What are your thoughts on this man?

>or do you mean that it was altered or incomplete ?
no this is fine i was just too lazy to look it up

being too much is humanity's natural state?
yeah interesting i'm not arguing with that but without technology we'd be dying a lot more of young age/exploiting the ressources at a way slower/more sustainable pace.

then again there's india/china.

>but the downfall of humanity and the solution to such problems are pretty much equivalent in term of result

You're gonna have to explain this in detail if you're gonna make a claim like that.

he's the non retarded version of Varg.
I agree with most of his ideas.

Attached: 1518457112268.webm (1920x1080, 2.4M)

He looked too deep into the abyss and fell in. He is more likely right than wrong in the long run.

>The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

That's his premiss. Hard to argue with that.

Well more like current technology puts limits on how the human body was designed.
See how since we can cure most of illness that would kill us, we're having other problems (alzheimer, cancer) which are killing us instead. Or how the massive food output, and mechanization of movement clashes with how our bodies work , leading to an obesity endemic.
Or even in a case or where work is fully automated, people live dull lives because the brain's appetite for stimulation make them depressed and sad, turning to psychoactive substance, instead of filling this appetite with a day of work at the farm
Fixing a problem raises another. Since we're made to never be satisfied and always wanting more convenience and comfort, we'll go towards a system that'll eventually crumble itself since it's elvolving much more rapidly than Earth.
>Case 1
People listen to Kaczinski's advice. Shun off industrial systems to return to a comfy agricultural life. Due to refusing to use technology, specialization of labour doesn't occur anymore, and population shrinks due to a lack of food to sustain it
>Case 2
People don't, and the ever growing industrial output puts too much strain on earth's ressources. Either we can't gather them from space or we can, it'll only postpone the problem. Chaos happens has there's no oil, rare minerals to build solar panel or plutonium to fuel nuclear plants.
Population shrinks due to a lack of food to sustain it.

That's my take on it. It's not about if it will happen, but when. We're living in a golden age of energy, which we aren't designed for. It creates many problem that we need to fix, and keeps the machine alive. But what about when we won't be able to anymore ? While we could gather lithium and all from space, there's a limit at how far we can go to space due to human's life span.

I fail to see what's wrong with case 1

He seems to be a manlet

I don't see anything wrong with it either. It's just harder to implement to due the restrictions coming from within us instead of coming from the reality of "shit we got no more oil".
And people are pretty bad at restricting themselves. It just costs more energy to organize people to not do stuff, than to let nature forces us to not do stuff because, well, we can't anymore.
He is 175cm, 5'9 in freedom units

Both of these cases are addressed in the manifesto, which you clearly haven't read.
In the chaos, humanity can annihilate itself and a world that sustained our creation. We can alter our genetics in order to be better suited to the exploitative System, in which case we cease to be human and become automaton cattle. The system doesn't need "humans" to run it; we're just the sex organs for machines.

No Veeky Forums. No internet porn. No online shopping. No microwaves. No electric lights. No flush toilets. No cars or planes. No toothpaste. No hospitals. No central heating. No paychecks. Even if you are such an internet tough guy that none of these things perturb you even a bit, they perturb almost everyone else.

Attached: no room for debate.jpg (1446x1080, 343K)

I agree, it's not ''harder to implement'' it's a literal lost cause. It still means Unabomber is right.

He was basically Varg without all the crazy pagan viking crap.

Veeky Forums probably loves him because there are tons of reactionaries here and he was the biggest reactionary in history.

>agriculture
Humans are hunter-gatherers. Agriculture is why we're where we are today.

simply put, they don't perturb me because I understand the societal cost for them, as did Ted.

I have read it, I'm just too drunk to make myself clear in English, which is perhaps why I fail to get myself understood so much
Never doubted that claim tho, but I feel it's not as intuitive as it may seem

*overthrows industrial society*
*dies from infected papercut*

No, they don't perturb you because they're words on a page. Living with them, you would be miserable, but you cannot admit that to yourself because you think that K-zeezy was anything more than a footnote on a postcard from nowhere.

>I'd rather be a comfortable slave, than freeman in struggle.

Nietsche's Last Man

>still having paper after the industrial society

It's not intuitive, it's a lost cause. It won't happen. I'm complaining yet I'm part of the problem as I'm not doing anything for the cause.

I'm not drunk but I'm also struggling to make myself clear in English.

/thread
We should have listened

the hunter-gatherer life style for the most part is extremely harsh and brutal. I think mixed hunting and gathering agriculture would be ideal, kind of like the early neolithic farmers.
apparently there hasn't been much evidence for violence in these early societies.

Attached: 800px-Asparn_Zaya_Jungsteinzeithaus.jpg (800x530, 128K)

>he's irrelevant therefore he's wrong

Based soyim

Toothpaste would be the hardest one for me to give up. I've gone long stretch of times without any of the others and was just fine. They're artificial needs. No Veeky Forums and no internet porn would be one of the greatest thing that could happen to me. I'm here because of addiction, and not the good kind.

You're deluded and projecting your own weakness of will onto others. Some of feel the vice grip of the System in a way more than intellectually. Read the Manifesto; it's clear you do not understand how deep this runs.

You listed Veeky Forums and internet porn as the first things you'd miss if we listened to Ted. Just pointing that out.

Every single time I see Unabomber mentioned on Veeky Forums, people usually agree he was right. How common is that outside of Veeky Forums?

People I talk to fall into
75%:
>Who?
10%:
>I read that ahahaha so weird
10%:
>I agree with him but not his methods
5%:
>We're so fucked

Attached: 1519799096469.jpg (664x447, 44K)

People get used to shitty situation. They just die more often to it.
Comfort is great, and we constantly seek more of it. But the way we did is unsustainable.
Ah yeah it happens, it's still great that we're able to communicate somehow.
Of course it won't happen. Do you smoke ? Have you tried to stop smoking ? Addictions are absolutely awful and you need a great deal of organisation to stop doing something you're used to, because willpower will only get you so far.
Imagine imposing on all humanity restriction on how efficient they can be. It's a lost cause indeed, because those who won't will have an advantage, and they'll be able to trample the totalitarian regime of stopping people from making industries
We're just not fit for that

Which correlates with the IQ bell curve, ironically. We're fucked.

It's an unspoken secret in academia; the manifesto's pretty much faultless, but everyone knows it's next to impossible to actually apply it

It's not. Veeky Forums just agrees because it's a cultural of contrarian retards.

Veeky Forums and internet porn ruined your life. It could only get better if those things went away.

>everyone knows it's next to impossible to LEGALLY actually apply it
ftfy

I quit smoking I know how hard it is. Yet internet is the addiction I can't beat. Given that I'm aware of the problem it shows how deep the problem lies. I've given up trying to change the world though. I'm focussing on living the best life I can as an individual.

>I'm focusing on living the best life I can as an individual.
That's how you change the world, my man.

Yes I noticed that. I'm not much of a Jordan Peterson fan but I do like that one quote where he says 'how are you going to overthrow the financial system if you can't clean your room'.

Nah, legality has nothing to do with it, the common pleb's too addicted to tech

Even the contemporary upper class is addicted to tech it has nothing to do with social class. Even us here we probably all have a IQ far above average, are aware of the problem yet are wasting the day on Veeky Forums.

>have decent points
>fuck it all up by blowing people up

Attached: D85233EF-E456-4D7E-B6F9-A6DB3A8887D4.png (239x200, 17K)

People have been saying that we would run out of food since Malthus. Its a tired argument

Of course, if you keep predicting the apocalypse, eventually you may be right

>have decent points
>never get taken seriously because no one hears about you

Attached: IMG_1137.jpg (964x534, 66K)

Malthus was also right.

But nobody would care otherwise. At least now he's this icky hobo psycho who bombed some random people or something, nobody but internet hipsters care anymore.

who gets referenced in Good Will Hunting

>Of course, if you keep predicting the apocalypse, eventually you may be right

If you predict the form and cause of the apocalypse you're allowed to try to prevent it.

Read about Calhoun and behavioral sinks

If you told Malthus the earth could've supported 8b people in 2018, he would've called you crazy

maybe you agree with his main idea that we'll run out of food, but the devil is in the details. his actual predictions were dead wrong

>If you predict the form and cause of the apocalypse you're allowed to try to prevent it

of course. but, if you make super general predictions, without a time frame, you can't help anyone. your predictions aren't testable

Malthus's argument was based off on resource scarcity where as Ted's is based upon us having all the resources we need, but the system we created is antithetical and exploitive to human existence.

I agree with his idea that our number will be the cause of our end.

>we shouldn't worry about risks because we can't know if they're real until they happen

Attached: IMG_0991.jpg (250x238, 27K)

This was research done in the 60s on rats
read about external validity.

I'm not good enough in English to accurately explain what I mean but you lack long term vision. What you're saying is 'this is fine until, it's not fine' but lets not worry about that seing as for now it's fine.

Have you actually read it? And still you don't see parallels in our modern world?

How does this detract from the validity of a behavioral study?
Behavioral psychologist have historically used animals to prove many of their greatest points.

didn't the unabomber also think we would run out of resources and starve/collapse society?

>behavioral psych
can't replicate any of their studies. the field is a joke right now

>mfw economics has been wrong for 100 years. we should've just used rats in a barn to model the economy

Read his Manifesto, he clearly states that the system will become so unbearable but we will be so plugged into its comforts (bread and circus) that we don't realize it, and that the system will begin warping humanity so far that we can no longer experience the negatively of the system, becoming fully integrated cogs in it. The System would never allow itself to collapse.

i mean you can draw parallels almost anything. that doesn't mean the parallels have significant implications for society

>none of the studies can be replicated

Patently false, open a modern psychology book and you'd see direct references to many of the studies done under Skinner.

That's really not an argument.

oh, so its like brave new world stuff. can't argue with that stuff. that's more philosophy than social science

i mean that's kind of the point

if you make an outrageous claim -- like complex human society (something social scientists have been struggling to predict accurately for 100s of years) is as simple as rats in a barn -- the burden of proof is on you

>philosophy can't be argued but social science can
user I...

You really need to Read his Manifesto before you begin to form opinions based upon shit posts on the internet.

Attached: IMG_1029.jpg (668x729, 45K)

Validity has been given by precedence set in other behavioral studies.
The question is not whether we have something similar going on so much as HOW much do we mimic it which is an argument you haven't been able to supply.

this is more about social psych i.e. what happens when you crowd people in cities.

skinner being scientifically rigorous doesn't have anything to do with replicating results about rats dying in a barn with people

no one is trying to argue operant conditioning isn't a thing. it totally is

>philosophy can't be argued but social science can

philosophy can absolutely be argued. I just don't know anything about it/how to argue it

Nice little back pedal you did there.

Start with the Greeks

Attached: IMG_0830.jpg (871x480, 83K)

i mean if you try find a tipping point in data on human population density you'll completely fail

i mean every time you cross the road, there's a risk you get hit by a car

at a certain point, the benefits outweigh the risk

The risk of absolute total annhiliation as a species under a system that has been predicted pretty closely by Ted seems to lay credence to his claims.

Ultimately right, should've made more of a show in his trial and be an irritant in the system instead of just pleading guilty

this which comes down to 'you lack vision'

It's possible that if he had acted like a wild man in his trial he would have been written off as a looney. Though hadn't he given a powerful oration he would have been a legend. He was, however, social inept so this was unlikely.

Explain

Though had me*

HAD HE**

Attached: IMG_1114.jpg (633x758, 94K)

dumb phoneposter

Dumb nigger

Attached: IMG_0713.jpg (620x348, 39K)

whiter than you muhammad

>pic is not even Plato

Who is it?

He misses the point. What threatens humanity is being stuck in a planet whose inevitable future is to be uninhabitable, and eventually, be destroyed. A this moment, we know that the probability of extinction for us, and every other known species, including those so cherished by Ted, is 100%. His going back to nature "solution", only increases the problem, delaying a real solution to life's essential problem: continuing its existence.

A more advanced extra terrestrial sentient life form might show us the way. But since we can't count on that, there's only one thing we can do: keep pushing forward until we find a way to get the he'll out of here. In the meantime, we should spend no time listening to uni-planet reactionaries like Ted, Greenpeace, Global warming histerics, SJW's, Malthusians, zero growth lefties, and the rest of the lot.

haha Xd right guys

that can't work haha look at my argument wee ohhh zoo weeemamma