Uncle Ted is a god.
Ive read afaik everything he’s published regarding technology/industrialization. The only thing I disagree with is his optimism that it is possible to undertake a revolution against technology. For one to be successful, and it’s effects permanent, a revolution would have to happen, successfully, on every industrialized corner of the planet, simultaneously, and all evidence of technology and technical knowledge be destroyed so there are no seeds from which it can rise again.. It is obviously against the interests of all states for this to happen, so you’d expect them to deploy the military to stop this revolution. It comes down to the entire worlds population armed with this knowledge vs the collective strength of all the worlds armies. You can barely get anyone on board in the first place much less a massive army of millions of die-hard revolutionaries.. There is no way it can happen. Ted even unknowingly proves this with a long ass sorta-mathematical proof of why all self propagating systems will seek short term benefit/advantage, even at the cost of long term detriment. It’s a simple proof. If not capitalizing on some immediate/short term advantage costs you your existence, you won’t be around for anything in the future. Using the state as an example, No state would be on board with this because it would a: cost them their existence, and b: even if it were successful, some other technological country would immediately come in, conquer them, and reindustrialize their country, so any efforts made towards that goal are futile.
humanity is fucked. Even if everyone is armed with uncle teds manifesto, nothing will happen. Technology and industrialization are like a giant superorganism that just does what it wants and is impossible to stop.. Even if we could adapt perfectly to an industrial environment, and continue adapting as the environment constantly evolves, we would at the same time become more dependent on it, and more MALADAPTED to a natural, less volatile environment (nature). think treatment for some shit-tier trait that would normally be a death sentence. Poor vision, childhood cancer, diabeetus, etc. Rare in nature, but we have treatment so these genes propagate and become more common. Carriers of these genes become totally dependent on technology to not die. I.e., they are maladapted to nature and wouldn’t survive without modern medicine. Eventually, super effective cancer treatments (not cures), or treatments for any other life threatening ailment, will result In a much (magnitudes) higher number of cases. Some Kid gets cancer, and instead of dying, some miracle serum saves him, he lives, he fucks, he has a kid, and his kid gets cancer. Cycle repeats. Eventually childhood cancer becomes common. And these are just big macro phenomenon that can be easily identified. There’s a million other small, but maybe consequential things, that we may not even know the existence or important of yet, that could get bred out of or into existence that could be detrimental to survival in nature.
