Has anyone in history ever been more right than this man?

Hitler

Jesus Christ

>>1910371
Why is he so right?

File: Vk6U1.jpg (106KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x960px

>>1910389
Well he was right about a lot of things but one things stands out:

>The industrial-technological system may >survive or it may break down. If it survives, it >MAY eventually achieve a low level of >physical and psychological suffering, but only >after passing through a long and very painful >period of adjustment and only at the cost of
>permanently reducing human beings and many >other living organisms to engineered products >and mere cogs in the social machine. >Furthermore, if the system survives, the >consequences will be inevitable: There is no >way of reforming or modifying the system so >as to prevent it from depriving people of >dignity and autonomy.

>If the system breaks down the consequences >will still be very painful. But the bigger the >system grows the more disastrous the results >of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break >down it had best break down sooner rather >than later.

TLDR; Two things could happen from continual technological advancement: 1. Eventual collapse and death on a massive scale never before seen in history OR 2. We successfully use technology to make our lives "perfect" but in the process we dehumanize ourselves and hurt many people in the process.

>>1910400
Wow my bad on the greentext arrows, I'm not a newfag but I hardly ever post.

>>1910400
>Well he was right about a lot of things but one things stands out:
Ya but what specifically? What you listed definitely makes sense, but I think barring new technology that could directly change a person's psychology, the system couldn't improve itself to the point to where it is just as or better than the way things were before its existence,

>dismantle industrial revolution and go live in magical forest dreamland where nobody ever suffers
>people immediately start making things to automate labor because that's what humans fucking do if you don't let them have slaves
>industrial revolution happens

File: 853776-mist-wallpaper.jpg (195KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 2048x1152px

>>1910427
>where nobdy ever suffers

But that's wrong. We are supposed to suffer. But we are supposed to suffer naturally and with dignity.

It took us hundreds of thousands of years to get the point of civilization. It may be a given, but if we destroyed technology/civilization it may take us that long to get back. Or we may never get back. The idea that industrial revolution is inevitable is your own cognitive bias. You assume that because it happens once it will happen again.

>>1910419
That technology and civilization as we know it is destructive and harmful to our psychology.

Our brains evolved over millions of years in a completely natural environment, so that it what it is best suited for. Our current environment is artificial and leads to depression because our brains are not suited for it.

File: sorosroth.jpg (222KB, 1005x1024px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1005x1024px

>>1910400
Maybe this is why we need capitalism. By creating artificial scarcity we give people challenges in their life and keep them grounded. Only people capable of living beneath their means and investing the surplus will end up with ridiculous amounts of money and they will leave it tied up in stock instead of squandering it on cocaine and things. It is a system that works.

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (11KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 400x400px

Going to read his latest book. Not entirely sure he is right but will consider it by reading the book.

File: image.jpg (157KB, 634x702px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 634x702px

does anyone have the kaczynski quote that says liberals, women, and e.i. blacks all relate to eachother, stand in solidarity together because on a subconscious level they admit they are weaker or inferior and they are the ones that actually pass this judgement, not specifically "supremacists."

he says it much better obviously

>>1910371
him and everyone that participated in the romantic movement.

>>1910427
the romantic movement is a first hand account that the industrial revolution was not a pleasent experience. in hindsight we can see the negative effects but at the time I'm sure no one realized what this "progress" was going to do. if we ever go back I'm sure we think twice about progressing.

We should just learn to deal with new technology and normies.

>>1910371

>UTOPIAN BULLSHIT

>MUH NOBLE SAVAGE

>MURDERS INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR NO REASON

wow so great

>>1910371
No

Humanity as a species is thoroughly a piece of shit that would be destroyed if there was any justice in the universe.

File: tumblr_inline_nmuw2rBdEF1ts9ad2_500.jpg (71KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x500px

>>1910651
>Humanity as a species is thoroughly a piece of shit that would be destroyed if there was any justice in the universe.

>>1910647
The first two things you wrote are absolutely wrong however. Even the last is wrong because he did have a reason, though it is very debatable if that was a justified one.
>>1910633
That stuff was actually for the purpose of avoiding fair-weather people. He acknowledges it somewhere, think in this book >>1910608
At least the reviews mention it.

>>1910655
...B-b-but we are

>>1910655
That looks like a mans man right there. Boy I sure wish I was that cool.

>>1910647
>>UTOPIAN BULLSHIT
He didn't believe it that, just that industrial society is shitty.
>>MUH NOBLE SAVAGE
Wrote an entire essay on why that's wrong and how most anarcho-primitivists are retarded for believing it.
>>MURDERS INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR NO REASON
He saw them as enemies for furthering the system and killed them to make a point.

What did he think of humans going into space? Just wondering.

>>1910400
That is vague af.
>If "everything collapses" technology will allow death and killing on an unprecedented scale
>If it doesn't, technology will dehumanize us

We've been talking about this for decades.

>>1911650
He goes more in detail in this one >>1910608

>>1910470
stop. "natural" means nothing, human evolution is natural and thusly the tech we develop is natural too. useless word.

>>1911684
I agree that "nature" and "natural" is misused, but don't you agree that were we are now in might not close to the original environment, and thus could lead to defects in a body adapted to this original environment?
The question is if we are flexible enough to survive in increasingly artificial environment (in the sense of less closer to the original one).

>>1910459
>You assume that because it happens once it will happen again.

Ha!
It has happened more than 'Once'
Most of what you were taught about Pre-History is wrong.
There is PROOF that there was an advanced human civilization well before recorded history. Including industry, electricity (different that we use today), and probably flying machines.

Evolution is a huge LIE. people today are no smarter or more 'advanced' than Romans, classic Greeks, or ancient Sumerians mentally or physically.
Also: The atmosphere was denser, thicker, and contained a higher percentage of Oxygen than it does today. Much less radiation from the Sun/space, better environment, allowed people and animals to live longer.
There is evidence all over the world.

File: 1359356055685.jpg (26KB, 289x309px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 289x309px

>>1912233
>There is PROOF that there was an advanced human civilization well before recorded history

Here we fucking go