>>16902154
Of course he's right. Almost everything modern normies are taught to worship as necessary conditions for happiness and life is actually bullshit with no bearing on human well-being. The oligarchy running the so-called First World has a real penchant for actively turning the Third World into actual hell and then boasting to its slaves: "this is what it would be for you without us, without QoL, without GDP, without goyslop, etc."

File: 1466687357394.jpg (78.9 KB)

78.9 KB JPG

>>16902154
>Such a state of affairs is undignified, abhorrent, disastrous for nature, and profoundly dehumanizing.
Yeah, burying your infant children because it was a particularly harsh winter while living in terror of armed strangers was such a fulfilling lifestyle. What a pretentious pseud faggot.

>>16902154
>Was he right?
irrelevant, he was still useful for the machine and directly contributed to it becoming more efficient

>>16903179
>Yeah, burying your infant children because it was a particularly harsh winter while living in terror of armed strangers was such a fulfilling lifestyle
On what basis do you assert otherwise?

>>16903249
I've was actually homeless for months. Having money in the bank and a roof over your head is way comfier. Anyone who talks this shit and has never been trapped in impovershment (as opposed to a tourist pretending to "rough it") is just a blithering pseud.

>>16902154
>Human beings evolved under primitive, low-tech conditions.
fact
>This is our natural state of existence.
FALSE
non sequitur
no justification
appeal to nature

stopped reading on first error.

>>16903692
>I've was actually homeless for months
That's completely unrelated to the question I asked you. Your homelessness experience is strictly a civilizational problem. Try again.

>>16902154
>This is our natural state of existence.
>Present technological society is radically different than our natural state, and imposes unprecedented stresses upon us
These are not true.

The rest is true.

>>16903837
The technological system causes psychosis and extreme divergence from reality, to the point where its slaves start to think humanity began 200 years ago.

>>16902154
1. They continued to evolve well past that threshold, so its clearly not their natural state or they would still exist in that state.

2. The current natural state is radically different than past natural states where there have been global ice caps and global volcanic dust saturation, nature changes.

3. Same thing with nature-induced stress, but at least technology gives us a pressure release valve for natural disasters.

4. Human naturally dehumanize, death still hasn't been evolved against and those problems would be infinitely worse than problems of tech.

>>16903835
Nope, civilization is build by technology and housing is technology and requires machinery to support a house (reminder even a simple wedge is a machine and higher technology than many agents of nature have at their disposal).

>>16903887
You're a mentally ill retard. No wonder you were homeless.

>>16903884
>1. They continued to evolve well past that threshold, so its clearly not their natural state
Please tell me all about the new adaptations you've evolved compared to real people. It's not even a rhetorical question. I strongly suspect human cattle like you is indeed "evolved" (through selective breeding) to be docile, fearful and full of resent against nature.

>>16903892
I am not the one who posted about being homeless, just pointing out that housing architecture and construction is based in technology and machinery.

>>16903893
>Please tell me all about the new adaptations you've evolved compared to real people.
By real people, you mean great apes in their natural state? You want me to describe all the technologies people use that apes don't that have allowed humans rather than apes to evolve to dominated the globe?

>>16903897
>I am not the one who posted about being homeless
Then why are you going out of your way to make him as retarded as possible? Are you a sociopath?

>>16903922
make him look*

>>16903922
You are the one who seems to retarded to understand that houses are made using technology and apes in their natural wild habitat don't build houses.

>>16902154
>>1. Human beings evolved under primitive, low-tech conditions. This is our natural state of existence.
>>2. Present technological society is radically different than our natural state, and imposes unprecedented stresses upon us, and on nature.
This fraudulently implies evolving to thrive under primitive, low-tech conditions was smooth sailing for homo sapiens. It wasn't, it involved untold amounts of suffering through natural selection. Not all individuals were equally adapated for primitive, low-tech conditions. Individuals that were relatively unfit for primitive, low-tech life suffered, died and didn't enjoy as much reproductive success. Nothing changed. Individuals adapated to modern, high-tech conditions will thrive, individuals that aren't won't. Evolution doesn't stop at an arbitrary point of your choosing. There are no brakes on this train. Evolution is a perpetual story of suffering, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

>>16902154
>Such a state of affairs is undignified, abhorrent, disastrous for nature, and profoundly dehumanizing.
Can you point to the natural, primitive, low-tech moral framework under which this is objectively bad? Is this objective morality in the room with us right now?

>>16903928
>houses are made using technology
I agree, mentally ill retard. That's exactly why homelessness as you conceive of it is strictly a symptom of civilization. You wanna make my point for me again?

>>16904036
Can you point tot he natural, primitive, low-tech moral framework under which bashing your head in, instead of arguing with you about what's "objectively bad", is objectively bad?

>>16904045
>Can you point to the (...) moral framework under which (...) is objectively bad?
No, I have never implied the existence of objective morality, unlike you. Now answer the original question.

>>16904052
>No
Ok. So why do Primitivists need to argue with you in terms of moral frameworks?

>>16904055
They don't have to argue anything with me, but they do need to logically justify the implied existence of objective morality if their entire ideology rests on its existence. If they can't, their ideology is not logically consistent, ergo it's nonsense not worthy of any consideration. Which you are instinctively aware of, which is why you keep dodging the question to prevent the cognitive dissonance. You will now double down on disregarding this glaring logical error, most likely by associating it with my person and making a personal attack, thus making it psychologically comfortable to reject entirely.

>>16904058
>they do need to logically justify the implied existence of objective morality if their entire ideology rests on its existence
Be honest with me for a second. Are you off your medications? Where in Ted's manifesto do you see any appeals to "the existence of objective morality"? Certainly not in your quote - that only assumes the reader would find the systematic torment of humanity at least subjectively appalling.

>>16904064
>Be honest with me for a second. Are you off your medications?
Called it.
>Where in Ted's manifesto do you see any appeals to "the existence of objective morality"?
He makes appeals to the vague idea of dignity, as if it was an objective metric homo sapiens are universally subject to.
>Certainly not in your quote - that only assumes the reader would find the systematic torment of humanity at least subjectively appalling.
The average reader finds modern way of life quite dignified, or at least don't hold said dignity in the same supposedly objective high regard ted did, as they're not running for the trees like ted did. If you were honest with yourself you'd notice ted was simply trying to project his subjective moral framework as somehow objective, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>16904072
>He makes appeals to the vague idea of dignity, as if it was an objective metric
>as if it was
How do you get from this subjective impression to "their entire ideology rests on [implied existence of objective morality]"?

>The average reader has my subjective opinions
Irrelevant.

>>16902154
>Was he right?
Yes.

>>16904075
If being undignified in ted's understanding of the word isn't objectively bad, what is the problem exactly?
>>The average reader has my subjective opinions
I never said the average reader has my subjective opinions, i have merely stated they do not align with ted's.

>>16904081
The idea of "objective morality" is in general a symptom of subhumanity. Nothing makes it more clear than the way you shit out patterns of tokens in response to my prompts.

On quite a few occasions throughout history, warring tribes to whom the idea of "objective morality" meant nothing, and for whom good conduct was defined by following the ways of their ancestors, found themselves temporarily united precisely under the banner of dignity, to fight off some local upstart civilization of ignominious mongrels kept together in line only by the "objective" moral code of their god-king.

Dignity has always been the enemy of civilization and its "objective morality". To act like the "moralizing" aspects of Ted's rhetoric would've been alien and incomprehensible in a primitive context is just a mark of your derangement. Brain-damaged human cattle. "People" of this sort genuinely need their brains scanned to study the effects of domestication on humans.

>>16902154
Funny. Some guy called Karl also talked about alienation of people, but not because of technology (such a regarded thing yo blame, AF if technology wasn't more this a tool), but because of how other people used their position in society (and that includes the way they use tech to control others) to control people for their own advantage.

This retard blames "technology" (as a generic thing) as unnatural, and amerimutt teenagers go crazy.

>>16904226
>(such a regarded thing yo blame, AF if technology wasn't more this a tool)
Fucking autocorrect. I meant to say
>such a retarded thing to blame, as if technology wasn't more than a tool

>>16904226
I have not contributed yet, so please refrain from hostility until reading.
>This retard blames "technology" (as a generic thing) as unnatural, and amerimutt teenagers go crazy.
I agree that TJK was imprecise in his characterization, maybe intentionally because he wanted to stir the pot or whatever. But I don't think this means one should immediately disregard the ideas put forth in his manifesto. I want to point out that Jacques Ellul (one of his biggest intellectual influences) in the very beginning of The Technological Society makes a distinction between "technique" and "machine", defining them as separate things. When you say
>as if technology wasn't more than a tool
you probably refer to machines. But considering "technique" as their more abstract counterpart, there is something to be said about its attempt to systematize daily life. For example, the clock is a machine, but the clock has had more of an effect on our lives than its pure mechanical function. Our society uses the clock to commodify our time in a way that has genuine downsides: we now think of time as a resource which can be "wasted", and so we constantly feel the need to be "productive with our time". Sure, this can be a good thing, but it also introduces a new source of anxiety.

I don't know, I used to drink the Kool-Aid a lot more regarding TJK's manifesto, but I still think there's a lot of valid criticisms of the way "technology" has shaped and continues to shape everyday human life. Not to mention that its effect on wild nature, the value of which should be obvious, has been less than ideal. I like trees and animals and somewhat stable climate conditions, and I'm not happy with the idea that human activity is threatening them.

>>16904226
>Some guy called Karl also talked about alienation of people, but not because of technology
That guy was a cretin devoid of self-awareness. Incidentally, he was also a moron scientifically and mathematically, getting filtered by things like calculus.

>>16904245
>I want to point out that Jacques Ellul (one of his biggest intellectual influences) in the very beginning of The Technological Society makes a distinction between "technique" and "machine", defining them as separate things.
Sorry for interrupting, but... uh... do you think maybe there's a reason why Ted himself keeps talking about a certain "technological system" rather than just "technology" in an unqualified sense? Making a pointed stick is technology. Sculpting a mud hut is technology. But neither one of those involves a technological infrastructure and a society that revolves around maintaining and improving it. The technological system has a life of its own. Technology doesn't. Ted wasn't an idiot. Your reading comprehension is just poor.

>>16904251
Yeah, well, I'm sure your beloved mentally ill, hypocrite mathematician never considered that mathematics is not a "natural" thing, and also could be itself considered a technology that is used to oppress and alienate others.

>>16904276
At least that hooknose you worship had the common sense to try to read and understand the source material on "capitalism". Meanwhile you're shitting out the dumbest and most childlike gachas possible, thinking they're some brilliant points that elude people whose intelligence is 3-4 stdevs about yours. It's obvious you never bothered to actually read the source material behind the idea you're criticizing. You're a biological chatbot and the possibility of doing so never even occurred to you. You probably can't even comprehend this criticism and correct your mistake. You don't know that you don't know, and in fact, you lack the mental faculty to know that you don't know that you don't know, even when someone rubs your nose in it.

>>16902154
He's not wrong, but
>>5. Therefore, the system must be brought to an end.
The mistake is to conclude based on too one-sided information.

>>16904256
>do you think maybe there's a reason why Ted himself keeps talking about a certain "technological system" rather than just "technology" in an unqualified sense?
Yes, maybe there is a reason. Great catch. I was extending an olive branch to be reasonable with someone who obviously has a pre-existing opinion about TJK. Lol.
>The technological system has a life of its own. Technology doesn't.
Yes, I agree. Nothing that you say in your post contradicts what I believe; I'm glad we're on the same page.
>Your reading comprehension is just poor.
You are angry. I understand. I also went through a phase of righteous indignation for a few weeks after I read TJK's manifesto for the first time. Eventually you'll realize that trying to start arguments with strangers online upon whom you want to enforce your newfound worldview is useless, since anyone that knows who TJK is will already have made their mind up.

>>16903835
>That's completely unrelated to the question I asked you.
You're a dumbass pseud who can't frame a question properly, so that's not surprising. The point i was making is that a pussy bitch like yourself can't even properly contemplate a more primitive lifestyle because even the premise of homelessness is alien to you. You fetishize discomfort as an academic exercise but you're too much of a coward to actually experience it in the absence of an escape hatch.

>>16902154
Here’s my response.

>1

You can take many approaches to this statement.

First, if we assume he is right and we were to go to primitive, low-tech conditions. How primitive? No agriculture? No pottery? No fire? No spears? The statement is sophistry.

Second, humans are intelligent. Humans are bound to create technology. Civilization did not spawn in one spawn. It was a gradual process across the world around 12,000 years ago. Where multiple cradles of civilization grew. We will always keep evolving.

>2 and 3

I actually agree. Humans were not made for modern society. We require families, friends, a home, and food. Not to work a 9-5 every day. Humans need to feel safe and comfortable with each other. Late-stage capitalism is not feasible.

>4 and 5

This is not proven. Change is always possible. What we need to do is change the culture and society we live in.

Ataturk is a good example of this. He lived in a conservative society and was able to recreate modern Turkey. Whatever you think of him. He was successful in westernizing and modernizing Turkey. We need a figure like that in modern America.

Of course the biggest problem with this man was the bombings he did, which are never justified against innocent lives, so RIP to all the people that died, but he was right on the ripple effects that the Industrial Revolution has caused.

>>16904443
Reminder that this is what you actually wrote:
>I agree that TJK was imprecise in his characterization, maybe intentionally because he wanted to stir the pot or whatever.
Now, if you knew what you're talking about, you wouldn't have said that. And I was relatively polite with you (despite my extreme brainlet fatigue). You deserve to be shat on more for pretending to read the source material without actually doing so. 100% sure you never actually read Ellul, either.

>>16904694
>a pussy bitch like yourself can't even properly contemplate a more primitive lifestyle
Can you?

>because even the premise of homelessness is alien to you
So that's a 'no'. You are, in fact, so cretinized you literally can't contemplate the thing this thread is discussing. Your brain glitches out. You're talking about completely unrelated things and think you're bringing insight about pre-technological society.

>>16904704
>First, if we assume he is right and we were to go to primitive, low-tech conditions. How primitive? No agriculture? No pottery? No fire? No spears?
No technological system.

>Second, humans are intelligent. Humans are bound to create technology. Civilization did not spawn in one spawn. It was a gradual process across the world around 12,000 years ago. ... We will always keep evolving.
A runaway process that parasitizes on human intellect. No one intelligently chose it. No one chose it at all. But sure, you will keep "evolving" into increasingly more degenerate forms, by way of selective breeding, to conform to the needs of this system.

>>4 and 5
>This is not proven. Change is always possible.
How can you fix or reform something you have zero control of and zero leverage over?

>>16902154
No, he was wrong.
The first mistake is he assumes that humans are homologous when its patently obvious this is not the case
His second mistake, which 99.9999% of people also make, is not identifying population as a key driver for societal stress and environmental damage.
Its very a very simple equation really.
Population x rate of consumption = social stress + environmental damage.
A high tech civilization can happily exist provided one or both of the root causes are significantly reduced.
We could reduce the Earth's population back down to 1 billion, hold it there while encouraging smart people to replace the dullards, and with caveats on a global scale, every social and environmental problem would vanish overnight, all while holding onto present technology and continuing to progress.
But while we encourage retards to breed and while we allow retards to consume unrestrained we will never be able to fix the problem..

>>16904726
He admits himself he was imprecise. You have never read anything he's written other than the manifesto and it shows. Try harder.