Was Ted Kaczynski Right?

Even though his course of action was silly and could never have dissuaded the masses from either using or designing new technology, was he actually right?

COCK DICK FUCK THAT FAG ASS SHIT WILL COME OUT LICK THE BROWN CREAM YEAAAH TASTES GOOD

Is that supposed to be a "no?"

I'm reading his recently published book anti-tech revolution why and how. He says it's more like a text book to be studied than a book you just read through. Really interesting so far.

To answer your question. He is right.

I just read Industrial Society And Its Future and I tend to agree with him, and you.

Are you doing anything to ween yourself off tech?

Yes I am. But modern life is so technology dependent that it is almost impossible. My ultimate goal is to do what Kaczynski tried and what all of the ancient sages accomplished, which is to build a hut in the mountains and go off grid. Technology does interest me. I find it absolutely fascinating. However its implementation and abuse by modern society is unsustainable and will bring about the demise of our species and a great many others. I'm going to walk away.

>was he actually right?
I dont know, was he?
Do you really think no tech makes people angels? Any introductory course of history will tell you the opposite. And studying it seriously will show you it's all the same here and there.

>Do you really think no tech makes people angels?
Who made the argument that it would? I didn't.
>Any introductory course of history will tell you the opposite. And studying it seriously will show you it's all the same here and there.
Except that same very history has brought us to this point, which is beyond the point of no return. I couldn't help but laugh at your nonchalance when you tried to claim "it's all the same here and there." No it isn't, and that you will see for yourself. The downfall will happen in prett much all of our lifetimes, and it won't be pretty. Buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy.

I need to get myself a copy of that. Did you buy it?

Came here to say this

You're a moron then, aren't you? Here is the full 35,000 word manifesto written by Kaczynski and published in the Washington Post and New York Times after he forced them to do so:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Read it.

COCK DICK FUCK THAT FAG ASS SHIT WILL COME OUT LICK THE BROWN CREAM YEAAAH TASTES GOOD

>Read it.
'no'

SHIT, i read the manifesto but i thought the FBI leaked it, i didnt know he forced the times to publish it

>suprised no more burgers have threatened to republish it again
seems more relevant than ever

Yes, but what can you do?

Everything he has predicted so far has come to fruition. Technology not only has made us soft, it has destroyed the very fabric of human social interaction and made us dependent on it. Technology should work for our benefit, not us that should work for technology.

He told them he would stop the bombings if his manifesto was published. The FBI, who weren't smart enough to catch him otherwise, pleaded with media outlets to capitulate. I wonder if Kaczynski knew its publication would lead to him getting doxxed, but did it any way.

Ted wasn't anti-technology per se. He was against system building technologies which creates technologies and systems for the sake of it. He didn't have anything against individual empowering technologies. He was for the empowerment of the individual and not the monster (system) that fuels the machine.

Walk away.

>The downfall will happen in prett much all of our lifetimes
A virtually unfalsifiable statement, you might as well claim the celestial dome will break in our lifetimes.

Except we can readily observe that the former is not only likely to happen, but will happen, whilst the latter is meaningless to speculate about.

Honestly I completely agree with him. Clearly his delivery of the message was wrong, but overall he was 100% correct in his book/manifesto.

>Except we can readily observe
Sure you can

No, stop. He literally wants to go back to being hunter-gatherers. He was anti-technology in every sense of the word.

You can't ask normies that.
Just link his manifesto with a few quotes.

What exactly are you basing your assertions on?

He was right and wrong.

He was right about technology being nothing more than a means to an end ultimately. Despite what the MSM and NASA tell you despite what Musk tells you. We ain't never getting off this rock without extreme genetic modifications. Thus. All of our so called "Advancement" hasn't really done anything for us at all.

Ted was wrong about trying to stop advancement. It's not something that can be stopped. It must run it's course. Killing people wont stop the next iphone from being released or the next model S from being released etc etc.

So Ted was both a smart guy and a complete idiot at all once.

>THE END IS NIGH

>We ain't never getting off this rock without extreme genetic modifications.
I call bullshit.
We managed to fucking fly.

It is.

Prove it or fuck off. Christians do that dumb shit all the time, telling everyone we're always the last generation and shit.

You have no skin in the game and your claims are impossible to falsify. You're a fucking shill.

We already got off this rock and got on another almost 400k kilometers away
Just have to figure out how to fast

fpbp

Unlike with the claims of Christians over the past two thousand years, we now have the technological capabilities to strip this world of its resources within a few generations. Unlike with the claims made by Christians, we are facing serious overpopulation issues that demand even more resources and create insurmountable social decline. For hundreds of thousands of reasons that I do not have time to list and explain to the blind and ignorant such as yourself, we are closer than we ever have been before to a near extinction level event entirely of our own doing. Make your peace. We are past the point of no return. There is no stopping it now.

The real challenge is how to organize society in a way that makes this a worthwhile goal.
Last time we needed the biggest arms race in history that almost landed us in nuclear armageddon.
Space is not that profitable sadly.

>we are closer than we ever have been before to a near extinction level event entirely of our own doing
Bullshit.
The Cuban crisis was closer. You just want to be all dramatic.

We've been through worse with a lot less. Even if the worst case scenario of global warming happens (which it might) it would at best kill a lot of people and bring our production capabilities to a halt for a couple of centuries for lack of easily accessible ressources.

Hardly the end of the world to be quite honest.

Seriously this show came out on Netflix and now all you fags talk about this guy?cringy niggers

>we always talk about the unabomber

No you didnt faggots I have been here 9 years and have not seen one thread.

>I have been here 9 years and have not seen one thread.
I can remember a couple. But yeah it's not really a staple of this board.
Sup Forums was fond of him for a spell, but it passed.

>Bullshit.
>The Cuban crisis was closer. You just want to be all dramatic.
Fool. I obviously count that particular crisis in my argument. It's recent, technology related and I consider it to still be on going, despite simmering down to almost nothing for a while.

Either listen to me or don't. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest. It will matter to you.

>more grandiloquent grandstanding
See I would listen if you had anything useful to say. But you did not identify the problem correctly and your solutions are all shit. So might as well just mock you for your tone.

In the long run, we are all dead.

OP here. I've never had Netflix or seen any of their shows. Kaczynski released another book last year which I just finished. This is a technology board, so anyone who advocates abandoning technology with as convincing an argument as this man has then it is a relevant topic of discussion here.

Why the fuck was the Unabomber so handsome?

He was right up until the point he reached the conclusion that the problems of modern technology could be solved by mailing random people bombs.

I've seen thread about him now and then on Sup Forums before. Haven't seen one on Sup Forums until now though.

It's high school edgy nihilism thinking mass murderers are cool.

IIRC, the people weren't random, but yeah, you're right. Kind of sucks that he became a jail martyr instead of trying to push a peaceful movement.

He wasn't a mass murderer. He killed 3 people in 20 years.

>not wanting to live in an ultra high tech dystopia as a low life scummer.

They weren't random. He selected people for their connection to technology.

Well in that case you get a pass I believe you. 99% of people on this site now are teenagers, so you can understand my suspicion. I just want all underage teensters to fuck off back to facebook and there are plenty of them in this thread.

nope without technology i would be lost

I'm reading through his manifesto and this guy was absolutely spot on in almost every paragraph.

peope remain the same
but they have much more power now

Anyone who thinks their views require a crusade to be spread can't be right.

I understand your suspicions and also share them in many ways. No hard feelings, user.

>We ain't never getting off this rock without extreme genetic modifications

bullshit we have supressed technology that based on another gravity force and its very efficient

problem is not letting the poo in loos and chinks runaway with it and literally destroy the world economic and social order as we know it... plus its got something to do with the lmaos and some treatys

t. aerospace guy

without technology what the hell would i do all day?

Practical activities. Hunting. Gathering. Erecting shelters. Defending yourself, maybe. It's unlikely you would have all day to sit around trying to fulfil yourself with surrogate activities.

Fucking hell. I'm starting to sound like him and I'm only a third of the way through his manifesto.

ya none of that sounds very entertaining i will happily pass

It's not about "entertainment" it's a matter of necessity in a non-industrial setting in the wild. Your statement is exactly the sort of gibberish Kaczynski wrote against so convincingly in his manifesto and books.

We are going to drag him kicking and screaming into the age of VR waifus, then he shall see the light

He's serving 8 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, so luckily for him he'll miss out on that particular surrogate activity.

>Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it’s more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.

Paragraph 96
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

well then me and him disagree i like my entertainment and i like my technology and you are not doing much to convince me otherwise why should i eish for a world without technology how do i stand to benefit

Do you like Jesus Christ?

Is it true he's a wizard?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You came to my thread and asked a question. I answered it.

Possibly he is. He seems like the type. I'm reading his manifesto now. He is a genius, this man. There is no doubt about it.

oh ok dont scare me i thought an anti tech movment was starting

peak "power" was achieved with the creation of ICBMs decades ago

It seems that anti technologist seem to ignore the benefits of advanced technology.

Old syphilis pictures always remind me of the illustrations in those scary story books I read as a kid.

To a degree he was correct. There are obviously a lot of great things that advancing tech give us access to, but the flip side is that the vast majority of people will now just use to to increasingly placate themselves until they die.

In a perfect world, people would only be interested in computers to do things like math, science, and other scholarly things. Instead we have garbage like YouTube that just churns out garbage for the masses to consume, websites like facebook which feed the neverending search for vanity and self-affirmation, and the explosion of a culture that essentially lives to consume since they've become trained to be okay with being advertised to 24/7.

Computers weren't the mistake, comptuters for the masses were.

And in the 50s we had nukes. And in the 80s we had computer controlled ICBM and "wipe everything response doctrine".
Yet here we are.

I don't think living in the woods, getting raped or enslaved by raiders and dying of the common cold would be a better option...

What is this tech called?

fuck you

if it was not for my computer i would have literally nothing to do at all on my off time what are you even suggesting? that the only time i shouldnt be working is when i am asleep? why does anyone desire this kind of a world?

i NEED technology to keep myself entertained when i am off work

Technology has brought a lot of negative consequences that people overlook but I think he is overracting a bit. I don't think the technological basis for society needs to be destroyed to solve these problems.

so what does need to be done?
what this asshole suggested? if so you can go fuck yourself too

The boston marathon bomber was pretty hot.

yes

A solid read, it seems he wanted to suggest that tolerance for others (perhaps others outside a small group) is inherently unnatural but held back as if to prevent those who thought the opposite from turning 360 degrees and leaving.

I believe that's where Ted is mistaken. His focus on individualism (or individual choice) being a good thing really just plays into industrialist society's obsession with evermore granular ways of distinguishing ourselves from one another. Clothes, music, tv, interior design, etc this 'fake' individualisation could be argued to be what he's fighting against but ultimately humans are cooperative creatures unable to survive on their own from birth. Collectivism makes sense for small groups of humans, tribes, etc. No primitive human thrived solely on their own.

I consider industrialist society to be natural albeit destructive progression of our biological need for community. Technology after-all is nature reacting with nature. There's no third-party introducing these concepts to a natural system. These reactions have been bound to happen since the beginning of time if you're willing to consider determinism as your one true god.

I'll admit, as a gay feminist who votes left I was left with a sour taste of 'everything I've thought up until now was because of societal programming that collectivism is good'.

But thanks to all that there socialisation the alternative seems dire, spooky and perhaps most ironically part of the third group of human drives:
>"those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes."

Overpopulation is a meme. Once a country gets through the initial phases of industrialization the population evens out and even declines to a certain point. People have less children in modern society because they are way more likely to survive until adulthood. Just look at Japan, I don't see them complaining about being overpopulated. Eventually China will hit this point and their population will balance out as well.

>We managed to fucking fly.

Comparing flying with space. KEK, a fucking eagle can fly and no animal can go into space.

Humanity will never leave this rock, we will get nuked by asteroid or something else. We're just a life from from this planet nothing else.
If we create real super AI, the AI will explore the stars not us.

You say that as if every country will. industrialize. In a lot of countries their population is too stupid.

>you must be 18 years of age or older to post here

>Even though his course of action was silly
Not silly, well thought out and accomplished what it intended to.
>could never have dissuaded the masses from either using or designing new technology
At least made some of us aware.
>was he actually right?
Yes, he predicted rabid SJWs and leftist psychology.

Yeah because without techology, everyone would get instasick and instadie. It's not like there are diseases such as cancer and alzheimers nowadays, techology has truly deprecated disease.

I don't have Netflix and am pretty disconnected. Are you telling me that the is a series of about him?

I've read his manifesto and currently reading anti tech revolution. Glad to see discussion on g instead of pol. Out discussion on him is usually ok too.

It is desu

There's a lot of talk in the phlogosphere at the moment about this.

t. netflix cuck

>I have been here 9 years and have not seen one thread.
There were multiple already I have seen at least half a dozen or so and I am not browsing this board religiously.

too bad he didn't send a bomb to bill gates

>And in the 50s we had nukes. And in the 80s we had computer controlled ICBM and "wipe everything response doctrine".
The 50s and 80s were literally only a few minutes ago on an evolutionary scale.

>Yet here we are.
Not for much longer if we continue the way we're going, and barring some monumental catastrophe, we will continue the way we're going until we've completely ruined everything and the mass die-offs begin.

Read the manifesto, you stupid child.

No it is not a meme. Look at India and China. We keep artificially sustaining an unsustainable population on the African continent and now they're flooding into Europe by the untold millions each year. As all of these countries industrialise their birth rates initially skyrocket. That is catastrophic in the modern world where everyone wants a car, computers, a new phone every year and in the process producing billions of tons of waste. Even without designed obsolescence and the greed of end stage capitalism it's completely disastrous and unsustainable. There isn't enough time for any natural levelling off or stabilisation.

These train tracks we're speeding along head straight off a cliff into the abyss.

not him but I'd like you to convince me.

I don't have the time. If you're interested in the subject you could try reading the manifesto we've been discussing:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

If not then leave your questions and I'll be back tomorrow to try to answer any that you may have.

>Once a country gets through the initial phases of industrialization the population evens out and even declines to a certain point.

cause =/ effect

You`re the meme, you mong.

No, he was a mentally unstable MK-Ultra victim.