings of course were completely stupid and pointless. He took away all his chances of spending time in nature forever, and while just about everyone knows who he is, hardly anyone actually reads his writings.
Charles Wilson
if he didn't bombed people, we would not have this thread today. It worked to spread the message
Eli Garcia
No, people only take his ideas seriously on small internet communities, and that's not any different from people with similar beliefs like John Zerzan. If he hadn't bombed anyone he would probably have been able to promote them more. I think he wanted revenge on the people he blamed first and foremost and then came up with other justifications.
Ian Martinez
I think much more people know Ted than Zerzan
Adrian Hill
Yeah but they don't know what he actually wrote.
Samuel White
Ted was a genius, no doubt about it. Although his methods of communicating his message were controversial, he did succeed in his efforts to gain attention.
Hunter Foster
and even less people know what zerzan wrote
Aaron Price
It would probably have been more people if he was more kosher to the right and could become a meme. When normies hear about the Unabomber though they just think of some crazy serial killer who was in the news a few decades ago.
Isaiah Gonzalez
>If industrial society collapsed, we would just go back to those societies which had a lot of the same issues as well as others of their own.
>The agricultural revolution was probably a bigger change and it's not something you can really put back in the box or prevent people from doing.
Check this passage right below the one I previously cited ITT:
"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."
What matters is now.
Anyways, the industrial system will collapse by itself. It's not just a choice. If humans survive the collapse, we will have to figure out how to readjust civilization.
>Just calling all art or anything people have an interest in a surrogate activity is incredibly dismissive as well
"The power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals"
The concept that Ted has of autonomy is quite particular. He doesn't disminish the creative endeavour of artists, he rather views it as a way to cope with their lack of autonomy. Ted admits that many people are perfectly well adapted to fit in industrial society as long as they see themselves as participants of it, whereas many others feel ostracised and end up alienating themselves from it. He doesn't despise art explicitly in any part of the manifesto, if I remember correctly. Indeed, he admires creativity and initiative.
Guys, I think you're missing the fact that this guy actually believed that a revolution was going to start. Probably dellusional coming from a genius like him, but he firmly believed that a revolution was imminent. Furthermore, he would have kept sending pipebombs were it not for his brother.
Kayden Clark
I'm not talking about society going back to how it is now, but like back to how it was a few hundred years ago before industry, when most people had terrible nutrition, medical care etc. He claims that a lot of places would be forced to go back to hunting and gathering but there are a lot of domesticated animals and plants that have been introduced around the world that weren't there before.
Also the distinction between "real goals" and fake ones seems pretty arbitrary.
Chase Morris
>I'm not talking about society going back to how it is now, but like back to how it was a few hundred years ago before industry, when most people had terrible nutrition, medical care etc.
We must keep in mind that even if it's true that industrial society will collapse, this will happen because there won't be enough fuel to power its engines. Most infrastructure will remain for some time, most societies will try to reorganise and establish the law enforcenment necessary for its well-functioning (implying that any humans will be left, of course, there are many possible outcomes). The post-collapse future won't be deprived of all modern technology and scientific knowledge. Just think about any apocaliptic movie/book/videogame (Fallout, The Road, Mad Max if you want, etc). The future societies will live among the ruins of industrial civilization, the Middle Ages won't come back as they happened.
>He claims that a lot of places would be forced to go back to hunting and gathering but there are a lot of domesticated animals and plants that have been introduced around the world that weren't there before.
He wasn't considering some ecological implications of modern civilization at the time he wrote the manifesto. Humanity has disrupted most ecosistems by introducing deliberately or not new species that have adapted well or turned out to be invasive. Ted thought that simply be removing industrial society this would result in a relief of the pressure of humans over Nature. Sadly, this is in fact wrong.
For further info about this, I recommend you all this book titled "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. Even in a world without humans, the consequences of humanity would be still noticeable for many millenia after our extinction.
CONT.
Hudson Roberts
>Also the distinction between "real goals" and fake ones seems pretty arbitrary.
Basically Ted only conceives a true goal if it is aimed to satisfy your biological needs. I know it may sound stupid at first, but you'd be surprised by how much we depend on the industrial system to feed ourselves or even dress. For Ted, the only free person is the one that is able to survive on his own.
You see this Libertarians for instance, they consider the state as a negative force because it makes people dependant. Well, Ted goes a step (or a hundred steps) further. He declares that if you're not able to survive in the wilderness on your own, you're basically dependant on the system and, therefore, you aren't free.