Unabomber

Has anybody here read his manifesto? You should give it a try because it explains a lot of the pain many of you here experience. My love for technology has completely faded after reading it. The dystopian cyberpunk world (which is so often romanticized here) is an inevitable development of technological progress. There is zero need for it. We humans developed most of our lives in extremely primitive societies and are thus the best adapted for simpler conditions. You can experience total happiness and content just through nature, since that is what we are meant to do. Technology most of the time just provides some sort of abstraction of sentiments gained through the interaction with nature. In fact, technology alienates you from your natural habitat.

>primitivism go away Thoreau. kidding. I've watched some documentaries, but never really read the manifesto. >You can experience total happiness and content just through nature Your perspective is based on the principle that we should have a "happy" life. That's teleology of hedonism and epicureanism. Some people don't agree with this. The advancement of technology will make possible do and create new possibilities that is limited by our ecology. These advancements make us learn more about what is reality. Without technology we keep inside the Plato's cave.

>>2045 >Without technology we keep inside the Plato's cave You are right when pointing out that I presupposed happiness as the real goal of life. But I would like you to consider at what other costs we discover new truths. Ted points out in his manifesto that increased technological development also leads to decreased individual freedom. Controlling and surveilling people almost becomes a necessity, and governments are becoming more and more centralized. A simplistic explanation for this can be found when comparing major urban areas to very rural ones. Villages can ensure peace and safety through simple social, non-violent means. Major cities require the use of the government's violence monopoly.

Sorry if i sound like a strawman, but i only know the basics of primitivism, don't reply if it's bad question. How come people who are into primitivism are still using technology? At one hand i get you can't suddenly stop using it, but you can do so over time, slowly. Also, i agree that some might say, that it should be society-wide change, but you are the society, the change starts with you. what stops you from going to Amazon village, adapting their customs and living with them?(though they have fuel-powered boats nowadays, and you can't possible be "accepted" into a village)

>>2048 No worries, I am happy about any questions and thoughts. Your point is a totally legitimate one. First of, people who are primitivists can and should live the life-style that they promote. What I am currently doing is studying to get a decent job, so I can live a more natural life without leeching off my parents. I would also like to point out that I don't think that any and all technology is evil. I think it is only bad if it alienates you from nature: Using a gun to hunt still means that you yourself gather the needed food. It's no comparison to the alienation created by buying a piece of meat in the super market for 99 cents. Regarding the Amazon village thing, I don't want to live among people who are culturally this distant to me.

>>2049 about your second point. I vaguely had that in mind, but couldn't word it. Like, there are people who live "with the nature" in the forest, because they limit their contact with "unneeded technology". And you answered my question about that basically.

>>2046 >technological development also leads to decreased individual freedom Nope. It's a consequence of increased communication. Technology make people communicate more and we have no support to all this contact and interaction, because of our village evolution. The decrease in freedom, therefore (at least in my view) is because of: 1 - Increase in communication and/or 2 - Increase in population I would hypothesize that a advanced technology society is few number of individuals would have the same, or more, freedom than in a village as you're pointing (assuming it's not a authoritarian government). We had some discussions about the underling philosophical principles here >>>/drug/86 (more biology centered) and maybe also here >>1867 (although the OP of the linked thread is a user). Also, see The Village (2004).

>>2051 How is this increase in communication and population not linked to technological progress?

>>2052 Wat? It's a human behavior to reproduce, not technology. Communication by itself is also not technology, it's a normal behavior from any animal.

I see absolutely no evil in technology, only the way it is used. If i look at how people are i see no difference whetever they are ignorant and stupid with or without technology. There are many deep issues with such matters and we barely scratch the surface, but saying technology is bad is about the most short sighted and radical way of reacting to things. I read part of his manifesto and while he has many good points, he also has many bad ones. I respect what he tried to do, but in the end i dont think he was correct in the long run.

>>2053 Populations can only grow as much as the conditions allow it. Technology will provide more food, so that people can get more children. Communication itself is not technology, but its increase is caused by technology.

>>2054 >If i look at how people are i see no difference whetever they are ignorant and stupid with or without technology. Technology provides a much greater potential at damaging you however. The availability of stimulation through media is greatly increased by technology.

>>2055 >Populations can only grow as much as the conditions allow it. Technology will provide more food [...] That's a non sequitur. Technology is not the only one that can provide resources that, by itself, will made reproduction more feasible. Your point presuppose that, in the rural village you cited, people wouldn't have too much food, people of no technology. That's not true, unless you are so extreme to consider any plantation technology and let this rural village live only from the natural growth of plants. That wouldn't be possible too, since there's winter and other factors that would make the village die starving. >Communication itself is not technology, but its increase is caused by technology. Yes, but communication is exponential with the increase of population. Basically we are discussing the same "nature vs nurture" stuff. People that engage on the malthusianism discussion have some arguments about the same stuff I'm talking: it's about the bad in people (entropy), not on the technology itself.

>>2060 Farming alone can only get you so far. Populations would still be by a great amount smaller than tthey are nowadays, without the industrial revolution. Compare population growth by simple improvements of plantation technology to population growth caused by the industrial revolution >communication is exponential with the increase of population. See the point above. Concerning your last point. My issue isn't simply the misuse of technology. My issue is that technology inherently alienates you from the environment humans adapted to for most of their existence. Perhaps we could slowly adapt to new technologies over a long span of time. But at the current rate of progress, there is no way we can kee up.

ok. I would like to know more your cognitive process, so I can check if my own arguments is right, ok? So, if you agree, answer these questions please (if you're worried that this is datamining - I would be - use clean history, use Tor and disable javascript): >Your view about methaphysics: >>Life is teleological (there's a goal, like ataraxia, aletheia, pleasure) or not ? >>Monism or Dualism? >>Go to more Christian point of view (platonism, monad), or to the panpsychism/pantheism (Spinoza)? >>Do you believe reality itself (see "direct vs indirect reality" debate)? >>If not, what constructs our perceived reality (social constructivism vs biological determinism) >>Struturalism or Postmodenism? >>Empiricism or Physicalism? >>Skepticism or Foundationalism? >You view about people: >>Idealism or Realism? >>Utilitarianism or Determinism? >>Democracy or Authoritarianism? >>Capitalism or Communism/Socialism [cliche, I know]? >>Natalism or anti-natalism? >>Misanthropy or Philanthropy? >And, finally, nature or nurture (the men is good or bad by itself)? Sorry for all that. I like to put the arguments in table and categorize everything, so I can analyze it better. Of course, I'm not an specialist on philosophy, I just like to understand the movements. The point is that, every argument you have is based on some principle. I want to find your principle, so I can use rhetorics (attack?) on it and not lose time in an ad infinitum...

>You can experience total happiness and content just through nature, But why would I want that? >since that is what we are meant to do. Saying we're, "Meant," for something implies that humanity was made with a purposeful intention. I don't want to go down the whole rabbit hole here, but I don't believe that. > In fact, technology alienates you from your natural habitat. Why would I want to be close to my natural habitat? In my natural habitat, I would have died in infancy. I want to live forever or die trying, and technology (particularly brain uploading) is my best shot at that.

>>2062 I will answer the relevant questions. >biological determinism >realism >shouldn't it be utilitarianism vs deontology? >Neither democracy nor authoritarianism >Capitalism >Natalism >philanthropy >Man is good >>2063 >But why would I want that? Because that would imply that anything that deviates from your natural habitat only has the potential of making life worse. >I don't want to go down the whole rabbit hole Aight. >I want to live forever or die trying That's cool for you, but we aren't even close to knowing what the mental implications of this would be.

>>2064 >we aren't even close to knowing what the mental implications of this would be. Whatever they are has to be better than dying. >Because that would imply that anything that deviates from your natural habitat only has the potential of making life worse. No, it would imply that it has a chance of making me less happy/content. If I don't want to be happy, why would that matter?

>>2064 >>2062 (me) wew. That wasn't the answers I was expecting. Basically your point about primitivism doesn't match with your answers. >biological determinism It's the instinct of human to construct technology, based on evolutionism. Basically if you argue you accept biological determinism, you cannot defend primitivism at the same time. >realism How would it be feasible to support 7 billion people without technology? Without GMO and controlled agriculture it's impossible today. Of course, realism is a really vast term, but what I meant by "idealism vs realism" is that if you think that you should be realist about our biological conditions or should transcend it. >shouldn't it be utilitarianism vs deontology? Probably. My fault. >Neither democracy nor authoritarianism Anarcho? >Capitalism A capitalist society without technology? How would money (economics) work on this society? >Natalism ok >philanthropy ok >Man is good This point also is non sequitur. Your answer was realism and bio. determinism. According to determinism, man is not good by nature. And it's not bad too. It just follow instincts. I'll sound arrogant (maybe I am, don't know), but you should (could?) study the underling basis behind primitivism, so that you can 'fortify' your rhetorics. But I'm not in position to say what other people should or shouldn't do, so fuarrrk it.

>>2066 >why would that matter? [not the same guy] Because that's the same empiricism vs physicalism thing... always, for centuries. It's very exhaustive we see these discussions over and over again, and never reach a conclusion. The infinite regress, the zeno's paradox of the discussions, haha...

>>2068 I mean, if OP wants to live in a treehouse in the woods and only eat what he killed, I wouldn't stop him. He can keep being a pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting and sweating as he runs through the forest. But I want to become a perfect, immortal machine.

>>2067 >It's the instinct of human to construct technology As I already said, not all technology is bad >How would it be feasible to support 7 billion people without technology? I don't really understand how that relates to the philosophical concept of realism >Anarcho? Yes >A capitalist society without technology? Might have phrased this incorrectly, since capitalism evolved from the industrial revolution afaik. I basically believe that it's your choice what you do with your private property, as long as you aren't physically harming someone else's body or property. >Your answer was realism and bio Bio. determinism simply means that human behavior is innate. >>2069 Alright, have fun being an immortal machine™ (Copyright Shekkelstein Inc.)

>>2070 I intend to.

>>2070 Ok, let me show you how you're incoherent: >accepts bio. determinism and realism >accept Non-aggression principle =///= >don't want technology Now the axion (based on the above): 1 - Every human just follows what is determined by his physiology (biology), including being aggressive to the other (since bio. determ. is basically moral/ethical nihilism) 2 - *You* don't want technology. Wouldn't it be impose your choice on others and, therefore, be an aggression according to NAP? Now the logical statement: - If you reject the point "2", you're not a realist, you're an idealist - If you accept NAP, you cannot accept the point "1". Please, explain what I'm loosing here...

>>2072 Just an addendo, btw: that's why I asked you about some unrelated things. For example, if you don't agree with the first law of logic (law of identity), and go full postmodernist or intuitionist, or fideist, them all the above will not apply to you, since you don't want to have basis on logics.

I dont see the point in this, i mean we already have such conditions in africa, there is hardly any technology yet people keep popping up because westerners feed them, despite having homeless in their own countries. It hardly helped for them, so why would it work any better here.

>>2056 >Technology provides a much greater potential at damaging you however. The availability of stimulation through media is greatly increased by technology. This goes both ways, but people chose the worser.

>>2072 1. The fact that aggression against each other is part of human nature doesn't mean that creating a mutually beneficial contract where aggression is avoided can't be part of human nature. 2. Being a realist simply means you believe in an objective truth. But to address your other point about violating the NAP: I wouldn't force anyone to avoid technology. The only kind of primitive society that I would accept is one where people voluntarily live.

>>2074 See, the mistake you are doing is looking at one example of such a situation and then deducing everything else from it. I can give you examples of soykafhole countries with technology. There are and were simpler (Careful: I'm not saying we should go back to the stoneage) societies that work completely fine.

I think it's nice how often the topic of the Unabomber pops up here frequently over the years. I agree with some of his statements. The rise of our modern technology made life very predictable and put us under constant surveillance (Programms like PRISM, surveillance cameras, smartphones etc.) I think as a society we have to discuss these and other programs. Our life in the end shouldn't be controlled by algorithms I think Ted raised other valid points when it comes to the destruction of the environment yet I don't blame technology for that. I think therefore we have to blame our vapid consumerist society and capitalism in general. If you haven't, you should check out the movie "The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet." You may also want to read "keep the future unwritten" by Capulcu which adresses socio-cybernetics in our daily lilfe:https://capulcu.blackblogs.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2015/12/BandIIen-2016-02-20_orig.pdf

>>2076 >Being a realist simply means you believe in an objective truth. Yes, and you're clearly being a idealist, since situations like the following would never happen in reality and probably to even in virtual simulation, based on primitive principles (physiological features of humans): >The only kind of primitive society that I would accept is one where people voluntarily live. You're avoiding logics. For that, I'll consider my arguments correct for now. If someone wants to prove me wrong, I would be grateful.

>>2081 Why would such a situation never occur?

>>2082 >primitive principles (physiological features of humans) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

>>2083 Sorry, but nothing in there negates peaceful coexistence. The reason you aren't going on a rampage right now is not because of the state, but because it's simply mutually beneficial.

>>2084 >nothing in there negates peaceful coexistence You're not advocating peaceful coexistence only, you're advocating a "primitive society [...] where people voluntarily live". That's different. And Nietszches Will to Power say basically that a idealist society like that would never be possible. And he's pretty but right. And he wrote this soykaf more than a century ago, where we had not formal psychology yet. ... Are you smoking?

>>2087 Yeah, but I already told you that creating such a society isn't a necessity to me. All I am trying to do is to get people to consider the benefits of a technologically less developed society. If people change their mind, that'd be nice. But I can do all of this by myself.

I've finished the manifesto and I now have a feeling that Elon Musk too is a fan of Ted. E.g. Musk's "house cat of an AI" is in there almost verbatim. Anyway, very interesting read that caused me some serious emotional pain by reevaluating my own life goals.

Primitivism: -90% of humans would just starve immediately as they are incapable of surviving in nature. -we would return to a 30 year lifespan as any medicine or medicinal knowledge would be just lost very soon and quality of life(as in the strains on our bodies) would plummet to 0. -we would return to having to physically fight for our food -losing absolutely all comfort of modern society and modern life No thank you.

>>2046 Maybe it is jut because in less populated areas it is easier to hide stuff when there are not so many people watching, maybe because of that it life in villages only seems more peaceful rathwer than it being actually peaceful.

I hadn't read the OP and didn't realize this thread touched on the subject of primitivism. I haven't read the manifesto but I agree with some of what the OP says. I've actually been meaning to make a thread on technophobia, but this being essentially a site of tech savvy people, I'll only get trashed for it and won't be able to keep up.

I've really been meaning to read this as well. I believe he has a short story and some other works as well? This may sound obvious, though it seems to me that the problem lies not in the technology, but in our use of it. We are still too immature to handle what we've built and become. We let our society evolve far faster than we can to keep up- and we've also practically killed natural selection (which may be unavoidable in societies such as ours). I don't think the progress has to be a bad thing like it currently is. I guess my thought is that we shouldn't have to restrain ourselves from progress, but I guess we do and that's, I feel, a shame

>>2045 >Your perspective is based on the principle that we should have a "happy" life Our you trying to state the distinction between "joy" and "happiness"? IE: the positive feelings of scientific/religious/etc awe versus positive feelings of "pleasure" (superficial happiness)

>>2699 >90% of humans would just starve immediately as they are incapable of surviving in nature. I think this is a problem. By continuing to sever us from natural selection, we yield those that are reliant on the system. Though, I suppose any eugenic attempts would just be government-sponsored selection, which would be atleast as bad

>>2720 >Our you trying to state the distinction between "joy" and "happiness"? It does not depends on the perspective of what "happiness" or "joy" mean. Many people don't agree with hedonism/epicureanism and don't consider eudaimonia or ataraxia the goal of life. Of course, psychology and cognitive sciences know very much that we're driven by survival and pleasure (rewarding system) but, still, many people don't think that's the point of living in this reality. It's actually a very ancient philosophical discussion. Mohism, for example, would say that love drives us. The Logicians would say that we live to learn more about our existence. Some would say that it's all pointless (existential nihilism). Basically, what OP does is called reductio ad absurdum and it's a form of fallacy. But, it's ok since he agreed he was wrong.

bump

>Has anybody here read his manifesto? Skimmed over it a bit, it's pretty long. So far the only thing that really stood out to me is that in some parts he actually seemed to be getting into the control problem of AI, in his claim that machines more advanced than humans would either kill us all if programmed by people with right-leaning political values or treat us as basically pets if it's left-leaning. In the latter case he dismissed the option as removing all meaning from human lives simply by making humans no longer the smartest/most influential beings on the planet. That seems like a needlessly petty argument relying on appeal to a system of human supremacy that dismisses the value of all non-human life, including cybernetic beings derived from humans (see picture). >>2049 I recommend looking into appropriate technology and intentional communities and it doesn't seem impossible to have build a small commune around making most things locally and eating what you can farm/ranch/hunt. You'd probably still have some contact with the outside world, but if the only things you need it for are what'd be out of your control in a lower tech society anyway I don't see how it'd remove that much in the way of autonomy. Keep in mind that other people choosing to live in an urban setting just makes more room for those living in rural areas, by packing themselves densely as opposed to spreading everyone out at roughly 1.5-2 acres each across all habitual land. >>2726 In multicellular organisms, most individual cells are unable to survive without the rest of the body, reliant on it to provide nutrients and oxygen. Should we reduce life to single celled organisms on the basis that forming multicellular bodies severs individual cells from natural selection?