Just what exactly is the point of all of this (civilization)...

Maybe for you it is, but for the rest of us not having to work and being able to engage in whatever endeavors we actually want to do is as close to a paradise as it is possible to get.

>be a slave until the time rises to fight for you're beliefs.

t. brainlet

If everyone is a slave then nothing will change, how is the opportunity going to arise for someone to fight for their beliefs?

pic explains it

B-bad goy

>engage in whatever we want

As long as your government and employers approve of it and it’s on your day off

>dude it’s simple; every family just has three kids, and they each have three kids, who have three kids...

Based Ted was unironically right

Industrialization was a disaster for the environment as well as man’s mental, emotions and spiritual health

Wtf I love civilization now

>breeding never resumed

It’s a prank

...

>spend all their time doing things they don’t want to do

Wonder (((who))) could be behind that?

2deep5u

Except no, once automation hits full speed and most people don't need to work anymore most people will have plenty of leisure time and whatever work they do will be strictly voluntary to supplement whatever income they get from various forms of government assistance.

Yeah but birthrates are going down, so this isn't the problem you think it is.

I didn’t want to feels these feels, as I head back to my beloved London.

Who profits from this?

>he fell for the automation/basic income meme

That is first, not possible, and second, the powers that be will never allow that to happen. Too much invested in controlling the economy.

Capitalist economy requires a Ponzi scheme of infinite growth via population.

>>That is first, not possible, and second, the powers that be will never allow that to happen.
Wrong on both counts, welfare programs already exist, the simply either need to be expanded or replaced depending on preference. The wealthy care about their relative wealth in comparison to the rest of the population when it comes right down to it, not whether or not they have to pay more in taxes or whatever.

>Too much invested in controlling the economy.
Oh the wealthy will still have power and influence, of that I have no doubt.

>Modern capitalist economy requires a Ponzi scheme of infinite growth via population.
True, which is why the future economy will be less capitalist then the one we have now.

Everybody.

tell that to the mameluk sultanate and theyll laugh at you, dumb fuck.

Why do people give such a shit about heritage. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms against capitalism and communism that are far more important than your race.

The one has an absurdly frequent rate of turning into a pure authoritarian regime in reality and the other tends to bring about extreme wealth disparity.

These are far more pressing concerns than something as incredibly trivial as heritage.

that's a fine elaborate argument, son

>this is the contemporary vanguard

That dream died decades ago.

Life is not Star Trek; replicators don’t exist. You will have to get a job and leave the basement.

This has nothing to do with what I said. The natural outcome of automation and outsourcing eliminating work for low to average skilled people will be a universal welfare state.

No, because they will repurpose them. They will always be repurposed. AI is a meme; you need to stop pinning your hopes on pipe dreams.

lol no, there will be no repurposing because it will be cheaper to just give the poor money then makework jobs.

>>AI is a meme
You don't need AI for what's going to happen. At least not the kind of AI that everyone thinks of when they hear the words artificial intelligence.

>>pipe dreams
lol This is both going to happen and something I consider to be less then ideal in many respects as most people will spend their days on idle amusements of one sort or another.

if we ever reach full automation I think we just eventually die out anyway

>>Why do people give such a shit about heritage?
Because tribalism is baked into our DNA for all practical intents and purposes and people aren't really logical so much as they use logic and reason as tools to get things that they want for various reasons. Some of those reasons are rational and some are not.

Why would you not care about heritage?

Filthy modernists pls go

To transmute conscious awareness into trinkets so that hedonistic old men can rule over the vast majority of humanity.

These are the principles that civilization should be based on: americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/

>The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race

The REAL 14 words that everyone should memorize and live by.

Kek

>Ecological collapse is going to kill that dream stone dead, but hey, it was nice in theory.
>communist still trying to shill their god awful meme system on the scare tactics of "muh enviorment"
dude, why cant you just get a job?

Fine, I should specify. It's fine to have an interest in your heritage. It's just that almost every time someone brings up their heritage it's always wound up in racial superiority bullshit. Especially on this site.

You can care about whatever you want. It's no skin off my neck if you kill all the niggers as I am not a nigger.

I bet you are so fucking retarded that you dont even realize that Ted didn't just want to destroy industrial technology but all of civilization too since his goals wouldn't even be realized without destroying any kind of organization to begin with. Yeah and of course you fucking post an Evola picture to go along with your shit too even though the last thing traditionalists would want is the destruction of all civilization and organization. Fucking retarded brainlet. You know what would be "based"? It would be "based" if you would stop using the internet and never post here again.

Replace "industrial" with "agricultural".

I mean, civilization has made food and leisure abundant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that decadence and hedonism is correct.

If anything, modern civilization is better for the specific reason that people can actually choose to live the way they want, as opposed to being chained to agriculture as was the norm for 10000 years.

Ted is criticizing humans for producing modern civilization with all its supposed disastrous effects, and yet nothing stops anyone from living life the way he wants people to live, except nobody wants to live that life.

Do they?

I work 37 hours a week out of 168 hours a week and I actually really enjoy my job anyway.

can you elaborate?

>surviving is fun
>it matters what people like
>not enough fun is the problem of civilisation

I mean some people do. Like the Hutterite's, and the Amish but even they aren't "le epic prim" enough for Ted.

The industrial revolution was just a result of a process started thousands of years earlier, when we gave up the hunter-gatherer life to create permanent settlements and began to change our environments to suit our purposes, rather than just living off the land as it presents itself.

What were the negative consequences of farming?

...

To have a large human existence, that is only real purpose of civilization.

no alcohol, no delicious food, no doctors, no dentists, no entertainment, no freedom to travel (except where you can walk), 40 work hours per week vs almost all your waking hours spent on survival, the list goes on. Maybe you were self sufficient but not free.

Surviving is hard. Being bored is a privilege.

Every "freedom" granted by civilization comes with a corresponding responsibility to civilization.
It's an illusion.

The freedoms civilization gives are far outweighed by the duties though.

I mean, have you ever read how life was actually like for humans most of history? Nasty, brutish and short like Thomas Hobbes described it doesn't even come close.

>The freedoms civilization gives are far outweighed by the duties though.
But they're not. You're only conditioned to think that because the only state of being you know is one within the confines of civilization.

>the only state of being you know is one within the confines of civilization.

That's not true, as I just explained if you actually read the rest of my post.

Modern hunter-gatherers spend 15-20 hours a week on "survival". And this is for tribes relegated to the most hostile, remote, or the least productive, pieces of land.

And the transition from H&G to Neolithic was a nightmare. Most of the population malnourished and physically and mentally stunted while the boss men used wheat surplus to raise armies so they could pillage other agricultural communities and rape their women. It was almost literally an age of mass cuckery for the poor schmuck not in a priest caste or a royal caste.

I did and I don't think its relevant to what I am saying

>it's not relevant how shit life was for most humans throughout most of history when we are talking about whether civilization a better state of being

Stop trolling.

We're talking about freedom, not quality of life

Right so freedom matters to you even when you're dying of tooth decay and appendicitis somewhere in the forest because neither dentists nor surgeons exists?

You sound like you actually want humanity to suffer more than it already does.

Don't put words in my mouth.
I wasn't the one who changed the discussion to freedom , but if you want to go back and talk about quality of life that's fine.
I would say that there is more to quality of life than health and material. Happiness and fulfilment are much more important and can exist even in the poorest living conditions by modern standards.

It's like wealth inequality.
Poor people surrounded by poor people are content. Wealthy people surrounded by wealthy people are content. But if you have poor living side by side with wealthy, then you get resentment and the criminality that is measurably associated with inequality.
For someone today to die at the age of 40 seems like a horrible tragedy, but it's only because we've seen others live to 100.
In a thousand years when everyone lives to be 300, a family member dying at 100 will be a source of great unhappiness, so should we not be just as unhappy now?
There can be no such thing as a fulfilled life because, by some future's standards, you always could have lived longer, acquired more possessions, and travelled to more destinations.

The page you posted was talking about the impediment of freedom specifically so the fact you accuse him of "changing the discussion" only makes you look like a retard. Not surprising since illiteracy goes hand in hand with hunter gatherer society.

>Modern hunter-gatherers spend 15-20 hours a week on "survival".

This argument was literally debunked by Ted himself.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

It would take only about 2 weeks for a human man to become used to a primitive existence, as a human woman probably 2 decades.

We'll use some kind of Soma in near future, I hope.

Not him but there is nothing wrong with illiteracy. The Iliad wasnt written down until the time of hadrian. Mass literacy had led to nothing but vulgarity, mass media brainwashing,...

>most
this isn't the 1800's

>The mamluk was an "owned slave", distinguished from the garya and ghulam, or household slaves.
>Mamluks had formed a part of the state or military apparatus in Syria and Egypt since at least the 9th century, during the Tulunid period.

So be a soldier and wait until you can start a revolution?

>Oh and shooting the third-world peasants at the borders too, can't forget that.

Refugees welcome!!!!!

>

Without this civilization, you'd either not be born, be sick from some random disease, dead, or running away from some large predator or hiding in some caves hoping the night would pass by without someone dying
Pretty sure people managed to live just fine before the industrial era, even before any form of civilisation came about.

I see your point, it also led to you making this post.

Imagine you are living in a tribal community, some families gather together for protection while foraging and hunting for food, eventually some neighbhouring tribe moves in, they are using agriculture, and can support many more people than you, so they kill you and rape your women. Naturally the groups of people who gather together in large numbers prevail over the smaller groups and only agriculture can sustain those large groups. Now some other group of people are better at it than the 2nd group i mention because they have learned through collective effort, how to make better weapons. And so on and so on, it started because of mutual benefit and protection. and it has remained thus.

They will be welcome, to lead sandwiches. The current willingness for european nations to accept refugees is already fading, it will be long gone once millions upon millions of muslims and africans are on the move.

they are still letting them in, the media and the government are just covering it up. But its still in full swing

point? why would there be a point?

it's to try to make things better for people

well shit, I agreed with this up until the conclusion it draws

>Modern hunter-gatherers spend 15-20 hours a week on "survival".
Do they? So what. To me, working an extra 20 hours a week to get all the benefits of modern civilization is worth it. Now, if modern civilization ends up destroying the planet's ecology, that's a different matter. But as far as the benefits/work ratio goes, I like modern civilization's a lot more than working 15-20 hours a week to live on a hunter-gatherer level.

>Just what exactly is the point of all of this (civilization)?
Civilization was a forced meme that got taken too far

You're both morons. You're talking about civilization and why it's advantageous to have a civilization. But once those nations start shooting refugees at borders what will the foreigners in Europe + some pro-refugee advocacy groups. They'll fight to protect them. You'll get a civil war. A country in civil war is a unstable society/civilization aka anarchy. Defeats the whole purpose of having a civilization.

finally someone boils it down to the core concept, and someone who seemingly supports it even
the anarchists, the objectivists, the far-libertarians, what they want is for each man to be an island
what they say in their heads, what they cry out in code, is no less than "stop working together!"
putting aside how stupid and wrong this sentiment is, it's also impossible-- you can't force people to be separate and independent any more than you can force them to cooperate

To me the worst part civilization brings is the dependency it creates for it.

There aren't enough foreigners or refugee advocacy groups in europe to make such a war last longer then a couple months at most. Plus all the sorts of people who would make a viable guerilla movement possible(military, police, hunters and firearm enthusiasts in general)would not be willing to fight their own nation for the sake of refugees.

>t. opinion

The whole discussion is a giant whatif but you have to put the situation in context:
>millions of refugees on the borders, ready to pour in and help the native pro-refugees
>internal fighting with constant manpower ready to fight for a better life
>other nations can benefit of a weakened europe in an internal strife and start supporting both groups.

>millions of refugees on the borders, ready to pour in and help the native pro-refugees
There won't be many left after a few hundred to a few thousand of them get machine-gunned.

>internal fighting with constant manpower ready to fight for a better life
Internal fighting from whom? Antifa assclowns who can't win fights with trashcans? I said before, such a fight would last two months at most.

>other nations can benefit of a weakened europe in an internal strife and start supporting both groups.
Those nations will have their own problems with refugees and will not be in a position to provide any substantial aid.

how is this even remotely related to this thread

fuck off /pol/, go discuss your fantasies elsewhere

1. I want more from life than "doing less work".
2. I enjoy better health than both early farmers and hunter-gatherers, and even early farmers had greater food security than hunter-gatherers meaning they wouldn't have to bury their loved ones as often, even if they were scrawnier and shorter on average.

nigger

Civilization ought to be defined as a system of political and economic compromise between people indifferent with eachother, but together simply for the necessity of their survival.

Law absolves us of the necessity to form value.
If I build a fence, it absolves my child the necessity to learn road safety.
Likewise, each compromise (law/contract) that we follow is one more thing that absolves us of forming a value or moral opinion.
>Non aggression toward eachother, for the sake of fair trade.
>Anti-racism for the sake of multiracial cooperation and contribution.
>Increase diversity to increase profit margins from more consumers
>Enforced tolerance and hatespeech laws to minimize cost of racially-induced damage/terrorism.
This is why degeneracy is rampant in civilized societies, and gets worse. It's like an economic system where the cost of maintaining the currency exceeds the value of the currency, it leads to an eventual crash. We're looking at a crash of western society, because the laws and rules are exceeding the value behind those laws. It's like north korea, only without the despotic government. If the government interferes, like it does with the economy, then we WILL have a despotic government.

Communists by and large believe their version of unsustainable industrial society is better than capitalism's version of unsustainable industrial society. Anarcho-primitivism is where all the back-to-nature luddites go, and I'm not an anprim so much as I am a pessimist.

Does it have to have a point? Nobody is stopping you from living off the grid in a hut somewhere. Well technically they might make you pay some taxes but if you don't cause any trouble they won't bother