Discussion Industrial Society and its Future - notes

[Cortex]

"Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favour. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favour by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves."

"The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate".

Can this be refuted?

 

[Zhou Chang-Xing]

It isn't a 100% match with industrial society, we lost a lot of the choices we had in pre-industrial society but gained a lot of choices that didn't exist before. In fact today we have an abundance of choices, this is why all toilets only swipe right on Chad's, because they have so many choices that they only choose "the best" (looking) ones.

 

[Cortex]

It isn't a 100% match with industrial society, we lost a lot of the choices we had in pre-industrial society but gained a lot of choices that didn't exist before. In fact today we have an abundance of choices, this is why all toilets only swipe right on Chad's, because they have so many choices that they only choose "the best" (looking) ones.

We gained an inordinate amount of choice but with this vast and extensive accumulation of choice, or some may dub as "freedom" we also acquire the negatives from such advances but even then those "advances" merged together under one system creates problems as previously quoted, I guess it depends on the perspective you take, some see the negatives as a necessity in order to progress, honestly just seems like the perpetual motion this mega system in which we reside has no limit and is heading toward a black hole and the upper echelons of this system seem totally fine with it, I guess we're within the money paradigm and only the accumulation of such is all that matters.

 

[AnotherInsertCel]

Now the only thing driving Mr. A forward is his insatiable thirst for winning, the drug known as fame will consume him until his untimely demise at the hand of his one great loss, they found Mr. A dangling from his ceiling fan going in circles, perfectly describing his life.

 

[based_meme]

Can this be refuted?

Yes, easily.

But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favour by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves."

But why would we suppose this? Why would C be helping A defeat him? This analogy is far from good, let alone perfect. Society is not an opponent in an adversarial zero sum game with members of itself. People in society are not in competition with society to try and "beat" society. There is competition within society between its members who play a combination of zero sum, negative sum, and positive sum games with each other. Society itself is an abstract object we construct to represent the rules we create for ourselves and as a set to contain elements (us, the members) of this collection of rule-followers. Society is not an rational agent like one of us with whom we engage with under the rule sets. Set-theoretically, society is the set, we're the elements, and the games we play are a subset of functions.

"The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate".

Like @Zhou Chang-Xing said, technology gives us new choices and makes previous choices obsolete or superfluous. Why would I buy a horse and take care of its needs when I can buy a car that's much more efficient? Why would I train for years with a sword when I can learn how to use a firearm in combat? Why would I waste time learning multiplication tables when I can learn the theory and learn how to use a calculator? The logical endpoint of this at our current time is the computer and all of its applications that have freed up much time and many choices.

The point of technology is to make things easier, more efficient, and to give us more options. This naturally will make some previous options obsolete, but you can't make the argument that this "takes away" and limits our options. You can go ahead and learn blacksmithing right now, if you wish. Just don't expect to make a living from it in modern society. It's the same with many other choices in society. If you work two hours a day and make enough to sustain yourself and live comfortably, you could forego the purchase of a car or bike and just decide to spend several hours a day walking to work and back. You're probably better off buying a car and freeing up much of your time to do other things, but the choice is still yours to make.

 

[Cortex]

Yes, easily.


But why would we suppose this? Why would C be helping A defeat him? This analogy is far from good, let alone perfect. Society is not an opponent in an adversarial zero sum game with members of itself. People in society are not in competition with society to try and "beat" society. There is competition within society between its members who play a combination of zero sum, negative sum, and positive sum games with each other. Society itself is an abstract object we construct to represent the rules we create for ourselves and as a set to contain elements (us, the members) of this collection of rule-followers. Society is not an rational agent like one of us with whom we engage with under the rule sets. Set-theoretically, society is the set, we're the elements, and the games we play are a subset of functions.


Like @Zhou Chang-Xing said, technology gives us new choices and makes previous choices obsolete or superfluous. Why would I buy a horse and take care of its needs when I can buy a car that's much more efficient? Why would I train for years with a sword when I can learn how to use a firearm in combat? Why would I waste time learning multiplication tables when I can learn the theory and learn how to use a calculator? The logical endpoint of this at our current time is the computer and all of its applications that have freed up much time and many choices.

The point of technology is to make things easier, more efficient, and to give us more options. This naturally will make some previous options obsolete, but you can't make the argument that this "takes away" and limits our options. You can go ahead and learn blacksmithing right now, if you wish. Just don't expect to make a living from it in modern society. It's the same with many other choices in society. If you work two hours a day and make enough to sustain yourself and live comfortably, you could forego the purchase of a car or bike and just decide to spend several hours a day walking to work and back. You're probably better off buying a car and freeing up much of your time to do other things, but the choice is still yours to make.

Firstly I would like to mention this is taken from the notes section at the end of the manifesto but thought I would share it since I found it interesting.

Society is just as much as an opponent as the players located within they both rely on each other and maybe some external factors such as environmental and resource issues play apart in the function and conception of society. If you have any problem with any aspect of society or human culture in general you have a problem with both because one creates those conditions you now have to live by.

Yes technology gives us more options but at the cost of severe consequences both direct and indirect as previously stated, why would you buy a horse if you could just get a car? see right there is the problem, you exist based on a system that has forced you into a position where you really have no choice, you obey the direction of the road because there is a road, you drive a car now because it easier for the system to function and you cannot do without it, everything revolves around a system and so man is forced to bend the knee in submission to said system, man had undone is position in the world by the systems and intricate mechanisms he has created, he now resides a slave to his own creation. The array of examples you provide indicate you're totally fine with the direction of this inorganic system man now has to abide by, there is no one aspect of this system you can turn away, you're subject to it and whatever direction it seeks to rest on, man is organic but his ideas and systems are not and that is a huge problem.

The problem with wanting to jump to the next convenient idea or object creates low intelligence and people do not learn the fundamental aspects of such creations, they just use it.

Yes the point of technology is efficiency but that said efficiency undoes man's position in the world and so he relies on his creations in order to survive which creates free time which is then filled with surrogate activities and not real tangible ones that fulfil us on a biological and imperative substrate, we do not capture and kill our own food we rely on a vast intricate system to do it for us, sure you as an individual can attempt this provided you can roam free from the impeding machine, but then you have social issues that take hold such as isolation from the rest of humanity and more than likely go insane from the loneliness, both physically and mentally.

The choice is not mine to make because I am restricted by the machine that has made certain pathways blocked or cleared, you said it yourself "You're probably better off buying a car" because you know the alternative is unacceptable in this current systematic-inorganic-hellscape, we're trapped in the confines of this mechanical prison and what is even worse is the endless sea of people who are totally fine with it and or worship it, test-tube humans with an subjugation fetish.

 

[based_meme]

Society is just as much as an opponent as the players located within they both rely on each other and maybe some external factors such as environmental and resource issues play apart in the function and conception of society. If you have any problem with any aspect of society or human culture in general you have a problem with both because one creates those conditions you now have to live by.

But the point is that society isn't some game-theoretic player agent. Going back to the chess analogy, the game of chess itself is society. We've decided the rules and both players can agree to modify the rules and play a variant of chess.

The rules of society are continuously in flux and seem to gradually shift over generations, and given enough generations these accumulations of gradual shifts eventually become a change. I can't change society overnight, but I can make real attempts at changing the rules over time. It would be a Herculean attempt for one man, and the changes will be far from immediate, i.e., directly benefiting me in a time window that is relevant to me and my life, but such is the nature of mass-scale change (very slow, over a large time horizon)

You're correct that a problem with society is ultimately a problem with the collective members of society, but this does not make society equivalent to its members. I could have a problem with some of the rules you and your group of friends (elites, nobility, government etc.) have imposed on the rest of us, but that doesn't technically mean I have a problem with you. This is particularly why people splinter off and create their own subcultures and insular, cloistered communities, or just leave their society altogether (more extreme, but also much more common than splintering off within the same society). You might see the difference as superficial and splitting hairs, but that difference is semantically relevant here, since in both cases you're attempting to change the rule set, but in one case (splintering) you're still subject to a parent rule set you don't fully (or wish to) abide by.

Yes technology gives us more options but at the cost of severe consequences both direct and indirect as previously stated, why would you buy a horse if you could just get a car? see right there is the problem, you exist based on a system that has forced you into a position where you really have no choice, you obey the direction of the road because there is a road, you drive a car now because it easier for the system to function and you cannot do without it, everything revolves around a system and so man is forced to bend the knee in submission to said system, man had undone is position in the world by the systems and intricate mechanisms he has created, he now resides a slave to his own creation.

The reasons for your choice matter and are affected by what you value. If efficiency and time-saving is an important factor for you, then yes, the choice is practically made for you, as the car is the logical choice over the horse for various reasons (cost, logistics, maintenance etc.). What I don't understand is why you view this pigeonholing of choices, most of which are entirely rational and logical, as some kind of net negative that takes away from us and ultimately hurts us. Does choosing the car over the horse really lessen "the human experience"? I mean, really lessen it.

Systems are the logical result of series' of efficiencies that are either built, evolve over time, or both. Your circulatory, digestive, and respiratory systems, for example, evolved the way they did, because that was the result of the most logically efficient way to do move blood and nutrients, process food, and breathe, respectively. I don't see this as some kind of argument against systems themselves and how we're "forced" into using the system. Once we've determined the best, most efficient way to do a thing, x, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we're "forced" to do x according the system and that now this system is the problem. If you want to do x in a less efficient manner because it's pleasing to your sensibilities, you can't realistically blame the system for giving you the more efficient and readily-available option to do x.

So yeah, driving a car on a paved, guided road to go from point A to B is currently the most efficient way to go from point A to B, and taking a horse to trailblaze through unpaved countrysides is, of course, going to be less efficient. That doesn't make cars and roads a problem. It just makes horses and buggies a worse option.

The array of examples you provide indicate you're totally fine with the direction of this inorganic system man now has to abide by, there is no one aspect of this system you can turn away, you're subject to it and whatever direction it seeks to rest on, man is organic but his ideas and systems are not and that is a huge problem.

You have to show two things here. One, how systems and ideas that stem from something organic - namely, man - are inherently inorganic. And two, how exactly that's a huge problem (sic).

Remember that we're a part of nature, not independent from it. Humans building cities and roads is just the far more advanced and sophisticated version of beavers building dams from collected twigs or birds building nests for their hatchlings.

The problem with wanting to jump to the next convenient idea or object creates low intelligence and people do not learn the fundamental aspects of such creations, they just use it.

Why are you positing this as some sort of problem? Is it a problem if you don't know the mathematics and software behind the the circuit board and programmed chip of your microwave? Or how about the wave physics of microwaves themselves, or the chemistry of how microwaves affect solids and liquids?

You don't need to know the theory, logic, and mechanism of tools in order to effectively and efficiently use them. You only need to know those things in order to construct and/or repair them.

You have a massively tall order to show how not knowing any of those things is a general problem for anyone who just needs to place their food in the centre and press one of the preset timers.

Yes the point of technology is efficiency but that said efficiency undoes man's position in the world and so he relies on his creations in order to survive which creates free time which is then filled with surrogate activities and not real tangible ones that fulfil us on a biological and imperative substrate, we do not capture and kill our own food we rely on a vast intricate system to do it for us, sure you as an individual can attempt this provided you can roam free from the impeding machine, but then you have social issues that take hold such as isolation from the rest of humanity and more than likely go insane from the loneliness, both physically and mentally.

Man's "position" in the world comes precisely from his intelligence in building the tools that help shape the world around him. It's completely backwards and nonsensical to say that technology undoes man's position when the reality is the polar and diametric opposite.

Those surrogate activities are the result of the plethora of choices that have been made available as a result of man's position. Consider this: Do you think that Plato and Aristotle would have done any philosophy and made world-changing strides that are still affecting us thousands of years later, if they had no choice but to toil all day and earn every meal, instead of having their everyday needs taken care of, which freed them up to sit around and think all day?

What are some of the "real and tangible activities" that "fulfill us on a biological and imperative substrate"?

The choice is not mine to make because I am restricted by the machine that has made certain pathways blocked or cleared, you said it yourself "You're probably better off buying a car" because you know the alternative is unexpectable in this current systematic-inorganic-hellscape, we're trapped in the confines of this mechanical prison and what is even worse is the endless sea of people who are totally fine it and or worship it, test-tube humans with an subjugation fetish.

I covered this point earlier above. The systems we create to streamline our lives and make things more efficient does not imply that we're prisoners to those systems. To say such a thing would be saying that we're prisoners to the rational and logical decisions when the alternative choices are less intelligent and sub-optimal. Making the logically better choice between A and B, where A > B, does not mean you're a slave to choose A. It just means A is the better choice. You're still free to choose B, though, why the hell would you?

It does (mean you're a slave) if you're a computing machine, because computers have no choice but to choose the logically best option, unless it has programmed in it uncertainty and sub-optimal decision-making using probabilistic functions.

 

[bing]

Without sex there is no point in participating in society.

 

[Cortex]

But the point is that society isn't some game-theoretic player agent. Going back to the chess analogy, the game of chess itself is society. We've decided the rules and both players can agree to modify the rules and play a variant of chess.

The Grandmaster in the analogy is society, and he is giving aid to the player but it does not stop there, he begins to make all of the players moves which removes the players ability to really play the game and so he he is left stranded and unfulfilled and so he seeks that fulfilment with surrogate activities but he will never be fulfilled with civilizational tangents unless his core imperatives are met, such as procuring his own sustenance and procreating, the latter has exploded that is sure but the former is left and has become alien to modern man and so he reaches out to his local Asda, Walmart, local supermarket to provide his sustenance without any effort, sure wageslave hell is something no less than aids but you expend your time and effort into an office to get your meat is not the same and never will be as tracking down your prey and executing it yourself and or tribe, band or grouping and preparing that meal and cooking it over a warm and beautiful fire, in that very moment you're fulfilled and pure.

The rules of society are continuously in flux and seem to gradually shift over generations, and given enough generations these accumulations of gradual shifts eventually become a change. I can't change society overnight, but I can make real attempts at changing the rules over time. It would be a Herculean attempt for one man, and the changes will be far from immediate, i.e., directly benefiting me in a time window that is relevant to me and my life, but such is the nature of mass-scale change (very slow, over a large time horizon)

Except these ideas will never come to fruition when you're dissecting the entire Cultural-Economical-Massscale-Monolith that is this current modern civilisation and so it is just the waiting that is all that is necessary, it will eventually collapse because it is fundamentally built on sand and borrowed time, the tide is coming and it can't come soon enough, there is no reform when it comes to such deconstructions such as these only revolution, no one change or implementation is effective with such a system as grand as this not to mention the vast array of agents within the system who seek to keep the gears spinning and extinguish the embers of detractors, you're dealing with an inordinate mega structure consisting of thousands of individual nodes all engineered to keep it running, from the mass media communication machine to the hand rubbing economical servants.

You're correct that a problem with society is ultimately a problem with the collective members of society, but this does not make society equivalent to its members. I could have a problem with some of the rules you and your group of friends (elites, nobility, government etc.) have imposed on the rest of us, but that doesn't technically mean I have a problem with you. This is particularly why people splinter off and create their own subcultures and insular, cloistered communities, or just leave their society altogether (more extreme, but also much more common than splintering off within the same society). You might see the difference as superficial and splitting hairs, but that difference is semantically relevant here, since in both cases you're attempting to change the rule set, but in one case (splintering) you're still subject to a parent rule set you don't fully (or wish to) abide by.

I understand your point but if an officer is defending a system or idea I loath he will be removed, sure in this paradigm money is all and everyone needs a check but if you become a systems enforcer then the humanity you posses will be overlooked since you're a pawn in the way and is in need of being moved. In a rational segment of society it is required to remove the idea from the man, but when you're dealing with an entity such as this you must remove the man.

The reasons for your choice matter and are affected by what you value. If efficiency and time-saving is an important factor for you, then yes, the choice is practically made for you, as the car is the logical choice over the horse for various reasons (cost, logistics, maintenance etc.). What I don't understand is why you view this pigeonholing of choices, most of which are entirely rational and logical, as some kind of net negative that takes away from us and ultimately hurts us. Does choosing the car over the horse really lessen "the human experience"? I mean, really lessen it.

Indeed the logical way to move forward would be to just drive the car instead of using a horse, but these are just elements, examples and symptoms and not the core issue that generates such problems, the fundamental aspect I'm honing in on here is that the game we're located within, the mas scale over engineered system we all have to abide by is the problem, the system eliminates the old, useless and unproductive limbs it was built with and so people are in a constant state of change that really has no sustainable outcome, you value progress but do not care where it eventually leads. Can you honestly tell me this is somehow a desirable state of being, to be flung in perpetual flux with no real regard for the human attribute so long as we adhere to the machine and it's operators?

Systems are the logical result of series' of efficiencies that are either built, evolve over time, or both. Your circulatory, digestive, and respiratory systems, for example, evolved the way they did, because that was the result of the most logically efficient way to do move blood and nutrients, process food, and breathe, respectively. I don't see this as some kind of argument against systems themselves and how we're "forced" into using the system. Once we've determined the best, most efficient way to do a thing, x, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we're "forced" to do x according the system and that now this system is the problem. If you want to do x in a less efficient manner because it's pleasing to your sensibilities, you can't realistically blame the system for giving you the more efficient and readily-available option to do x.

Obviously we are not talking about involuntary systems of the human anatomy here and so those critiques can be for another time. The problem with just going with the flow and following such systems to whatever endpoint they may have simply because they have been codded with the strings of efficiency is worshiping progress and progress as an aspect without taking in regard the colossal ramifications it cause us and the environment that we rely on. I can blame the system for its incessant urge to quantify, improve and eliminate things because it is the system that causes those changes even the people who built ground breaking technologies did not foresee such echoes it would create and as a result contribute to the techno-enslavement modern man faces.

So yeah, driving a car on a paved, guided road to go from point A to B is currently the most efficient way to go from point A to B, and taking a horse to trailblaze through unpaved countrysides is, of course, going to be less efficient. That doesn't make cars and roads a problem. It just makes horses and buggies a worse option.

No it makes the systems and mechanisms that removed what IT deemed as inefficient the problem and so we're now forced to conform to its new parameters.

You have to show two things here. One, how systems and ideas that stem from something organic - namely, man - are inherently inorganic. And two, how exactly that's a huge problem (sic).

Remember that we're a part of nature, not independent from it. Humans building cities and roads is just the far more advanced and sophisticated version of beavers building dams from collected twigs or birds building nests for their hatchlings.

Man and his fleshy protrusions is an organic cosmic oddity but his consciousness that grew with his matter like a spectral fluid encased within his bony casing is an entity of something else, sure you could point to the vast array of processes that changed, adapted and altered to get man to where he currently resides but that was an involuntary process. The ideas that come from distant realms and seep into his mind and translated as thought I think is something entirely odd, so maybe I cannot provide proof of it's inorganic origin but the ideas he comes out with sure do feel something mechanical and other worldly, but it feels as though once man crosses the threshold of what serves his biological imperatives then it becomes alien and mechanical and as a result he becomes a slave to a concept, he is already a slave to his biological strings but that is involuntary so why add another form of torture such as systems and their propensity to effectively place him underneath.

Primitive man used tools as extension of their arm and they remained masters, what we have now is man being an extension of a machine and that just does not sound very organic does it?

Why are you positing this as some sort of problem? Is it a problem if you don't know the mathematics and software behind the the circuit board and programmed chip of your microwave? Or how about the wave physics of microwaves themselves, or the chemistry of how microwaves affect solids and liquids?

You don't need to know the theory, logic, and mechanism of tools in order to effectively and efficiently use them. You only need to know those things in order to construct and/or repair them.

You have a massively tall order to show how not knowing any of those things is a general problem for anyone who just needs to place their food in the centre and press one of the preset timers.

No it is not a problem to just use things without understanding the complex process that goes on behind the scenes but if you're going to be an avid supporter of such a system then it helps to know the micro details of such creations and not just be a ghoul using it, if everyone had this mindset nothing would be created and over engineered, so my point was more so the reliance of this new found tech and a reliance on simplicity and advancement on previous tech, when people no longer have to think and calculate and they have an input system that calculates for them, how are they not subject to the machine and in fact a slave?

Man's "position" in the world comes precisely from his intelligence in building the tools that help shape the world around him. It's completely backwards and nonsensical to say that technology undoes man's position when the reality is the polar and diametric opposite.

Those surrogate activities are the result of the plethora of choices that have been made available as a result of man's position. Consider this: Do you think that Plato and Aristotle would have done any philosophy and made world-changing strides that are still affecting us thousands of years later, if they had no choice but to toil all day and earn every meal, instead of having their everyday needs taken care of, which freed them up to sit around and think all day?

What are some of the "real and tangible activities" that "fulfill us on a biological and imperative substrate"?

It is not backwards since as I stated above, those tools man engineered were simple, unique and did not require a mass scale factory to generate such tools and they were essential to his survival, they were immediate and non peripheral. So man has undone his position because he now relies on a system that is eroding his soul, and lushes green habitat that is being bathed in smog and chemicals and mountains of plastic, man should be one with nature and affectively on top, not lingering at the bottom under a stack of ideals and implementations with constant never ending ever growing red tape.

There is no doubt things would be scaled so far back even in the realm of philosophy would feel it, what you're talking about is job specialisation, but those rare positions only arise when their is a huge workforce toiling away while others can pontificate, sure if you value civilisation you value this sacrifice.

The only real and tangible activities is to procure sustenance through genuine effort and hardship and the survival of the species through reproduction, anything other than those are civilizational limbs or memes.

I covered this point earlier above. The systems we create to streamline our lives and make things more efficient does not imply that we're prisoners to those systems. To say such a thing would be saying that we're prisoners to the rational and logical decisions when the alternative choices are less intelligent and sub-optimal. Making the logically better choice between A and B, where A > B, does not mean you're a slave to choose A. It just means A is the better choice. You're still free to choose B, though, why the hell would you?

It does (mean you're a slave) if you're a computing machine, because computers have no choice but to choose the logically best option, unless it has programmed in it uncertainty and sub-optimal decision-making using probabilistic functions.

You're worshiping what is logical rather than what is right and what is inline with our biology, you're a prisoner to logic and rational thought, that is why you advocate this system, what ever makes progress is logical and yet you miss the mounding problems that come with this logical progress. You're a slave because you're operating within the system and its "choices" it is apparently granting you and not what you want, but what it gives you, we have discussed the monumental task of changing the mass system and not one man can do such a thing even gradually, the fact you say why the hell would you, suggests you have already been swayed by what it deems as logical and as such, being a subject of its stranglehold you think this is your actual answer and not its actual answer.

True, computers are slaves since we program them but what if that programming got so advanced, it has, and begins to dictate the way you fundamentally operate and begins programming you, who is the slave then?

 

[based_meme]

The Grandmaster in the analogy is society, and he is giving aid to the player but it does not stop there, he begins to make all of the players moves which removes the players ability to really play the game and so he he is left stranded and unfulfilled and so he seeks that fulfilment with surrogate activities but he will never be fulfilled with civilizational tangents unless his core imperatives are met, such as procuring his own sustenance and procreating, the latter has exploded that is sure but the former is left and has become alien to modern man and so he reaches out to his local Asda, Walmart, local supermarket to provide his sustenance without any effort, sure wageslave hell is something no less than aids but you expend your time and effort into an office to get your meat is not the same and never will be as tracking down your prey and executing it yourself and or tribe, band or grouping and preparing that meal and cooking it over a warm and beautiful fire, in that very moment you're fulfilled and pure.

I've been saying that this is wrong and is why the analogy doesn't map well. Society isn't supposed to be any player, because it conceptually and literally can't be, because it's just an abstract concept. Society is not a living, biological unit, capable of reasoning and rational decision-making.

The rest just sounds like naturist cope. "Live off the land and embrace nature. Return to it and be one with it."

Except these ideas will never come to fruition when you're dissecting the entire Cultural-Economical-Massscale-Monolith that is this current modern civilisation and so it is just the waiting that is all that is necessary, it will eventually collapse because it is fundamentally built on sand and borrowed time, the tide is coming and it can't come soon enough, there is no reform when it comes to such deconstructions such as these only revolution, no one change or implementation is effective with such a system as grand as this not to mention the vast array of agents within the system who seek to keep the gears spinning and extinguish the embers of detractors, you're dealing with an inordinate mega structure consisting of thousands of individual nodes all engineered to keep it running, from the mass media communication machine to the hand rubbing economical servants.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBesOFURek

I understand your point but if an officer is defending a system or idea I loath he will be removed, sure in this paradigm money is all and everyone needs a check but if you become a systems enforcer then the humanity you posses will be overlooked since you're a pawn in the way and is in need of being moved. In a rational segment of society it is required to remove the idea from the man, but when you're dealing with an entity such as this you must remove the man.

Most people are incapable of detaching the idea from the mind (or mouthpiece) that created (or propagated) it. What you're effectively saying is that members of society as a whole are too irrational (or not rational enough) to do this. I would agree and say that this is why we would need systems or mechanisms in place to help take these actions. Some aspects of some societies have these checks and balances built in.

Indeed the logical way to move forward would be to just drive the car instead of using a horse, but these are just elements, examples and symptoms and not the core issue that generates such problems, the fundamental aspect I'm honing in on here is that the game we're located within, the mas scale over engineered system we all have to abide by is the problem, the system eliminates the old, useless and unproductive limbs it was built with and so people are in a constant state of change that really has no sustainable outcome,

Stagnation is generally what's unsustainable, and has deleterious effects on whatever system it currently inhabits. More of the same without positive changes means that you're not producing anything, yet you continue to be a resource drain.

you value progress but do not care where it eventually leads.

Says who? How are you so sure that I don't care?

Can you honestly tell me this is somehow a desirable state of being, to be flung in perpetual flux with no real regard for the human attribute so long as we adhere to the machine and it's operators?

You keep making references to this sort of thing, but you've yet to clearly define these things. Earlier you used the phrase, "the humanity you possess." Are these wishy-washy, nebulous concepts that are supposed to be whatever you want them to be, or do you have clear and defined concepts and boundaries for what you intend to mean?

Obviously we are not talking about involuntary systems of the human anatomy here and so those critiques can be for another time. The problem with just going with the flow and following such systems to whatever endpoint they may have simply because they have been codded with the strings of efficiency is worshiping progress and progress as an aspect without taking in regard the colossal ramifications it cause us and the environment that we rely on.

You're introducing a concept here that wasn't mentioned or argued for: progress.

Progress is just the result of continuous change where the current state is quantifiably better than the previous state by whichever metrics we agree to evaluate the state of society. To realize and be aware of whether or not any change is an improvement, and thus "progress," you need to have an awareness and take into regard those "colossal ramifications." It's a feature of society making gradual changes, not a bug.

I can blame the system for its incessant urge to quantify, improve and eliminate things because it is the system that causes those changes even the people who built ground breaking technologies did not foresee such echoes it would create and as a result contribute to the techno-enslavement modern man faces.

This is just dramatic alarmism. Not every consequence of every invention or new technology can be foreseen. That is simply the reality of not being able to extrapolate every possible permutation of every possible outcome with current or any possible present data. There are certainly efforts that are made in that regard with respect to new technologies being researched, developed, and integrated into society.

You sound like you're just unhappy with that fact and want to point fingers to blame and feel better. And who better to point the finger to, than the people developing new technologies that can help reshape society. And you're sidestepping the point: technological progress, on average, has a far greater net improvement on society. If you want to characterize this as being enslaved to improvement and progress, that's your prerogative, but the reality is a different story.

Take communications technology and social media. The current platforms like twitter etc., built on the technology of the internet, help facilitate rapid communication with billions of minds on earth. Personally, I don't use any of that shit, as I don't need to subject myself to the mental ejaculates (in the form of blurbs and tweets) of billions of people who are, with a high degree of probability, not going to say anything useful or profound. I do just fine in my daily life without this technology, yet, there are many others who are undeniably a slave to it.

Technology itself doesn't necessitate enslavement. It's only your voluntary participation, combined with a self-imposed dependency, that results in your own enslavement. I don't need to drive, use a computer, or have a bank account, but since I'm participating in this society of my own accord, it's a given that I have to engage in most of those activities (purchasing a car and computer, and opening a bank account). I could build a house in the woods, fish and hunt, forage, and grow my own vegetables. But that's not the life I want. This doesn't make me a SLAVE to the current technologies that support modern society.

No it makes the systems and mechanisms that removed what IT deemed as inefficient the problem and so we're now forced to conform to its new parameters.

That's just it. You don't need to conform to it. If you should so choose to, then life within that kind of society would be easier for you. Taking the path of least resistance doesn't make you a slave to that path. That's a very bizarre way of looking at it. You could argue that it might make you a slave to always be seeking the path of least resistance, but to that I ask, why would you want to make life harder for yourself when it doesn't need to be?

Man and his fleshy protrusions is an organic cosmic oddity but his consciousness that grew with his matter like a spectral fluid encased within his bony casing is an entity of something else, sure you could point to the vast array of processes that changed, adapted and altered to get man to where he currently resides but that was an involuntary process. The ideas that come from distant realms and seep into his mind and translated as thought I think is something entirely odd, so maybe I cannot provide proof of it's inorganic origin but the ideas he comes out with sure do feel something mechanical and other worldly, but it feels as though once man crosses the threshold of what serves his biological imperatives then it becomes alien and mechanical and as a result he becomes a slave to a concept, he is already a slave to his biological strings but that is involuntary so why add another form of torture such as systems and their propensity to effectively place him underneath.

What? There is no mystical, ethereal realm of ideas that our consciousness ventures off to forage for ideas and then come back. Put down the joint and come back to reality.

And don't be absurd. Ideas that are formed in organic minds are themselves organic. You're adding fantasy to reality. It adds flavor and character, but not substance.

Primitive man used tools as extension of their arm and they remained masters, what we have now is man being an extension of a machine and that just does not sound very organic does it?

The tools are different, but the idea hasn't changed since the days of rock and bone. Tools (technology) are extensions of our will, which is ultimately an extension of us.

No it is not a problem to just use things without understanding the complex process that goes on behind the scenes but if you're going to be an avid supporter of such a system then it helps to know the micro details of such creations and not just be a ghoul using it, if everyone had this mindset nothing would be created and over engineered, so my point was more so the reliance of this new found tech and a reliance on simplicity and advancement on previous tech, when people no longer have to think and calculate and they have an input system that calculates for them, how are they not subject to the machine and in fact a slave?

In the current iteration of modern society there is a need for hyperspecialization. It is, however, important to have a baseline of theory and understanding in order to function in society (that's what the K-12 school system is supposed to do, but sadly, it's used as an insitution of nationalist propaganda). Because human lifespans are so short and because there are so many roles to fill, it's not optimal to spend time learning everything about everything, since you need to fulfill some role in society, and so you learn what you need to in order to function properly in that role (and possibly beyond i.e., changing roles).

It's not also necessarily a prerequisite to have a deep understanding of something in order to be a strong proponent of it. For example, I don't know the deep intricacies of molecular genetics and microbiology, but I do understand the immense societal value of bio and genetic engineering, as well as the pitfalls for developing and introducing everyday applications that become a technological mainstay in society in its current form. I know how it could go incredibly right, but I'm also very aware how terribly wrong it could go.

The same goes for many other technologies.

It is not backwards since as I stated above, those tools man engineered were simple, unique and did not require a mass scale factory to generate such tools and they were essential to his survival, they were immediate and non peripheral. So man has undone his position because he now relies on a system that is eroding his soul, and lushes green habitat that is being bathed in smog and chemicals and mountains of plastic, man should be one with nature and affectively on top, not lingering at the bottom under a stack of ideals and implementations with constant never ending ever growing red tape.

This is more poetic, emotional mumbo jumbo.

When you introduce new tools into your environment you start to change your environment. Over time your new environment becomes reliant or dependent upon those new tools with which you've used to change that very environment. This means that since the environment has changed, the conditions under which you must survive, if not thrive, in said environment also change.

Simple, primitive, rudimentary technology -> No big change in the environment -> Conditions of survival mostly unaffected.

Advanced, radical technology -> Big changes in the environment -> Conditions for survival drastically affected.

In a society with huts and spears it becomes paramount to know the behaviors of your surrounding predators and prey, be they man or beast. In a society with cars and computers it becomes paramount to know how to drive and to navigate your way around an operating system. Survival is different in both cases. The individual from a primitive society would not be able to survive in a modern urban environment without orientation and acclimation, and vice versa.

There is no doubt things would be scaled so far back even in the realm of philosophy would feel it, what you're talking about is job specialisation, but those rare positions only arise when their is a huge workforce toiling away while others can pontificate, sure if you value civilisation you value this sacrifice.

Do you get what I'm saying, though? Technological advances today act (whether autonomously or through human assistance) as the serfs did back in the days of the ancient Greek philosophers. Instead of having a dozen or so serfs doing daily tasks for you, which free up your time to do other things (like wonder about the laws of nature and why stones fall to the ground), you have technology and processes/systems facilitated by technology in place of those serfs doing many things for you in the background.

The only real and tangible activities is to procure sustenance through genuine effort and hardship and the survival of the species through reproduction, anything other than those are civilizational limbs or memes.

But why hardship? Why is there this unusual fetishization of something being tough and difficult before it must warrant merit or worth? I don't want real life to be Dark Souls, and the fact that you do doesn't make you, in some sense, more noble or more in line with "the human experience." If there are life hacks and shortcuts, you'd best believe I will find and use them. And there is no shame in that. In fact, it should be encouraged, as that is an expression of creativity and innovation.

Genuine effort is a matter of perspective. The minds behind the theory, design and construction of the modern day computer and the software it runs, for example, took a lot of genuine effort by a lot of bright minds. Thanks to a handful of individuals, billions are reaping the rewards, including you and I who are having this conversation over a digital network.

You're worshiping what is logical rather than what is right and what is inline with our biology,

Valuing != worshipping. Also, what is the definition of "right," and how is that superordinate to logic? Does this mean "wrong" is also superordinate to logic?

you're a prisoner to logic and rational thought, that is why you advocate this system,

I'm as much a "prisoner" to logic and rational thought as I am to the physical laws that govern and dictate the space in which the biological, corporeal avatar of my consciousness inhabits and operates, as are you and every other human who is alive on planet earth in this universe.

what ever makes progress is logical and yet you miss the mounding problems that come with this logical progress.

Something that is illogical cannot make progress (defined as a measurable net gain or benefit). Therefore, the way in which progress (as defined) is made must necessarily be logical. The caveat is random chance. But we can easily rule that out, since the probability of modern society lucking out and being this advanced and orderly (relative to, say, the stone age) by pure chance is effectively 0%.

You're a slave because you're operating within the system and its "choices" it is apparently granting you and not what you want, but what it gives you, we have discussed the monumental task of changing the mass system and not one man can do such a thing even gradually, the fact you say why the hell would you, suggests you have already been swayed by what it deems as logical and as such, being a subject of its stranglehold you think this is your actual answer and not its actual answer.

Give me a list of the choices that modern society (as we understand it) has taken away from me, and describe (preferably in great detail) how the lack of these choices is a lamentable loss to me personally, or in general, as it pertains to "the human experience" (not yet defined).

In other words what has modern society and its resultant technologies taken away from me as a human, a person, an atomistic individual, and as a member of a collective (family, clan, tribe etc.) that I would have otherwise, had it not been for such technologies?

True, computers are slaves since we program them but what if that programming got so advanced, it has, and begins to dictate the way you fundamentally operate and begins programming you, who is the slave then?

Let's save the science fiction for a different conversation.

 

[Cortex]

The rest just sounds like naturist cope. "Live off the land and embrace nature. Return to it and be one with it."

In what way is this a coping mechanism?
Securing your own food through genuine effort fulfils us on a deep primitive level and keeps us content with existence and our place in the world, there is no after thought or pontification of events you're simply content with the effort you put in to reap a reward and that reward is fundamentally on a level far different than any other reward a civilizational limb can prescribe you, because it feeds the biological and involuntary drive to continue. Returning to nature and living off the land I see no cope in that.

Most people are incapable of detaching the idea from the mind (or mouthpiece) that created (or propagated) it. What you're effectively saying is that members of society as a whole are too irrational (or not rational enough) to do this. I would agree and say that this is why we would need systems or mechanisms in place to help take these actions. Some aspects of some societies have these checks and balances built in.

There is a segment of any given population that would attempt to remove the idea from the man and they are rational individuals but there are many more who phase past such concepts and just remove the man, these individuals do so for such reasons, to obtain a feeling of power and superiority over another by silencing him or because his ideas are considered dangerous and the man himself belongs to an ideology or system that one seeks to remove because one is fundamentally weaker and so the man who holds the disreputable ideas needs to be physically removed, because there is no other way for a weaker opponent to tackle such a situation.

Stagnation is generally what's unsustainable, and has deleterious effects on whatever system it currently inhabits. More of the same without positive changes means that you're not producing anything, yet you continue to be a resource drain.

Not everything needs a positive change, not everything needs to be changed and morphed because it suites productivity, in some respects stagnation is totally fine and works quite well within a small scale tribe and or band society, on a vast civilizational level sure, elements get eliminated because they become a resource drain in the new update of the system and so things need to be culled, but that is the nature of mass society and that means you must obey the constant flux, these are not problems you would have to contend with if you lived like primitive man, a spear, bow and water source is not being altered by some machine tethered to an operator trying to quantify what's best for productivity.

Says who? How are you so sure that I don't care?

There are good aspects of technology as stated in Kaczynski's manifesto but the problem is you cannot just have one aspect of technology because it comes as a package that relies upon other implementations of technology and so it becomes a convoluted web of tech that relies upon each other and so you cannot cut loose the bad aspects and keep the ones you prefer. I am sure you do care at where this all leads and you would if you could attempt to negate such horrors and travesties but you seem to be fine with progress because of its logical origins, what ever helps us and advances us must be the logical and good choice to make, when in reality these small scale implementations remove our autonomy gradually until there is nothing left, decisions are effectively made for us and so we ultimately stop being the players in the game and become observers to a machine that makes all our moves.

You keep making references to this sort of thing, but you've yet to clearly define these things. Earlier you used the phrase, "the humanity you possess." Are these wishy-washy, nebulous concepts that are supposed to be whatever you want them to be, or do you have clear and defined concepts and boundaries for what you intend to mean?

When referring to the human attribute I mean in contrast to the machine the human has become subject to or the idea he defends voluntarily or involuntarily, my example of the officer enforcing a system by operating under the strong arm which is used to remove dissent and uphold the systems laws I am referring to the ideas this man now represents and in moments where there is a greater and more stronger adversary one must remove the man as a whole and not just the idea he represents, by doing so one must phase out the human attribute and no longer witness the man as human with an idea but a conjoined entity that need to be removed.

Humans stop being seen as humans when a machine dictates what is and what is not productive to its needs and ever growing expansion, this highlights my view on the humanity you posses as an organic living entity and by constraining humans to the whims of a machine it effectively dissolves any notion of our humanity through a perpetual meat grinder.

You're introducing a concept here that wasn't mentioned or argued for: progress.

Progress is just the result of continuous change where the current state is quantifiably better than the previous state by whichever metrics we agree to evaluate the state of society. To realize and be aware of whether or not any change is an improvement, and thus "progress," you need to have an awareness and take into regard those "colossal ramifications." It's a feature of society making gradual changes, not a bug.

You decided to bring up the involuntary biological functions our bodies go through because I was railing against systems and so you thought you could point out that our bodies also have systems and therefore I should have a problem with such, as I stated that can be for another discussion since that does not pertain to mass society and its consequences.

I thought to highlight the topic of progress since that is ultimately the issue here.

This is just dramatic alarmism. Not every consequence of every invention or new technology can be foreseen. That is simply the reality of not being able to extrapolate every possible permutation of every possible outcome with current or any possible present data. There are certainly efforts that are made in that regard with respect to new technologies being researched, developed, and integrated into society.

You sound like you're just unhappy with that fact and want to point fingers to blame and feel better. And who better to point the finger to, than the people developing new technologies that can help reshape society. And you're sidestepping the point: technological progress, on average, has a far greater net improvement on society. If you want to characterize this as being enslaved to improvement and progress, that's your prerogative, but the reality is a different story.

Take communications technology and social media. The current platforms like twitter etc., built on the technology of the internet, help facilitate rapid communication with billions of minds on earth. Personally, I don't use any of that shit, as I don't need to subject myself to the mental ejaculates (in the form of blurbs and tweets) of billions of people who are, with a high degree of probability, not going to say anything useful or profound. I do just fine in my daily life without this technology, yet, there are many others who are undeniably a slave to it.

Technology itself doesn't necessitate enslavement. It's only your voluntary participation, combined with a self-imposed dependency, that results in your own enslavement. I don't need to drive, use a computer, or have a bank account, but since I'm participating in this society of my own accord, it's a given that I have to engage in most of those activities (purchasing a car and computer, and opening a bank account). I could build a house in the woods, fish and hunt, forage, and grow my own vegetables. But that's not the life I want. This doesn't make me a SLAVE to the current technologies that support modern society.

I do not believe this is dramatic alarmism, there is an alarm going off and people are silent to its call. Of course inventors could not predict every outcome their designs would generate but that is a problem, a problem with a million dominos that echo throughout the ages for later generations to have to contend with. The invention of the car removed the need for horses yet by creating an automobile it terraformed the land people operated upon and now they must navigate through a maze of roads with conveniently placed nodes they must attend to. The invention through many small innovations lead to mass scale communication and can agree it is a feat of human engineering and is something to be marvelled at but humans before this shared physical space with each other and or sent letter to individuals who were miles away, but they engaged in the former more so than the latter and so this was not a problem. Because of this innovation humans now operate under new guidelines and so they communicate through this use of mass communication much more than they do in real physical space with a real organic human.

I am unhappy with the current predicament but that is no indicator of me attempting to lash out and find the closes thing I can get to in order to release my rage. Sure technology is great and an improvement upon society if you're fine with the way things are running and the subjugation process of turning humans into cattle that can be easily processed, sure its great if you like to obtain your molested foods in supermarkets, sure its a great improvement to atomise man as a single unit so he has no power whatsoever, sure the deconstruction of the family unit is a great improvement to society, sure I like that it creates isolation from the group that causes individuals to build up a monumental accumulation of rage and think that in order for them to be free they must obtain a state of catharsis by pounding the trigger of their rifles decimating skull after skull, sidestepping pools of blood and lifeless carcasses to detonate IEDs to cause even more chaos because of the hell they reside is simply not enough and so they seek to give others a taste until they unload a steaming hot fragment of shrapnel into their own skull to end the nightmare, sure I love those great improvements to society, we need more of it.

Just because you do not use such aids does not mean it is fine and should exist, even if you personally have a distaste for such things like twitter and the like does not mean it should be a free node within society to be left to linger and fester, remove it.

I do not voluntarily participate in this, it is not my choice nor is my "self-imposed dependency", I am dependent upon it but the choice was never mine to make, you said yourself, you want to participate within society then its a given for you to operate under it's tenants. You could build a house in the forest and fish and grow small crops but you would be doing that by yourself and alone just like Ted did until you go insane from the isolation from your fellow man, good luck convincing a women to accompany you on this journey, you need to have a community to live like this because we are apes who need a tribe.

That's just it. You don't need to conform to it. If you should so choose to, then life within that kind of society would be easier for you. Taking the path of least resistance doesn't make you a slave to that path. That's a very bizarre way of looking at it. You could argue that it might make you a slave to always be seeking the path of least resistance, but to that I ask, why would you want to make life harder for yourself when it doesn't need to be?

But you do have to conform or you become an unproductive member that needs to be removed and as stated earlier you cannot do this solo, you need your tribe, but my tribe is content with such mechanical systems and reviles the opposite way of living, taking the path of least resistance creates weak people and only through struggle and suffering can you carve out a man, man has become too comfy and so its nice to see such events play out that cause more suffering because down the line it creates a stronger man. By default life is hard and that is how it should be.

What? There is no mystical, ethereal realm of ideas that our consciousness ventures off to forage for ideas and then come back. Put down the joint and come back to reality.

And don't be absurd. Ideas that are formed in organic minds are themselves organic. You're adding fantasy to reality. It adds flavor and character, but not substance.

I was being playful with my language because the topic of consciousness intrigues me, I already conceded the notion of it's inorganic origin, I simply do not know, but I did state that the ideas feel very mechanical and paradoxical to man as a creature. Also I am not a weedsmoker and just because I can be flavourful with my choice of words and their alignment does not mean I am some 420 pleb.

The tools are different, but the idea hasn't changed since the days of rock and bone. Tools (technology) are extensions of our will, which is ultimately an extension of us.

Correct the tools are different, way different and that causes more problems that crafting a bow from wood and bone, you do not need a factory to produce such primitive tools. They were an extension of ourselves until we swapped positions and became extensions of the tools.

Do you get what I'm saying, though? Technological advances today act (whether autonomously or through human assistance) as the serfs did back in the days of the ancient Greek philosophers. Instead of having a dozen or so serfs doing daily tasks for you, which free up your time to do other things (like wonder about the laws of nature and why stones fall to the ground), you have technology and processes/systems facilitated by technology in place of those serfs doing many things for you in the background.

Yes I understand your point but you can only get to that state of being if you have a vast worker force doing what is titled as menial jobs.

But why hardship? Why is there this unusual fetishization of something being tough and difficult before it must warrant merit or worth? I don't want real life to be Dark Souls, and the fact that you do doesn't make you, in some sense, more noble or more in line with "the human experience." If there are life hacks and shortcuts, you'd best believe I will find and use them. And there is no shame in that. In fact, it should be encouraged, as that is an expression of creativity and innovation.

Do you know why Dark Souls is so fun and addictive to those that play it, not the lore or epic scenes and set pieces, it is because of the very reason it is hard and astronomical and when you beat it you feel fulfilled when you whittle a bosses health down to zero who is three times larger than you, and you have no health flasks to rejuvenate, it is for that reason that game is so revered by many because it is hard and it feels good to overcome the odds.

Something that is illogical cannot make progress (defined as a measurable net gain or benefit). Therefore, the way in which progress (as defined) is made must necessarily be logical. The caveat is random chance. But we can easily rule that out, since the probability of modern society lucking out and being this advanced and orderly (relative to, say, the stone age) by pure chance is effectively 0%.

What if the technology in the future causes an extinction level event and wipes out billions was it logical?
You followed down the line of logic but it lead to an event such as this, do you A. blame the line of logic that lead you there in the first place or do you B. blame the specific element that caused such event?

Give me a list of the choices that modern society (as we understand it) has taken away from me, and describe (preferably in great detail) how the lack of these choices is a lamentable loss to me personally, or in general, as it pertains to "the human experience" (not yet defined).

In other words what has modern society and its resultant technologies taken away from me as a human, a person, an atomistic individual, and as a member of a collective (family, clan, tribe etc.) that I would have otherwise, had it not been for such technologies?

I have already stated some aspects of society that has removed choice such as the fundamental ones of procuring food to fulfil us on a primitive level, I have spoken about the atomisation of the collective and its subclasses such as extended family and immediate family units through its need to quantify what is productive and what is not productive thus dissecting the unit based on their overall worth.

You personally are not satisfied on a primitive level because you let the various nodes of the monolith aid you which results in you falling in love with being comfy and content with the machines tendrils wrapped around your body. No one is satisfied on a primitive level and that is why they seek out surrogate activities to fill the void, they play dark souls to simulate the reality that they have faced monumental tasks that make them feel content until the day cycles and they roam about looking for the new thing that will keep them content, even though they have filled their minds with simulated realties for a life time, yet the cup is still empty.

It has taken away your autonomy and has made the real root truths easily accessible to obtain without any effort and so you have an abundance of free time that you think is a positive but really it is just more time to ponder and self reflect while falling into deep sadness combined with the attempt to fulfil a cup that will be always empty because you do not posses the correct liquid to fill it and so you toil away with surrogates not knowing why it all feels the same.

Let's save the science fiction for a different conversation.

I did not mean that they are directly programming python or the like into ones head It was a thumbnail sketch of what is happening, man programs machine but it does not end there, man influences the machine just as the machine influences the man, it is a cycle.

 

[based_meme]

In what way is this a coping mechanism?
Securing your own food through genuine effort fulfils us on a deep primitive level and keeps us content with existence and our place in the world, there is no after thought or pontification of events you're simply content with the effort you put in to reap a reward and that reward is fundamentally on a level far different than any other reward a civilizational limb can prescribe you, because it feeds the biological and involuntary drive to continue. Returning to nature and living off the land I see no cope in that.

The cope is in thinking that advances in technology that change society somehow hold you back from fulfilling this naturist desire that you've conflated with a kind of psychological human need.

There is a segment of any given population that would attempt to remove the idea from the man and they are rational individuals but there are many more who phase past such concepts and just remove the man, these individuals do so for such reasons, to obtain a feeling of power and superiority over another by silencing him or because his ideas are considered dangerous and the man himself belongs to an ideology or system that one seeks to remove because one is fundamentally weaker and so the man who holds the disreputable ideas needs to be physically removed, because there is no other way for a weaker opponent to tackle such a situation.

Unfortunately, often times, in the interest of social order and stability, it's expedient to kill such individuals, than to silence or exile them. That is to say, in some cases killing would (paradoxically) be the rational choice in a given situation.

Not everything needs a positive change, not everything needs to be changed and morphed because it suites productivity, in some respects stagnation is totally fine and works quite well within a small scale tribe and or band society, on a vast civilizational level sure, elements get eliminated because they become a resource drain in the new update of the system and so things need to be culled, but that is the nature of mass society and that means you must obey the constant flux, these are not problems you would have to contend with if you lived like primitive man, a spear, bow and water source is not being altered by some machine tethered to an operator trying to quantify what's best for productivity.

You've got it backwards. It's not that change suits productivity, but rather, change is the result of productivity - enough productivity, anyway.

What you fail to understand here is that even in the primitive setup you've laid out you're still tethered to those same problems that supposedly "plague" modern civilization. You still need to produce i.e., hunt for food, forage for berries, fruits, and vegetables, and farm crops. Stagnation in such a case is literally death (except more pressing and immediate), since you need to find and prepare your every meal on your own, limited by your own knowledge, skill, and, of course, your tools (your bare hands won't do shit against a deer or a bear).

There are good aspects of technology as stated in Kaczynski's manifesto but the problem is you cannot just have one aspect of technology because it comes as a package that relies upon other implementations of technology and so it becomes a convoluted web of tech that relies upon each other and so you cannot cut loose the bad aspects and keep the ones you prefer. I am sure you do care at where this all leads and you would if you could attempt to negate such horrors and travesties but you seem to be fine with progress because of its logical origins, what ever helps us and advances us must be the logical and good choice to make, when in reality these small scale implementations remove our autonomy gradually until there is nothing left, decisions are effectively made for us and so we ultimately stop being the players in the game and become observers to a machine that makes all our moves.

The bad aspects of technology can be mitigated through a better understanding and utilization of applied teleology. Unforeseen consequences could in fact be anticipated, albeit to a limited degree, and thus be foreseen.

As for autonomous decision-making systems, machines, or implementations, they are designed with human assistance in mind where human input is not sufficient e.g., inhuman reaction times or complex computations that need to be done for rapid, real-time compensations, such as autopiloting adjustments for high stakes aerial manoeuvres. It's extremely rare for designers of any kind of technology to intend for the complete removal of human input and/or oversight. It just doesn't happen, and there are strict guidelines (and sometimes laws), as well as ethics committees, that oversee these things to ensure such things don't happen.

When referring to the human attribute I mean in contrast to the machine the human has become subject to or the idea he defends voluntarily or involuntarily, my example of the officer enforcing a system by operating under the strong arm which is used to remove dissent and uphold the systems laws I am referring to the ideas this man now represents and in moments where there is a greater and more stronger adversary one must remove the man as a whole and not just the idea he represents, by doing so one must phase out the human attribute and no longer witness the man as human with an idea but a conjoined entity that need to be removed.

Dehumanization is a process that's entirely independent from technology and its effects on society. I'll let you think about that on your own.

Humans stop being seen as humans when a machine dictates what is and what is not productive to its needs and ever growing expansion, this highlights my view on the humanity you posses as an organic living entity and by constraining humans to the whims of a machine it effectively dissolves any notion of our humanity through a perpetual meat grinder.

Humans already view other humans as nothing but units of productivity. See: Capitalism. Technology need not apply.

You decided to bring up the involuntary biological functions our bodies go through because I was railing against systems and so you thought you could point out that our bodies also have systems and therefore I should have a problem with such, as I stated that can be for another discussion since that does not pertain to mass society and its consequences.

You've missed the point of why I brought up biological systems: to illustrate efficiency. Systems are designed and/or evolve with efficiency of function as the driving force. The efficiency of any system's functions is not strictly contingent upon its complexity (it's not proportional or correlated). Society is arguably a very complex system (as are the biological systems I've previously mentioned), but it has several efficient sub-systems that could very well be simple. Technology, as a whole, makes that system more efficient, and also variably adds different degrees of complexity.

The reason I'm injecting complexity in the discussion here is because concerns about the negative effects of technological effects on society are almost exclusively rooted in fears of technological complexity (spears are simple, computers not so much). The common thinking here is that the more complex a technology is the greater the risk of being damaging and harmful to society. I'm here to remind you that the goal of technology is not to introduce added complexity, but to simply increase efficiency. And so the Kaczynskisms (fears of harmful technological effects on society and humanity) are misguided upon close inspection. (Poor uncle Ted. His brilliant mind was scorched from all of that MK-ULTRA LSD, and an otherwise logically rigorous mind lost the plot and came to some dubious conclusions. Thanks CIA.)

I thought to highlight the topic of progress since that is ultimately the issue here.

No, the ultimate issue (and your main argument) is that technological advancements in society takes away and reduces our choices, resulting in a reduced human experience that is further disconnected from nature, and a harm to man's apparent relationship with nature and his own state of nature.

I do not believe this is dramatic alarmism, there is an alarm going off and people are silent to its call. Of course inventors could not predict every outcome their designs would generate but that is a problem, a problem with a million dominos that echo throughout the ages for later generations to have to contend with. The invention of the car removed the need for horses yet by creating an automobile it terraformed the land people operated upon and now they must navigate through a maze of roads with conveniently placed nodes they must attend to. The invention through many small innovations lead to mass scale communication and can agree it is a feat of human engineering and is something to be marvelled at but humans before this shared physical space with each other and or sent letter to individuals who were miles away, but they engaged in the former more so than the latter and so this was not a problem. Because of this innovation humans now operate under new guidelines and so they communicate through this use of mass communication much more than they do in real physical space with a real organic human.

You must yield to the fact that this is a human problem, not a technology problem. The intended design of the technology was not to limit contact and interaction in physical spaces, but to allow and facilitate communication where close physical proximity (that allows for spoken communication to take place) becomes unneccessary. That humans decided on their own that they would be less social and interact with each in-person less is no fault of the technology or its creators. The blame there lies squarely on the shoulders of the users, not the creators.

I am unhappy with the current predicament but that is no indicator of me attempting to lash out and find the closes thing I can get to in order to release my rage. Sure technology is great and an improvement upon society if you're fine with the way things are running and the subjugation process of turning humans into cattle that can be easily processed, sure its great if you like to obtain your molested foods in supermarkets, sure its a great improvement to atomise man as a single unit so he has no power whatsoever, sure the deconstruction of the family unit is a great improvement to society, sure I like that it creates isolation from the group that causes individuals to build up a monumental accumulation of rage and think that in order for them to be free they must obtain a state of catharsis by pounding the trigger of their rifles decimating skull after skull, sidestepping pools of blood and lifeless carcasses to detonate IEDs to cause even more chaos because of the hell they reside is simply not enough and so they seek to give others a taste until they unload a steaming hot fragment of shrapnel into their own skull to end the nightmare, sure I love those great improvements to society, we need more of it.

You're carrying a whole lot of cultural, political, and dare I say, emotional baggage with you and dumping all of that baggage on innocent old technology who's just here to help.

Technology: The incel of society. Technology incels: Helps society, yet still gets bullied by politics chads (laws, regulations, being told what to do and how to do it) and shit on by culture normies (crying about how technology is ruining their experience in society by literally existing).

The poetry is top fucking KEK.

Just because you do not use such aids does not mean it is fine and should exist, even if you personally have a distaste for such things like twitter and the like does not mean it should be a free node within society to be left to linger and fester, remove it.

I'll be the first in line to admit that Twitter is a societal cancer that needs to be excised, and a blight upon humanity that needs to be purged and cleansed in an unholy nuclear fire. Not even techno Jesus, Elon Musk - the Great Savior of modern day normies and NPCs - can salvage Twitter. That shit just needs to go.

I'm a firm believer that Twitter, specifically, was designed with malicious intent to harm attention spans and reduce human thought and expression to 150 characters. Fuck you very much, Jack Dorsey. From the very bottomless abyss of my heart, FUCK YOU.

I do not voluntarily participate in this, it is not my choice nor is my "self-imposed dependency", I am dependent upon it but the choice was never mine to make, you said yourself, you want to participate within society then its a given for you to operate under it's tenants.

The only tenets that you are required to operate under in society are the laws which govern it. Everything else is your free choice.

You could build a house in the forest and fish and grow small crops but you would be doing that by yourself and alone just like Ted did until you go insane from the isolation from your fellow man, good luck convincing a women to accompany you on this journey, you need to have a community to live like this because we are apes who need a tribe.

You know damn well that you've always had the freedom of choice to exercise this option, and now you're complaining that others might exercise their freedom of choice differently and not choose the same as you?

Bruh moment.

No, you don't get to both complain about others' free choice resulting in a sub-optimal situation for yourself AND blame technology here.

But you do have to conform or you become an unproductive member that needs to be removed and as stated earlier you cannot do this solo, you need your tribe, but my tribe is content with such mechanical systems and reviles the opposite way of living, taking the path of least resistance creates weak people and only through struggle and suffering can you carve out a man, man has become too comfy and so its nice to see such events play out that cause more suffering because down the line it creates a stronger man.

No, you won't be forcibly removed. You'll just be removing yourself through your actions, or rather, inaction.

By default life is hard and that is how it should be.

It doesn't have to be. That's the point of technological and its progress - to ease some of those life difficulties. Something like infant and child mortality rates before the advent of vaccines, painkillers and antibiotics were through the roof. You and I probably wouldn't be alive today and died off as infants or young kids, if it weren't for such medical technologies.

No offense, but you're sounding like those spoiled, upper-class hipsters with rich parents who lament their current life predicament and wish they were struggling like the less fortunate people they virtue signal for, just so they could gain social status among their peers.

Technology has helped your current life in numerous ways that would otherwise be hell for you, yet you still shit on technology for something it never stopped you from doing in the first place.

Open your eyes and get a grip. Put your money where you mouth is and go out in the woods and live like uncle Ted would want you to live. Why are you here using the very technology that you're crying about how its destroying society when you should be off the grid and disconnected from that society. The fucking irony of it all.

I was being playful with my language because the topic of consciousness intrigues me, I already conceded the notion of it's inorganic origin, I simply do not know, but I did state that the ideas feel very mechanical and paradoxical to man as a creature. Also I am not a weedsmoker and just because I can be flavourful with my choice of words and their alignment does not mean I am some 420 pleb.

There is a time and place for playful language. Here, in the domain of ideas and philosophical discourse, you need to be clear, precise and specific.

Correct the tools are different, way different and that causes more problems that crafting a bow from wood and bone, you do not need a factory to produce such primitive tools. They were an extension of ourselves until we swapped positions and became extensions of the tools.

In what possible way(s) are we now extensions of our tools?

Yes I understand your point but you can only get to that state of being if you have a vast worker force doing what is titled as menial jobs.

Not quite. You need a few designers, some builders, and a handful of maintenance workers. The latter two can be considered menial jobs, but only peripherally.

Do you know why Dark Souls is so fun and addictive to those that play it, not the lore or epic scenes and set pieces, it is because of the very reason it is hard and astronomical and when you beat it you feel fulfilled when you whittle a bosses health down to zero who is three times larger than you, and you have no health flasks to rejuvenate, it is for that reason that game is so revered by many because it is hard and it feels good to overcome the odds.

Your reason for why you want life to be hard is because it feels good if you overcome life's burdens? Really bro? That's some low level shit. It's unbecoming of a thinker and a high reasoner. The primary feature of your humanity - what makes you the apex predator on this planet - is your ability to think and reason, not some dopamine rush you get from a sense of faux highbrow accomplishment.

What if the technology in the future causes an extinction level event and wipes out billions was it logical?

You followed down the line of logic but it lead to an event such as this, do you A. blame the line of logic that lead you there in the first place or do you B. blame the specific element that caused such event?

Bro what? How is the death of billions a net gain?

I have already stated some aspects of society that has removed choice such as the fundamental ones of procuring food to fulfil us on a primitive level, I have spoken about the atomisation of the collective and its subclasses such as extended family and immediate family units through its need to quantify what is productive and what is not productive thus dissecting the unit based on their overall worth.

You haven't proven how those choices have been removed. You're still free to roam like an 18th century nomad and hunt for your food to fulfill some cope, desire or fantasy, laws and licenses permitting. As I've said, you merely have new, and often times more convenient, options now.

You personally are not satisfied on a primitive level because you let the various nodes of the monolith aid you which results in you falling in love with being comfy and content with the machines tendrils wrapped around your body. No one is satisfied on a primitive level and that is why they seek out surrogate activities to fill the void, they play dark souls to simulate the reality that they have faced monumental tasks that make them feel content until the day cycles and they roam about looking for the new thing that will keep them content, even though they have filled their minds with simulated realties for a life time, yet the cup is still empty.

Or perhaps some of us have evolved past the need to satisfy these primitive level needs that you speak of. You can bet your last dollar that what satisfies me is nowhere near what satisfies you. My cup is partially empty (or partially full), but I know that it can never be completely full. The reasons for that have nothing to do with the problems of technology or its effects on the human condition that you're purporting, however. The real reasons have to do with the hard limits of reality, epistemology, and the metaphysics of our being in relation to the universe in which we inhabit.

I'm perfectly capable of both hunting for my own meat AND content with going to the local supermarket to buy farm-raised meat. I don't have a longing or an itch to kill an animal and skin it myself whenever I pick up a kilo of meat from the butcher.

Personally, I hated Dark Souls and only finished the game to complete what I started. It was tough for the sake of being tough, and people mistook this over-the-top toughness for coolness or as some kind of virtue in gaming. It really wasn't any of that.

It has taken away your autonomy and has made the real root truths easily accessible to obtain without any effort and so you have an abundance of free time that you think is a positive but really it is just more time to ponder and self reflect while falling into deep sadness combined with the attempt to fulfil a cup that will be always empty because you do not posses the correct liquid to fill it and so you toil away with surrogates not knowing why it all feels the same.

I don't have that feeling, nor do I risk succumbing to this deep sadness you're referring to. My ruminations are seldom self-reflections. Most of my time spent thinking is about very big problems on very big scales that have nothing to do with any personal problems I may be facing. I'm quite pragmatic with my personal problems, tbh. They are just treated as tasks that need completion.

You're wrong about the liquid in my cup, btw. I know exactly which liquid to fill it with and know exactly why the cup can never be full. Knowledge of these things doesn't add to sensations of emptiness (which could be construed as a lack of purpose) or personal sadness, like you're suggesting, however.

I did not mean that they are directly programming python or the like into ones head It was a thumbnail sketch of what is happening, man programs machine but it does not end there, man influences the machine just as the machine influences the man, it is a cycle.

OK.

 

[the.oracle]

this chapter is all you need to understand why we are where we are

 

[the.oracle]

this chapter is all you need to understand why we are where we are

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

"Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favour. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favour by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves."

"The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate".

Can this be refuted?

that is biblically high iq

This is the kind of social science discussion we need on this site to tear down the tired system and path western democracies are going down and have been going down for the last 20 years.

The post perfectly summarises the state of britain, the crazy spending on "social care", which is now circa 40% of all uk government spending higher than every department except the nhs, "social care" is a catch all term used for all the state help single mothers and NEETS (eg chad only) get all the hand outs all the rents council tax breaks etc etc etc etc.

The government in the U.K. since New Labour in the 1990s has created and is perpetuating and extending a system where you can live at a certain level albeit near the bottom. With absolutely no responsibility for yourself or your income, no job, no effort, no commitment, just exist and consume, this is not helping them, or the state which is getting sucked dry of shit loads of money and hence the tax payers too.

 

[Cortex]

The cope is in thinking that advances in technology that change society somehow hold you back from fulfilling this naturist desire that you've conflated with a kind of psychological human need.

This psychological desire as you call it is nothing new and we have grown with this as organic players on this godforsaken rock, we must obtain sustenance and back then in primitive times it was difficult by default and so the process of acquiring our sustenance that ensures our existence fulfilled us because of the effort that was expended in order to obtain such continuity of our species was difficult and not easy. Have you ever done something that was super easy and felt any fulfilment or any feeling at all? I would say most likely not because things that are hard but have the room to be achieved in some kind of way through challenge is what creates such feelings of fulfilment and satisfaction that can be earned no where else.

I have stated a number of times now and it feels as though we are going in circles, I am held back from fulfilling this and living this lifestyle because I would be the only one engaging in such lifestyle, and if you knew anything you would know that humans cannot do things alone or live in solitary forever because they begin to go insane and eventually erupt and begin posting funpowder parcels to the others of a society they deem an enemy.

Even if a segment of society, fed up with this monster they have to live, did get together and settle in some distant location somewhere this does not prohibit the constant expansion of the machine that eats away at everything and at some point in time the new settlers would have to contend with the suits and their mechanical dog chomping away at every scrap they can find.

You've got it backwards. It's not that change suits productivity, but rather, change is the result of productivity - enough productivity, anyway.

What you fail to understand here is that even in the primitive setup you've laid out you're still tethered to those same problems that supposedly "plague" modern civilization. You still need to produce i.e., hunt for food, forage for berries, fruits, and vegetables, and farm crops. Stagnation in such a case is literally death (except more pressing and immediate), since you need to find and prepare your every meal on your own, limited by your own knowledge, skill, and, of course, your tools (your bare hands won't do shit against a deer or a bear).

In the primitive set up there is no change, no constant flux to be dealt with, no eliminations of tools, no contamination of water sources through heads of chemical companies who seek to rid themselves of waste, no new tools you would have to invest a significant amount of time to learn and join institutions for half your life just to participate in said society and even if you were not accustomed to a primitive tool you have never used, more than likely you have, the time spent learning how to operate and manipulate it to your advantage would cost a significantly less time in contrast to those in modern society that does not even remotely, directly and objectively obey to your basic principle needs as a ape man living in nature, you craft pointy stick because it helps you hunt and thus provides you with food that satisfies your immediate needs as opposed to going to an educational system for twelve years only to then move to another educational system for another five years just so you can work a job in an office to provide upkeep for the system and to then be handed like a fucking slave, a check so that you can collect your disgusting molested, packaged in plastic and coated in preservatives food, to then go about your day filled with surrogate activities.

Death is not so bad when you have lived, just ask Ted.

The bad aspects of technology can be mitigated through a better understanding and utilization of applied teleology. Unforeseen consequences could in fact be anticipated, albeit to a limited degree, and thus be foreseen.

I do not believe you can just bypass the bad aspects because it comes as a packaged deal like I previously stated although I guess you could attempt to create adjustments to aid humanity and prevent such harmful segments of its web, but the problem with this, is technology builds upon its self and has a domino effect that has consequences down the line, so even with the building of new and improved technologies with humans in mind and their adjusted goal so that they do not replace the human in the process, you're still left with Ted's observation "Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing".

Humans already view other humans as nothing but units of productivity. See: Capitalism. Technology need not apply.

The growth we see in the modern age is because of the ever expanding and ever self influencing cycle of Capitalism intertwined with Technology, Capitalism generates growth which in turn generates Technology and vice versa.

In the primitive age man views other man as nothing but units of survivability, he views them as limbs of his own survival not units of productivity toward a system.

The reason I'm injecting complexity in the discussion here is because concerns about the negative effects of technological effects on society are almost exclusively rooted in fears of technological complexity (spears are simple, computers not so much). The common thinking here is that the more complex a technology is the greater the risk of being damaging and harmful to society. I'm here to remind you that the goal of technology is not to introduce added complexity, but to simply increase efficiency. And so the Kaczynskisms (fears of harmful technological effects on society and humanity) are misguided upon close inspection. (Poor uncle Ted. His brilliant mind was scorched from all of that MK-ULTRA LSD, and an otherwise logically rigorous mind lost the plot and came to some dubious conclusions. Thanks CIA.)

There is room to fear such implementations within a society because it drastically alters its geometry and becomes subject to whims of a few inventors that now have sculpted the parameters of the playing field that effects everyone in its vicinity, I do not have a fear of complexity or some backward notion it antagonises my intelligence, I fear the sprawl it creates that permeates through every facet of existence.

If I remember correctly Ted himself has stated this did not effect his judgment and turn him insane and the CIA tests have been drastically overblown and so I will not fall for the same old tactic of labelling an outsider calling attention to an observation as insane or mentally defective simply because his ideas are drastically different from the cultural norm.

I firmly believe Ted has some great points within his manifesto and point to monumental problems that are just so grand it begins to make me feel ill knowing there is not much that can be done.

No, the ultimate issue (and your main argument) is that technological advancements in society takes away and reduces our choices, resulting in a reduced human experience that is further disconnected from nature, and a harm to man's apparent relationship with nature and his own state of nature.

And yet the main ethos pushing this all along in the direction I have a problem with, is progress and its tiresome and endless journey to some distant vague state that increments further and further away from humanity and it's origin.

You must yield to the fact that this is a human problem, not a technology problem. The intended design of the technology was not to limit contact and interaction in physical spaces, but to allow and facilitate communication where close physical proximity (that allows for spoken communication to take place) becomes unneccessary. That humans decided on their own that they would be less social and interact with each in-person less is no fault of the technology or its creators. The blame there lies squarely on the shoulders of the users, not the creators.

Yet if the technology of mass communication did not exist this would not be a problem and so even though humans are at fault that they now use technology as a surrogate through which they communicate with each other the technology itself is what facilitates this mental aids they now have become accustomed to.

You're carrying a whole lot of cultural, political, and dare I say, emotional baggage with you and dumping all of that baggage on innocent old technology who's just here to help.

Technology: The incel of society. Technology incels: Helps society, yet still gets bullied by politics chads (laws, regulations, being told what to do and how to do it) and shit on by culture normies (crying about how technology is ruining their experience in society by literally existing).

The poetry is top fucking KEK.

I see no problem with imputing emotion into things because it is what fundamentally drives us as men, not logic. If you're left alone in isolation because you cannot obtain the attraction of a women or you cannot build bonds with other men in order to form friendships then the logical thing to do is to be ok with those things because "hey I am still alive, eating and breathing" and not to be sad and suicidal and yet many choose the latter because we're social, emotional and complex creatures that cannot function or operate at optimal levels under the conditions solitary isolation provides us.

Technology literally existing is ruining experience by extension, existence.

The only tenets that you are required to operate under in society are the laws which govern it. Everything else is your free choice.

And I have a problem with the laws that govern, strengthen and uphold it and so I am not free in my choices because I have to adhere to those laws, just because I am free to roam the confines of this space does not make me free and it is not a choice because once I leave the confines, that being the rules then I am abruptly interrogated by enforcers of the system no matter what level they're, be it some fag online to an actual state operator with a set of functions he must follow and direct and project onto entities within said system that break the rules, in what way am I free and how is this a choice, choice implies there're multiple options to pick from.

You know damn well that you've always had the freedom of choice to exercise this option, and now you're complaining that others might exercise their freedom of choice differently and not choose the same as you?

Bruh moment.

No, you don't get to both complain about others' free choice resulting in a sub-optimal situation for yourself AND blame technology here.

The most important aspect you seem to miss repeatedly is the social element and it confuses me greatly, yes I have the ability to just go out and find some land and practice what I am trying to communicate and build a house and find a source of water to fish from, BUT I WOULD BE DOING SO ALONE. Humans are not solitary creatures you disingenuous pleb, you tote logic repeatedly and yet you fail to grasp the most important attribute of the human experience, you're on this forum are you not? So why do you miss this aspect with regards to what I am trying to communicate on multiple occasions.

Yes, I can complain about a system that has reduced us to a microcosm of its will and yes I will continue to complain about what it is doing to the group with it's dissections and multiple processes of atomisation.

It doesn't have to be. That's the point of technological and its progress - to ease some of those life difficulties. Something like infant and child mortality rates before the advent of vaccines, painkillers and antibiotics were through the roof. You and I probably wouldn't be alive today and died off as infants or young kids, if it weren't for such medical technologies.

No offense, but you're sounding like those spoiled, upper-class hipsters with rich parents who lament their current life predicament and wish they were struggling like the less fortunate people they virtue signal for, just so they could gain social status among their peers.

Technology has helped your current life in numerous ways that would otherwise be hell for you, yet you still shit on technology for something it never stopped you from doing in the first place.

Open your eyes and get a grip. Put your money where you mouth is and go out in the woods and live like uncle Ted would want you to live. Why are you here using the very technology that you're crying about how its destroying society when you should be off the grid and disconnected from that society. The fucking irony of it all.

But it should be hard because of the reasons I have already stated and if I wouldn't be alive today because a lacking of technology then that means absolutely nothing because I would be dead and so your point is null, what does it matter.

Honestly I do take offence because I am the opposite of your cliché rich kid who wants to simulate poverty through a sanitised lens, I am not upper-class nor do I have rich parents and I care not for signalling to others as some kind of person who should be worshiped and have attention directed at me because I said something that was against the grain or perceived grain, I live in a disgusting commie block and own clothes that was given to me from my from relatives, I am poor by social standards but honestly I am doing fine because I do not seek or wish for much and so I am not in great need to go on expensive holidays, that was designed for wageslaves to escape their hell, only to plunder into another land not to learn the language or fall in love with the culture but to live in the hotel and walk the same disgusting mega city they get the pleasure to see back home every single day. I maybe collect films and books here and there the rest is just a blank white room, so this idea you have of me is a mischaracterisation and should be ejected from your mind.

Firstly Ted states that you if you want to and it makes lots of sense to do, use technology against itself so it that respect this mitigates your juvenile need to point at me using technology while railing against it.

Secondly I have grown up with this mental aids and it is difficult to sever the remnants it has over me, I still have hobbies and likes and dislikes but I am well aware that these things are fundamentally surrogate activities, and again for the last time, HUMANS ARE NOT SOLITARY CREATURES, there is no irony here because this is a complex situation and I am just a slave to this just as you, the difference is I can admit it and you cannot.

There is a time and place for playful language. Here, in the domain of ideas and philosophical discourse, you need to be clear, precise and specific.

You're so mechanical it is humorous beyond belief, you cannot even have a stripe of playfulness or descriptiveness to your words now? Not even if those interesting alignment of words may spark something new inside your mind because of the placement and word choice, yes be logical, very logical and speak like a mechanical being with no flare or visual thought.

Your reason for why you want life to be hard is because it feels good if you overcome life's burdens? Really bro? That's some low level shit. It's unbecoming of a thinker and a high reasoner. The primary feature of your humanity - what makes you the apex predator on this planet - is your ability to think and reason, not some dopamine rush you get from a sense of faux highbrow accomplishment.

You know very well that my explanation of what makes that game fun is correct, and no it is not some low level shit it is our default nature and thinking you're above such forces means you see your self as higher than other individuals in some weird larp like you're more evolved than the rest of us, you're not and you're silly to suggest it, you're just like us because you have been programmed by the same hands we were programmed by, you have the same biological strings you follow when they're tugged, you have the same fundamental desires as any base human, you want love and or companionship and you want to eat and sustain your structure for as long as you possibly can, you're not different or special so remove this notion from your mind and ease up on the gas propelling your ego in a delusional non-human direction.

The post perfectly summarises the state of britain, the crazy spending on "social care", which is now circa 40% of all uk government spending higher than every department except the nhs, "social care" is a catch all term used for all the state help single mothers and NEETS (eg chad only) get all the hand outs all the rents council tax breaks etc etc etc etc.

I hate my country but it is not unique and all countries and nations obey to the incessant call of progress even those that reside in sandlands will not escape it and they will get caught by the same web the west has, there is no escape from this perpetual hellscape carved in concrete filled to the brim with millions of humans squeezed in like rats, all contending not to mention global competition they now have to abide by.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

This psychological desire as you call it is nothing new and we have grown with this as organic players on this godforsaken rock, we must obtain sustenance and back then in primitive times it was difficult by default and so the process of acquiring our sustenance that ensures our existence fulfilled us because of the effort that was expended in order to obtain such continuity of our species was difficult and not easy. Have you ever done something that was super easy and felt any fulfilment or any feeling at all? I would say most likely not because things that are hard but have the room to be achieved in some kind of way through challenge is what creates such feelings of fulfilment and satisfaction that can be earned no where else.

I have stated a number of times now and it feels as though we are going in circles, I am held back from fulfilling this and living this lifestyle because I would be the only one engaging in such lifestyle, and if you knew anything you would know that humans cannot do things alone or live in solitary forever because they begin to go insane and eventually erupt and begin posting funpowder parcels to the others of a society they deem an enemy.

Even if a segment of society, fed up with this monster they have to live, did get together and settle in some distant location somewhere this does not prohibit the constant expansion of the machine that eats away at everything and at some point in time the new settlers would have to contend with the suits and their mechanical dog chomping away at every scrap they can find.


In the primitive set up there is no change, no constant flux to be dealt with, no eliminations of tools, no contamination of water sources through heads of chemical companies who seek to rid themselves of waste, no new tools you would have to invest a significant amount of time to learn and join institutions for half your life just to participate in said society and even if you were not accustomed to a primitive tool you have never used, more than likely you have, the time spent learning how to operate and manipulate it to your advantage would cost a significantly less time in contrast to those in modern society that does not even remotely, directly and objectively obey to your basic principle needs as a ape man living in nature, you craft pointy stick because it helps you hunt and thus provides you with food that satisfies your immediate needs as opposed to going to an educational system for twelve years only to then move to another educational system for another five years just so you can work a job in an office to provide upkeep for the system and to then be handed like a fucking slave, a check so that you can collect your disgusting molested, packaged in plastic and coated in preservatives food, to then go about your day filled with surrogate activities.

Death is not so bad when you have lived, just ask Ted.




I do not believe you can just bypass the bad aspects because it comes as a packaged deal like I previously stated although I guess you could attempt to create adjustments to aid humanity and prevent such harmful segments of its web, but the problem with this, is technology builds upon its self and has a domino effect that has consequences down the line, so even with the building of new and improved technologies with humans in mind and their adjusted goal so that they do not replace the human in the process, you're still left with Ted's observation "Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing".


The growth we see in the modern age is because of the ever expanding and ever self influencing cycle of Capitalism intertwined with Technology, Capitalism generates growth which in turn generates Technology and vice versa.

In the primitive age man views other man as nothing but units of survivability, he views them as limbs of his own survival not units of productivity toward a system.


There is room to fear such implementations within a society because it drastically alters its geometry and becomes subject to whims of a few inventors that now have sculpted the parameters of the playing field that effects everyone in its vicinity, I do not have a fear of complexity or some backward notion it antagonises my intelligence, I fear the sprawl it creates that permeates through every facet of existence.

If I remember correctly Ted himself has stated this did not effect his judgment and turn him insane and the CIA tests have been drastically overblown and so I will not fall for the same old tactic of labelling an outsider calling attention to an observation as insane or mentally defective simply because his ideas are drastically different from the cultural norm.

I firmly believe Ted has some great points within his manifesto and point to monumental problems that are just so grand it begins to make me feel ill knowing there is not much that can be done.


And yet the main ethos pushing this all along in the direction I have a problem with, is progress and its tiresome and endless journey to some distant vague state that increments further and further away from humanity and it's origin.


Yet if the technology of mass communication did not exist this would not be a problem and so even though humans are at fault that they now use technology as a surrogate through which they communicate with each other the technology itself is what facilitates this mental aids they now have become accustomed to.


I see no problem with imputing emotion into things because it is what fundamentally drives us as men, not logic. If you're left alone in isolation because you cannot obtain the attraction of a women or you cannot build bonds with other men in order to form friendships then the logical thing to do is to be ok with those things because "hey I am still alive, eating and breathing" and not to be sad and suicidal and yet many choose the latter because we're social, emotional and complex creatures that cannot function or operate at optimal levels under the conditions solitary isolation provides us.

Technology literally existing is ruining experience by extension, existence.


And I have a problem with the laws that govern, strengthen and uphold it and so I am not free in my choices because I have to adhere to those laws, just because I am free to roam the confines of this space does not make me free and it is not a choice because once I leave the confines, that being the rules then I am abruptly interrogated by enforcers of the system no matter what level they're, be it some fag online to an actual state operator with a set of functions he must follow and direct and project onto entities within said system that break the rules, in what way am I free and how is this a choice, choice implies there're multiple options to pick from.


The most important aspect you seem to miss repeatedly is the social element and it confuses me greatly, yes I have the ability to just go out and find some land and practice what I am trying to communicate and build a house and find a source of water to fish from, BUT I WOULD BE DOING SO ALONE. Humans are not solitary creatures you disingenuous pleb, you tote logic repeatedly and yet you fail to grasp the most important attribute of the human experience, you're on this forum are you not? So why do you miss this aspect with regards to what I am trying to communicate on multiple occasions.

Yes, I can complain about a system that has reduced us to a microcosm of its will and yes I will continue to complain about what it is doing to the group with it's dissections and multiple processes of atomisation.


But it should be hard because of the reasons I have already stated and if I wouldn't be alive today because a lacking of technology then that means absolutely nothing because I would be dead and so your point is null, what does it matter.

Honestly I do take offence because I am the opposite of your cliché rich kid who wants to simulate poverty through a sanitised lens, I am not upper-class nor do I have rich parents and I care not for signalling to others as some kind of person who should be worshiped and have attention directed at me because I said something that was against the grain or perceived grain, I live in a disgusting commie block and own clothes that was given to me from my from relatives, I am poor by social standards but honestly I am doing fine because I do not seek or wish for much and so I am not in great need to go on expensive holidays, that was designed for wageslaves to escape their hell, only to plunder into another land not to learn the language or fall in love with the culture but to live in the hotel and walk the same disgusting mega city they get the pleasure to see back home every single day. I maybe collect films and books here and there the rest is just a blank white room, so this idea you have of me is a mischaracterisation and should be ejected from your mind.

Firstly Ted states that you if you want to and it makes lots of sense to do, use technology against itself so it that respect this mitigates your juvenile need to point at me using technology while railing against it.

Secondly I have grown up with this mental aids and it is difficult to sever the remnants it has over me, I still have hobbies and likes and dislikes but I am well aware that these things are fundamentally surrogate activities, and again for the last time, HUMANS ARE NOT SOLITARY CREATURES, there is no irony here because this is a complex situation and I am just a slave to this just as you, the difference is I can admit it and you cannot.


You're so mechanical it is humorous beyond belief, you cannot even have a stripe of playfulness or descriptiveness to your words now? Not even if those interesting alignment of words may spark something new inside your mind because of the placement and word choice, yes be logical, very logical and speak like a mechanical being with no flare or visual thought.


You know very well that my explanation of what makes that game fun is correct, and no it is not some low level shit it is our default nature and thinking you're above such forces means you see your self as higher than other individuals in some weird larp like you're more evolved than the rest of us, you're not and you're silly to suggest it, you're just like us because you have been programmed by the same hands we were programmed by, you have the same biological strings you follow when they're tugged, you have the same fundamental desires as any base human, you want love and or companionship and you want to eat and sustain your structure for as long as you possibly can, you're not different or special so remove this notion from your mind and ease up on the gas propelling your ego in a delusional non-human direction.



I hate my country but it is not unique and all countries and nations obey to the incessant call of progress even those that reside in sandlands will not escape it and they will get caught by the same web the west has, there is no escape from this perpetual hellscape carved in concrete filled to the brim with millions of humans squeezed in like rats, all contending not to mention global competition they now have to abide by.

ooga booga
(lol reference to crash bandicoot avi and juxtoposition betwee high level conversation and random sounds in old playstation games)

 

[Cortex]

ooga booga
(lol reference to crash bandicoot avi and juxtoposition betwee high level conversation and random sounds in old playstation games)

Of all the Crash Bandicoot games I liked Twinsanity the most and also its constant unique soundtrack beaming through your head kind of puts you in a trance when playing.

The government in the U.K. since New Labour in the 1990s has created and is perpetuating and extending a system where you can live at a certain level albeit near the bottom. With absolutely no responsibility for yourself or your income, no job, no effort, no commitment, just exist and consume, this is not helping them, or the state which is getting sucked dry of shit loads of money and hence the tax payers too.

If you do not cooperate they prescribe you drugs to placate you and your thoughts of unease toward the the current state of things, which only further creates a underling class of individuals who are totally lost and without purpose and are essentially useless to the gargantuan machine and so now they become dreary medicated ghouls who have no reason to exist whatsoever, they no longer even wageslave to gain their sustenance and now they have entered a new layer of misery where they have even more time to fill with even more surrogates and false endeavours. As for those that still toil away but are now hopped up on mind altering pills just to get through the day I feel nothing but sadness for them with a tinge of annoyance because it feels as though they have been defeated.

Under the section titled: Control of Human Behaviour: page: 84 paragraph: 145 Ted states:

"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)".

 

[NoLooksNoLife]

"Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favour. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favour by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves."

"The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate".

Can this be refuted?

Ok GrAYcel

 

[sub human]

ted kaczynski was right about everything. and there's a large body of literature that supports his ideas, with big names like ellul and rousseau and mcluhan

 

[AnotherInsertCel]

Fuckers always talk about having high IQ debates, where they at? SLEEP!

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

Ok GrAYcel

you answer a genuinelly high iq observation asking for a repudiation.

and your rebuttal is an absolutely pathetic zoomer level smonk

how i the fuck does this negate what he says, how in the hell is that a flex when it is a kindagarden level response.

go back to the crab bucket count the crabs do a dab and fuck off

 

[Mentally lost cel]

"Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favour. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favour by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves."

"The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate".

Can this be refuted?

Retarded pseudo intellectual post again

Life isn’t something you want to make harder

All you wrote is bullshit

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

Of all the Crash Bandicoot games I liked Twinsanity the most and also its constant unique soundtrack beaming through your head kind of puts you in a trance when playing.

If you do not cooperate they prescribe you drugs to placate you and your thoughts of unease toward the the current state of things, which only further creates a underling class of individuals who are totally lost and without purpose and are essentially useless to the gargantuan machine and so now they become dreary medicated ghouls who have no reason to exist whatsoever, they no longer even wageslave to gain their sustenance and now they have entered a new layer of misery where they have even more time to fill with even more surrogates and false endeavours. As for those that still toil away but are now hopped up on mind altering pills just to get through the day I feel nothing but sadness for them with a tinge of annoyance because it feels as though they have been defeated.

Under the section titled: Control of Human Behaviour: page: 84 paragraph: 145 Ted states:

"Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)".

yes this is a good angle and explain a lot about the current state of affairs particularly for NEET men at the bottom of society, but i believe that women have it so comfortable and expend so little effort it is actually positive for them. They dont have the negative emotional state, they are content with their state, as both their material and to a large degree psychological needs are met (eg meet and fuck chad).

Moving on from this in answer to your point before regarding the people at the bottom become aimless and their lives pointless, i have a hypothesis and possible avenue out from personal experience.

At some point i had reached this scenario where everything seemed pointless and thus myself and life was pointless. However if you do a thought experiment and run your life over making certain decisions at certain stages of your life until you reach old age, i surmised that if you try and elicit some positive change in quite a small given area of your locality, and dedicate your life to this endeavour, where everything is subjugated to this goal. eg you only acquire money and resources for the end goal of making this positive change, even if you try and fail in this endeavour, it is so far above the state of aimlessness, gives so much more meaning to your life and effects people in a positive way that it is a no brainer to strive towards this end over rotting.

Regarding the "positive change" I am refering to, for me this is developing and maintaining some kind of organisation for the people who are at the lowest level of society the people who always get fucked over by the system, the people noone cares about. Part of the journey is figuring out the exact methodology and the setting up and financing of this mission, which even at a low level is a very large complex operation.

But as i said having this huge goal, which benefits people like you as i will always be at the bottom despite my material position as i do not want to be associated with "the winners", also gives you so many mental benefits, focus, drive, a fuck you to the system mentality, that rotting simply isnt an option, and not only that seems self centred and seems highly narcissistic in comparison.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

Retarded pseudo intellectual post again

Life isn’t something you want to make harder

All you wrote is bullshit

you have missed the point
the point of the post is not to make it harder, but if you give humans everything they want, you completely strip the drive out of them, you make them useless not only to others but to themselves, as they need to exert zero effort to maintain their existence.

 

[Mentally lost cel]

you completely strip the drive out of them, you make them useless not only to others but to themselves, as they need to exert zero effort to maintain their existence.

No, do you think people make zero effort to live? Not everyone is from good countries bro

 

[Mentally lost cel]

you have missed the point
the point of the post is not to make it harder, but if you give humans everything they want, you completely strip the drive out of them, you make them useless not only to others but to themselves, as they need to exert zero effort to maintain their existence.

Come live in Turkey and see how nothing is different if you work a lot retard,fucking idiotic thinking , go work then

 

[Mentally lost cel]

you have missed the point
the point of the post is not to make it harder, but if you give humans everything they want, you completely strip the drive out of them, you make them useless not only to others but to themselves, as they need to exert zero effort to maintain their existence.

The point is wrong in every way

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

No, do you think people make zero effort to live? Not everyone is from good countries bro

i agree it is much harder in less developed countries and especially under a pathetic dictator like erdogan

this is not your fault and turns up the difficulty to nightmare setting

however some very good work was done in very bad regions mother teresa, ghandi etc, vietcong, a fuck you to the system can be done anywhere with enough will.

and yes i will sound like im preaching from a privileged position but bear with me

I also didnt say it was easy, and yes it ill be easier forr me to make a change than you

but i also didnt say how large the effect and change you had to make was, in my opinion any small act regularly done is still a fuck you to the system, its whatever you can do, but obviously survival is first, which is not self interested it is merely a base level of existence you cant help if you are starving yourself. My point is you build yourself up if you can and you build other people up, (but only people who are REALLY IN NEED OF IT NOT FAKERS WHINING) with you along the way and this becomes your reason to live .

 

[the virgin shepherd]

Can this be refuted?

Yes, however to refute this destiny imposed upon man man must become divine.

Man is a rope stretched between animal and divinty.



Seriously though. This is a stupid and boring post.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

Yes, however to refute this destiny imposed upon man man must become divine.

Man is a rope stretched between animal and divinty.



Seriously though. This is a stupid and boring post.

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbut you didnt refute it though

 

[the virgin shepherd]

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbut you didnt refute it though