Was the Industrial Revolution a mistake?

just install gentoo for fucks sake

no, the agricultural one was

Focusing on societal-level technologies was the mistake. Technology in and of itself is not a bad thing, but when technology is used to limit freedom and control populations, you get stress, alienation, and all those other goodies. When technology starts to reduces interaction from interactions to transactions, we've gone too far.

Poor guy. CIA are bastards.

No.

What I find interesting about Kaszynski is that even though he claims to dislike what he calls 'leftists' he has a surprising overlap with Horkheimer's idea of instrumental reason in what he calls 'surrogate activity'.

100 bucks your an Anarchist

No. It's a blessing, we just have to use it right.

>we just have to use it right.
Literally impossible

It really isn't.

>be American
>use technology
>get bombed

>be Luddite bomber
>use technology to create bombs to bomb people who use technology

>don't like technology
>bomb some random people instead of speaking out or trying tin change things

pretty sure the unabomber was autistic

this nigga could have gotten a gf and fucked off to the middle of nowhere and lived off the land and had his primitive pilgrim fantasy like the Amish people instead he chose to chimpout

#TEDWASRIGHT

Technology necessarily leads to our own demise.
Speaking out won't do shit.

Bombing random opponents will?

>Technology necessarily leads to our own demise.
Any reason I can't just make the same claim about agriculture?

Yes.

Even the relationship of the modern economy to the machines is significant with regard to the arousal of forces that surpass the plans of those who initially evoked them and carry everything along them. Once all interest for anything superior and transcendent was either lost or laughed at, the only reference point remaining was man’s need, in a purely material and animal sense. Moreover, the traditional principle of the limitation of one’s need within the context of a normal economy (a balanced economy based on consumption) was replaced with the principle of acceptance and multiplication of need, which paralleled the so-called Industrial Revolution and the advent of the age of the machines. Technological innovations have automatically led mankind from production to overproduction. After the “activist” frenzy as awoken and the frantic circulation of capital-which is multiplied through production in order to be put again in circulation through further productive investments-was set in motion, mankind has finally arrived at a point where the relationship between need and machine (or work) have been totally reversed; it is no longer need that requires mechanical work, but mechanical work (or production) that generates new needs. In a regime of superproduction, in order for all the products to be sold it is necessary that the needs of single individuals, far from being reduced, be maintained an even multiplied so that consumption may increase and the mechanism be kept running in order to avoid the fatal congestion that would bring about one of the following two consequences: either war, understood as the means for a violent affirmation by a greater economic and productive power that claims not to have “enough space”, or unemployment (industrial shutdowns as a response to the crisis on the job and market and in consumerism) with its ensuing crises and social tensions precipitating the insurrection of the Fourth Estate.

As a fire starts another fire until an entire area goes up in flames, this is how the economy has affected the inner essence of modern man through the world that he himself created.. This present “civilization”, starting from Western hotbeds, has extended the contagion to every land that was still healthy and has brought to all strata of society and all races the following “gifts”: restlessness, dissatisfaction, resentment, the need to go further and faster, and the inability to posses one’s life in simplicity, independence, and balance. Modern civilization has pushed man onward; it has generated in him the need for an increasingly greater number of things; it has made him more and more insufficient to himself and powerless. Thus, every new invention and technological discovery, rather than a conquest, really represents a defeat and a new whiplash in an ever faster race blindly taking place within a system of conditionings that are increasingly serious and irreversible and that for the most part go unnoticed. This is how the various paths converge: technological civilization, the dominant role of the economy, and the civilization of production and consumption all complement the exaltation of becoming and progress; in other words, they contribute to the manifestation of the “demonic” element in the modern world

>History.
>Mistakes
Shit tier historical perspective right there.

The only reason we aren't serfs today is because of tech. Something as simple as a washing machine totally changed the game.

The pintupi nine, people who are happy in the modern world, the greater choices available to people (including the choice to live a traditional way of life like the amish), modern medicine, access to knowledge, there are 100s of things that prehistoric hunter gatherers didn't have.

Neo-Luddism is just another nirvana fallacy meme. Even if humans were like the Naavi you could point to 1 drop of motor oil someone accidentally spilled or 1 homeless person and claim "none of this is worth it for that, the horror". Likewise I could point to people watching their children starve during a drought, getting arthritis in your late 20s and dying of an infected wound.

We need a moral code for clear answers and morality is not subjective, it is objective according to principles infallibly proven by stoic patricians. According to these principles even if there were 1000 times more slums and oil spills and only a tiny elite who enjoyed life, it would be worth it for the knowledge alone.

For 500 million years life on earth has just been a bunch of animals and microbes doomed to perish when the sun gets too hot, then in the blink of an eye on this time scale a civilization appears and things get more interesting.

What you believe is the "harmony" of nature is actually an equilibrium, the result of 100s of opposing forces that would devour each other if they could. We are driven by these forces, ironically it is these forces that motivate us to damage the environmnt without concern, but humans have some capability to reel this back in while animals do not.

The guy was literally figuratively fucked in the head by the CIA.

>Speaking out won't do shit.
If he just published his manifesto, he probably would have gotten a few wayward twenty-somethings to hippy communes, which is pretty much the best anyone could hope for.

>Any reason I can't just make the same claim about agriculture?
Agriculture is even worse than technology.