Do you think this is a problem today? I feel like all his points are more true now than they were in 1996. I only disagree with his conclusion to uproot the system. It's impossible to do so. If 99% of the current population revolted against their respective hegemony they would still lose. 1st world governments simply have too much power in terms of resources and technology. There's probably secret military tech that would be enough to stop most uprisings with less manpower. If the general population is still able to overcome, then the hegemony could hold the world hostage with nuclear weapons. There's no winning.
I think his points do a great job explaining the malaise over current society but he doesn't present a feasible solution. Share your thoughts on his points. Or give your take on these issues. I'd like to read them.
Oversocialization
I want to add I don't condone his actions. I just want to discuss his point of view.
A government is maintained and made up of its people and to assume that any 1st world government could be overtaken by the majority of its population rising up is pretty bad thinking. All of their equipment requires maintenance and people to man it. Do you think you can convince the armies of a 1st world nation to gun down the majority of their citizens? Armies tend to usurp thrones when the majority of the populace turns against its ruler.
To answer the question of this thread though: Yes and no, also his points were formed well before 1996 too when they were even less true.
>I think his points do a great job explaining the malaise over current society but he doesn't present a feasible solution.
He wrote plenty more when in jail.
There is no solution.
Even if you manage to get rid of technology in one country, other countries could just invade you since you would be weaker than them without technology.
You would have to coordinate a worldwide revolution that takes down technology in every country at the same time.
And even if you succeed someone would just rebuild the technology again later down the line.
Science will always be an option, even if you burn all the current scientific books, because science is the book of Nature that is always open in front of us. You can get rid of Shakespeare and Dante by burning all the known copies of their works, but you can't get rid of Galileo and Newton because someone else will simply rediscover the same things even if you burn all science books.
>If 99% of the current population revolted against their respective hegemony they would still lose.
most insane fucking take I've ever heard
it's about 3.5% of a population that's needed to actively participate for a revolution to succeed
Don't know where you pulled out that number (maybe out of your ass), but the kind of anti-tech revolution envisioned by Unabomber is a lot different from just replacing one regime with another.
of course it is a problem. human brains weren't supposed to register this much information in their lifetime, and there being an unlimited supply of nearly everything makes people weaker
You're probably right. 99% is more than enough to win if 3.5% has a good chance. The issue Ted mentioned was the psychological conditioning our current system has to prevent revolt. There would never be enough people that take a stand. The stronger the government, the more people needed. I'd say a 1st world country would need more the 3.5 percent.
>The issue Ted mentioned was the psychological conditioning our current system has to prevent revolt.
NTA but Ted doesn't also take into consideration people's sunk cost fallacy prevalence and the sunk costs people have in current society. Think about how many jobs are involved in industrial society. How many people genuinely live life on something like a homestead only really providing for themselves and their community? The programmers who can make drone AIs capable of identifying and gunning down people have incentives to side with technology and not to reject it.
I think the problem now is world governments are SO complex it's difficult to imagine a revolution
like feasibly I could see myself managing a country in, for example, like the early 1900's
But the idea of running a country now with globalisation and debt and world trade etc etc seems fucking insane, like toppling the British government for example and effectively taking over from them seems like a herculean task, not because of toppling it, but actually managing things afterward
>NTA but Ted doesn't also take into consideration
Meant to say properly take into consideration.
>I only disagree with his conclusion to uproot the system
if you read his prison writings and diary, he kinda acknowledges that it's fucked and nothing can be done. His attacks were revengeful and accelerationist. He hoped he could help further the eventual collapse of the system, and that something decent could be reborn in its ashes.
but yeah he was right. he should've talked about hyper-normalistion more. nothing really original tho
What incentive is there to even try to rebel?
Most people aren't keen on spending the majority of their time foraging for food every day.
Many people seem perfectly content with surrogate activities like video games or social media.
it's a pretty well-known statistic
but yeah you're right, the idea of a worldwide rejection of technology would certainly take more than 3.5%
OP here:
He sited oversocialization as an issue that cause psychological issues, specifically an inferiority complex. Do you agree? Has technology caused us to be too connected? How much time do we need alone?
I also want to mention his idea of the power process. A mentally sound person needs real goals that give him a sense of accomplishment. There are too many surrogate goals that waste time and leave people feeling empty as a result of our current system, like chasing money or status. I'd like to read more posts on these two things.
yeah 100%
when i compare myself to my ACTUAL peers, i.e people i went to school with and have met throughout my life, I don't feel like I'm doing too badly in life
but when i open up social media and see someone making millions of dollars playing video games or selling nudes i inferior as fuck
I've only read his manifesto, so I don't know what he says in his later writings, but my impression is that Kaczynski was ultimately obsessed with control and a kind of personal autarky.
He saw himself as an individual losing more and more control in a technological society, and this is a feeling shared by many people (often rightly so), but the difference is that whereas most people will try to assuage this feeling of impotence by putting their faith in one ideology or other (e.g., leftists will feel safe from technology only when the government has total control over it, while rightists will feel safe only when the government has little control over it and private citizens control it), Kaczynski believed he would be safe from technology only if he completely obliterated it.
There may be some truth to his claims about our lives being unnatural, but it seems fallacious to assert that everything natural is good and everything artificial is bad. Even if you grant that "we haven't evolved to live this kinds of lives" that simply means we will adapt and we will evolve to cope with a technological world, no matter how long it takes. And even if technology ultimately leads to our annihilation through a nuclear holocaust or whatnot, that's just life. Plenty of species have gone the way of the dodo, and for all his naturalism Kaczynski should not be too anthropocentric and place humans on a pedestal.
The incentive he sited was freedom. You are truly the master of your own life in the woods. You are occupied with real goals like surviving, reproducing, and building up a small community with social cohesion. The technological society we live limits you massively. There's only so much you can do but it does offer comforts like video games.
I personally also don't agree with revolting. Our only real choice is reform but he has an entire section discussing why that isn't possible.
Is freedom an end in itself? Kaczynski is as retarded as Eren from Shingeki no Kyojin.
Most people would rather live in a golden cage than enjoy freedom in misery and poverty. Living in the woods will never allow you to enjoy cool toys; you may not even have simple conveniences like electricity, heating, and running water. It would be literal hell for most modern people. You can't have any civilization unless you are willing to barter away at least some of your freedom, even Thomas Hobbes knew that centuries ago.
One issue I have with older writers is that they're not aware of the change in technology. Ted was there for the huge leaps of the 20th century. That's what shaped his point of view. I'll give Thomas Hobbes a read. I want an opposing view on Ted's anarcho-primitivism.
Phenomenal take.
OP here
Thank you all posting but I won't be able to keep my eye on the thread. Enjoy your day.