What was his problem?

Being a fucking brainlet.
>let's just burn it all to the ground so people can feel better about themselves
Not gonna happen Ted.

kazynski was right but the brainwashing twisted his underlying conclusion. the evil is not technology, it is the people utilizing technology.

i used to agree with him completely but i met a guy that grew up in a stone age jungle tribe before moving to america in the late 80s and it changed my perspective entirely. technology changes the way our brains work, and while it may have some negative side effects, the positive side effects of it are absolutely incomparable. your life may not be as simple as a hunter gatherer but you won't ever master any complex skills, become an expert, invent something that people you have never met will use, or spread information beyond a very limited scope. i think its safe to be fearful of it but quite frankly i don't think humanity is worse off

kazynski confused the collective effort of humanity for the collective political effort of humanity. we're all in this together, and i don't mean that in some kumbaya commie shit, i mean that some gook can write instructions on a wall in a language i can't even speak and i can walk by, look it up, and learn from it. there is a collective betterment of society that is happening just by people learning and applying things and keeping record and access to them as time goes on. you lose that with a low tech society. with all that i've bettered myself through technology, i can't see it as a bad thing - even if facebook is absolutely the most damaging entity in society right now.

That also creates a hive mind of laziness.
The two greatest motivative factors of humans is laziness, and fear.
Uncle Ted injected the fear we should have of the laziness that tech brings.
He is the yin to the current Yang(gang).
If you don't see the obvious, you are part of the (CIA) problem (Solution)

its because there is something about nature that's hard to really describe when you aren't immersed in it. and i'm a modern person with lighters and radios, i don't know shit about actually living off the land like a tribesman. it makes you realize how complex the systems that nature has evolved truly are, the scale at which they operate, and how absolutely tiny they are in comparison to even the mightiest of human accomplishments. when you're out there in the woods, you aren't exposed to anything human. it is pure nothing, except its not nothing. it's an entire world. an entire world without anything "human"

the problem isn't laziness, the problem is getting so far down a rabbit hole that you aren't able to contextualize things. i think that technology is critical to humanity's future and the betterment of it, but i'm also not a fool and think that we can achieve greatness while forgetting the place where we come from. we live in our ivory towers for so long that we forget that they too will crumble with time, unless you get someone to maintain it.

you should fear the laziness that technology brings, but you are also clearly fearing the amount of information that it provides, which is challenging your discretion

>>
>you should fear the laziness that technology brings, but you are also clearly fearing the amount of information that it provides, which is challenging your discretion
No, I have sought to profit from it for years now.

nobody is afraid of technology because of him
he didnt achieve anything aside from influencing a few impressionable idiots like yourself

>t. I haven't read the manifesto, yet Im goubg to comment on it

Industrial society, user.

I don't know why people think that reading the manifesto would automatically convince people; bad ideas are still bad even if they are pretentious. Ted's manifesto just happens to resonate well with edgy 15 year olds, but it's not actually a particularly difficult read. It's a 10-12 page essay, more or less. Back in my days, edgy 15 year olds read Kafka and Dostoevsky.

Why do we keep having these threads over and over in /lit/ and Jow Forums? We already reached a conclusion in the last Ted thread. Every Ted discussion thread more anons talk about him and more his ideas gain adepts.

Because mods are asleep.

Is this a bad thing? Industrial Society and Its Future isn't that bad of a manifesto, and there are definite takeaways from it.

No they didn't. They read Jow Forums, Maddox, or xanga before that.

Yes, but we should start from where the other threads ended, or more infrequent criticisms get ignored. Most people are driven by the edginess, so the arguments defending him appear more frequently.

didn't have sex

>quora

his problem was that he was too much based and redpilled

Attached: 1568848585713.jpg (638x641, 64K)

I agree with some of his points but his whole manifest is based on his assumption that people were happier in past times.
I reckon we are being manipulated or kept 'happy' by technology but I sure as hell prefer this than having to put effort hunting my meals, building a house or walking a mile daily for water to die at 50.

>his assumption that people were happier in past times
what assumption ? its a fact

You guys should watch the documentary on this guy, it's pretty insightful.
youtube.com/watch?v=GY6fb59XFbQ

THE industrial revolution destroyed his nature hideout, that pissed him off.

Sure thing, let me see those sources.

>They read Jow Forums, Maddox, or xanga before that.
I don't think you realize how old I am, user. When I was 15, moot was 6 years old.

One could compare the studies of the Amish to modern man

I feel like modern Capitalism/economics uses psychological tricks to make you unhappy. Like advertisements subconsciously tie things like happiness and family values to products and that you need to buy them to achieve happiness. It's a race to the bottom where people are ticked into just buying without actually considering why. It's all artificial
Stuff like that is kinda why I think people could live so much worse off but also still enjoy life more. To them stuff just like living and being with your community was fine, but we're focused on what you can buy

>math teacher
>brainlet
huh?

Give tl;dr

You do not understand how technological development works if you think the problem is its use. To quote Ellul, if you use a car to kill somebody, that's just misusing technology, that is, not using the best means available (e.g. a firearm) to achieve a given end (killing somebody). What's the "good way" of using an atomic bomb, for example?
Technology just develops without any regard whatsoever to morality or human concerns. It takes a life of its own and crushes everything that is not itself. It is utterly naive to think that one can a priori separate lines of technological research which are "good" from those which are "bad". You do not understand how tangled together the different techniques and technologies are if you think this is remotely possible. There is just no way of foreseeing all the consequences a given piece of technology will have. A new ultra resistant screw might end up being used (and making possible) a devastating new weapon, for all we know.

>hell prefer this than having to put effort hunting my meals, building a house or walking a mile daily for water to die at 50.
If you were to do those things you wouldn't need your anti-depressants and vidya in the first place, my man. Also please stop spreading the meme that everyone died at 50 or whatever before modern times. It is just not true. And even if it were, I fail to grasp the advantage of dying of cancer or a heart attack at 75.

Look at the filename...

He's bluepilled as fuck. No statements yet on the shitskin invasion of Europe and the ongoing global genocide of the White Race.

If he sperged out about malthusianism and how technology enables it over being a retarded primativist, he'd have a cult of following as big as hundreds of millions by now especially considering the whole global warming stuff.

You probably hear this before, but boy, you have mental issues. You need to let this alternative reality go and to stop browsing Jow Forums and /x/.

Primitivism is just rebranded communism. Literally who falls for this shit?

A sane man in an insane world.

But it's not. Big Ted absolutely hates the materialist left.

>an ideology which detests technology is the same as one which literally deifies it
Ok, retard.

Ultimately he made the mistake of thinking you can change society.

You can't.

>Get a PhD in mathematics from Harvard and become a university professor
>Get called a "math teacher"

No argument.
>blah blah blah CAPITALISM BAD
Literally the same rotten fruit from the tree

Huh? Who said anything about capitalism? We're discussing the meaning of the terms "communism" and "primitivism". There's no argument to be made. You're just factually wrong if you think primitivism is the same as communism. Faith in technological progress is a staple of communism (see any book whatsoever about Soviet propaganda). Primitivism rejects technology. End of discussion.

You cant just define terms how you want. They're both just different ways for anti-nation retards to say they dont want to work or have responsibility. It's the same anti-market and "Communal/collective" bullshit with a different spin.

>any political doctrine with anti-capitalist elements is ipso facto communism
Ok, retard. Go read a book and stop wasting everyone's time.

Kek

So tired of retards calling the psych experiment he participated in during his college days "MKULTRA brainwashing". Just shows you've done zero research into the man or his works and are just big dumb dumb retards haha dumb RETARDS