Is this historically accurate or bad history?

Is this historically accurate or bad history?

Idk but a book I'm reading says the same thing about agriculture

>technology is bad
>uses technology to spread his manifesto and carry out his attacks

Bad history I think.

Although industrialization is objectively bad for the workers (which in modern times can span an entire society) it's completely necessary in an urbanized global civilization.

Just think of pants. If 3 million humans are going to cluster together in an urban center where the F are they going to get enough pants?

The market demands that someone provide all those people with 3 million pairs of pants. Now say they need more than one pair and there are 70+ cities in the same predicament....

Somewhere, someone has to make all that.

The agricultural revolution was a mistake.

I don't see what is unique about the industrial revolution, if you are going to make that kind of claim might as well make a claim against civilization in general

That's kind of the point. He was a post-modernist, using the assumptions of modernism against itself.

I think that was his point.

We started using up resources from the planet we haven't planted ourselves, if we run out of those, it's game over for us, so yes.

at some point during the korean war some captured gi's defected

any other people on the planet would just assume its one of those things that happens in wars, maybe they were forced to act as if theyre defecting or maybe they found a girl or something, but the cia and the pentagon folks couldnt be fooled that easily

they immediately understood that the commies have developed some unknown technique by which they can warp the minds or influence the brains of americans to the point they can get them to leave the way of capitalism and democracy for communism - they named this hypothesised technology 'brainwashing'

they were not about to allow a 'brainwashing' gap, so they got around with some military officers and psychologists and started developing a theorethical framework for brainwashing techniques of their own

one experiment they did involved getting colledge students to simply sit and talk with a trained proffesional, who was supposed to talk them into pretty much loosing their minds, sort of verbaly manipulate them till they start cracking, just to gauge the baseline limits of a average mind of a average american of military service age

what they didnt know was that the dude they used to conduct the experiment was a actual sadist, not as in, dude was sadistic, but a genuine sadist, so he realy realy enjoyed his job, and kind of overdone it with several subjects, especialy the weaker ones

the experiment was generly a miss, all it prooved is that if you get a dominant person to mess with someone mentaly and pull the right strings you can get them to go a little off, anyones wife could have told them that, some of the subjects realy did crack, some ended up getting psychiatric help and so on, but most recovered

kaczynski didnt recover

true story

>using a printer to make multiple copies of a document faster than handwriting it each time
>using a bomb to kill people and destroy stuff faster than stabbing them or smashing each brick one by one

Dunno, seems like trying to use that as proof those things are bad is terrible equivalent of saying "lol I was only pretending to be retarded".

Which book is that?

He talks about it in his manifesto. But he said that technology should only be used against itself, not for spreading his ideas and browsing Veeky Forums, for instance.

To play devil's advocate, then couldn't it be just as beneficial for humans to not live in urban centers and be limited to rural villages that limit the population to only what the village can sustain, reducing the need for overwhelming industrial demand and creating self-sustainablity?

This was the prevailing model for most of human history.

Tell people to stop fucking, eating and desiring more complex entertainment.

I mean, I don't really have to. Industry unable to sustain such growth will itself lead to a collapse and regression until stability is reached and the cycle repeats.

Isn't Marx's theory of communism supposed to be a consolidation of this and industrialization?

Then why bother writing this if at the end it won't even matter.

Because I actually come to this board to take part in discussions and I was interested in thoughts on the subject matter. Christ no wonder this board has gone to shit.

1) Too early to tell.
2) Depends on what you value.
Based on what I value, the IR was awesome. I'm very glad that I'm not a 17th century peasant.

No worse or better history than "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles," and yet Marx is well respected around the world.

technology isn't bad, neither is industrialization. the way it was handled, however, was basically unofficial slavery, and still is to a lesser extent.

Both of these are half-true, the true disaster was the private ownership of land and the means of production respectively.

no, the human race was the real disaster from the start

You people here have read the Manifesto or are just talking about the quote?

I've read it, it starts out strong but kind of bogs down by the middle. His strongest points are the ones he borrowed and modified from Jacques Ellul's Technological Society and the parts about oversocialization.

It's dangerous history.

So was your mother.

Do you also listen to advice from Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh?

Not an argument.

>bad history

Without it, I don't know how you intend to avoid all the inevitable ultimate disasters.

The Amish ain't got no space program.

The biggest threats to humanity currently are the ones we created ourselves.

>getting attacked is bad
>uses momentum of attacker to help judo throw him

>viruses are bad
>uses viruses to vaccinate against viruses

What a ridiculously stupid argument. The fact you can exploit a problem to help eliminate itself isn't evidence the problem isn't a problem.

Maybe... Maybe not... Then there's GRBs and methane pockets, T6+ solar flares, seafloor bacterial blooms, and everything else cosmological and terrestrial that can wreck this biosphere beyond repair, half of which we won't see coming. ...and then there's several things which are just plain inevitable that we know will one day come with certainty.

At least when it's something we do ourselves, we'll have some say in the matter, and might see it coming, but there's any number of things that could happen any day (maybe even today), with no warning whatsoever.

Without industrialization, you just doom the species to extinction. At least with it, you have a chance. Even if it also introduces the possibility of offing yourself first - better some chance, than none at all.

Live like a beast, die like a beast.