>“Oh!” say the technophiles, “Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!” Yeah, sure.
>That’s what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or selfdeceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103).
>The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present one.
If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machine off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
Don't thread me yet brother
Lucas King
I've read this many times, one of my earliest redpills. I love Ted. All newfags need to read his manifesto
Grayson Bell
Glad we have other Ted fans here. This is a redpill Sup Forums needs to swallow.
Ted on conservatives:
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
Joshua Hughes
seriously, if you haven't read his manifesto, read it. It's not long and it's a good read
Isaac Thompson
entirely correct his only mistake was getting caught
John Butler
He was based. He knew the program.
Anthony Parker
Ted on genetically engineered human cattle:
On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of softhearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
Kayden Smith
Does everyone forget that this guy literally blew up innocent people?
Jaxson Price
fpbp.
Jayden Roberts
You know he wrote a 2nd book, ill link if interest
Andrew Powell
Ted on the "technophiles":
The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don’t think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.
Benjamin Cooper
He was a delusional retard. I hope he gets nigger dick shoved up his ass.
David Parker
What was he delusional about?
Ted on dignity vs death:
In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.
Jordan Davis
(((Kaczynski))), /pol does know his 'religious' upbringing, right /pol????
Luis Rogers
Ted on current sufferings:
9. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
Hudson Rivera
Uncle ted was right
Juan Cruz
im right there with you i literally jerk off to the unabomber manifesto and i piss on urinal cakes with mark zuckerberg and instagram whores faces on them
Aaron Morales
your formatting is fucking god-awful by the way
Nathaniel Perry
What is this suppose to mean?
Sorry
Hunter Garcia
I didn't witness it personally. If it happened today...?
Lucas Carter
What are you talking? He literally killed some poor working computer shop owner with a nail bomb. The guy was a complete dickhead.
Jace Evans
Miles Mathis' essay on this dude is well worth checking out.
Jose Gonzalez
You didn't get my point. I know the story well. I could drive to the location where his cabin was in a couple hours. I lived about 45 minutes from there when they busted him.
Carter Walker
When the day of the rope comes can we rescue him?
Christopher Baker
I think he's a very interesting person. Mindless technological/scientific progress will obviously lead to the end of anything resembling 'humanity', this is by far the biggest problem we face, and it's become much more pertinent in recent decades. Lots of people get too defensive about their own excessively comfortable, consumeristic, gadget filled lives - paid for by their meaningless jobs - to really give it an objective look.
Sadly I do think he's mistaken in regards to mankind's ability to stop its advance. I just can't see a way it can happen. I think the best I can hope for is some land that's far from anything else to live self sufficiency on.
"The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.....War to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them. Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species. Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter shown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race."
Kevin Allen
Why the sudden interest in Ted? This is like to 2nd or 3rd thread i've seen of this guy in the past 3 hours.
Aiden James
I've always saw his point in the manifesto. Didn't agree about killing if he did it. The onrush of AI now and the event of the singularity is more in the talk of the day and that may be what is bring him to the forefront for discussion.