/tech/ - Technology

Technology & Computing


New Reply
Name
×
Sage
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files32MB total
Tegaki
Password
[New Reply]


download_(18).jpeg
[Hide] (8.3KB, 234x216)
Was uncle ted ultimately right? Is humanity fundamentally at odds with modern technology?
>>8663 (OP) 
>Was uncle ted ultimately right? Is humanity fundamentally at odds with modern technology?
Isn't that the tail-wagging-the-dog Anon? Regardless, there's no putting this back into Pandora's box it's already too late & it will have to run it's course no. From the ashes will rise a new age to come.

Till then, just ask yourself What would Uncle Ted do in this situation? and you'll do fine.
>>8663 (OP) 
He is wrong. Technology is a tool. The tool is a tool of suppression, invasion and mind control for ((( them ))).
Replies: >>8667
>>8666
>He is wrong. Technology is a tool. The tool is a tool of suppression, invasion and mind control for (((  them  ))).
Satan, pls. Read the book first before spouting off mindlessly, kthx.

https://archive.org/details/kaczynski2
>>8663 (OP) 
Bill Joy (the creator of vi) also wrote essay titled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us".
>https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

I think too many programmers are not willing to think about ethics (especially what they do at their job). Also, I'm pretty sure that ((( powers that be ))) will create a social credit system on top of the mass surveillance system they have built, At this point, I'm hoping for a huge solar flare or something.
>>8669
>I think too many programmers are not willing to think about ethics (especially what they do at their job)
This is a thing with wagies in general. These days, any evil is justified, as long as you get a wage for it. What should be an aggravating factor is now a justification.
>>8669
>I think too many programmers are not willing to think about ethics (especially what they do at their job)
Most tech people are just egoistic nerds satisfying their need for power through surrogate activity regardless of the consequences - i.e. leaving dozens of other people without any meaningful goals.
I remember Ted saying something along those lines.
Well, I am constantly thinking about this, to the extent that it is inhibiting my ability to do my work.
About to get an EE certificate and the thought of what kind of work in this field I would even want to do is bogging me down. 
What I need is to find some kind of meaningful activity without serving the ((( powers that be ))).
Replies: >>11374
Technology sucks dick, it's all faggots.
>95% of the population shouldn't be allowed to have an internet connection
>Limit the the bandwith to modem speeds
>Ban smartphones and all apple devices
put niggers and jews in concentration camps
Do that and you'll have a much more harmonious society.
Maybe you guys should focus on the people causing the problems with technology, instead of focusing your efforts on an abstract concept that exists only in your heads.
Replies: >>8697
>>8687
Exactly what I said. Technology is distributed and developed by some people, those people decide how technology should function.
>>8669
Most wagie jobs are completely unethical. At this point only surviving off grid seems to be ok.
tech.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 1024x1290)
Technology is a tool like any other, but when that tool is used by malicious beings who are then defended by a stupid minority and a complacent majority technology becomes harmful to society. 
The problem is is not technology. The problem is greed and stupidity.
DozQbVNU0AACr8U.jpg
[Hide] (144.2KB, 1024x802)
>>8663 (OP) 
Replies: >>10353
>>8663 (OP) 
He was completely right on the technology but incorrect on the conclusion. Humans are outdated and its good that technology replaces them.
Replies: >>10075
Memes aside, I ain't reading his shit. Does he have a concise and realistic plan to stop territories that are willing to utilize advanced technology from invading those that are not? Now and forever?
Replies: >>10098
helloreddit.jpg
[Hide] (5.3KB, 170x300)
>>10073
>human... le bad
>>10074
Literally to destroy the whole industrial technological complex on a global level. So, no he does/ did not not have a realistic plan besides blowing random nerds up.
>>8663 (OP) 
>technology is bad
There is nothing stopping you from throwing away all your electronic devices and spending the rest of your life reading books by candle light. Nothing except your own hypocrisy.
Replies: >>10313
https://archive.is/cVdUV
F
Replies: >>10302 >>10313
Spoiler File
(707.4KB, 719x1280)
>>10301
F
Replies: >>10313
>>10132
>>10301
>>10302
Wait. He's been alive this entire time?
Replies: >>10314 >>10338
>>10313
Or more-accurately, WAS alive this entire time?
I_got_a_parcel_for_you.png
[Hide] (679.1KB, 750x594)
Replies: >>10338
>>10313
I'm surprised as well. No updates on the man for years + all photos of him were taken last century, easy to believe he's already dead.

>>10325
Kek, I love the Babylon Bee.
>>8669
>solar flare
>hope
I sure hope not. that would only legitimize a dystopia considering they're already hiding the tech and had "archived" fabrication plants on DUMBS/etc.
it will only strip us of all technological power and reset us to back to iron age slum while they're nanotech and shit.

>will create a social credit system on top of the mass surveillance system they have built
anon, do you not know how adtech industry works? it works by being able to track people and devices, interconnect the metadata (get it, Meta lol)
https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/90909240/

>>8832
BASED. RIP
Ted's views on technology were a more extreme version of Jacques Ellul's philosophies. Ellul wasn't entirely against technology, he believed that if technology was used incorrectly it could enslave us making it so technology controls us instead of us controlling technology. Ted believed that technology would enevitably enslave us even if we were carefull so he decided that humans should not use advanced technology.
Replies: >>11111
He was fundamentally right to the point that most arguments against him fall back on religion, pseudo-religion, or "technology as a tool". The last of these is an obvious sign that one has not read his work. He didn't argue against just "modern technology". He argued against every large scale technology (technologies that could not possibly made and sustained by a single person, much less a village's group of craftsmen, such as refrigerators and computers), especially those rooted in the Industrial Revolution (which he views as the invention of the steam engine because that's where most agreed the Industrial Revolution started until recently), because they all inherently limit freedom. His definition of freedom isn't the same as society's, the System's. Freedom to him is autonomy (ultimate freedom of choice and self sufficiency in daily life as an individual or small group) and security (ultimate freedom to protect oneself and not be at risks by things outside of your control as an individual or small group). To him, freedom isn't legal "rights" and "legislation" because those are inherently part of the System, and the System molds humans into what best fits itself rather than what best fits humans because the System would collapse otherwise. 

To sustain large scale technologies, the foundation of the System, freedom must be encroached upon. Factories need workers who are overseen by a manger who receives orders from a company bureaucrat who gets legislation from legislators who get standards from unelected officials and specialists, etcetera. The individual is powerless in this process. The features and standards of his refrigerator are not determined by him. The market argument can be made, but the market is a sham of phony choices. The individual must either buy a refrigerator that meets the quality standards of the bureaucrats, many if not all of which will see the same amount of use in his daily life, or enter into antiques and after market buying, leaving the function and quality of his purchase again to people he does not know and cannot control for something the System tells him is unsafe.

For a more societal example, take the automobile. At first, automobiles were introduced and appreciated as novelties. Cities, towns, and human life in general weren't built around automobiles. As technology progressed, the automobile became more affordable and adopted. With this mass adoption came a change in urban planning. Suburbs appeared, and, even in the countryside, the average man could no longer walk to work, his produce market, his place of leisure, and back home in a timely manner. The face of human life became scarred by roads and highways, and the freedoms of both automobile owners and the walker were denied. Automobile owners had to endure increasing regulations and fittings with the new infrastructure (i.e. stoplights, inspections, airbags, sensor minimums) while walkers had to endure the effects of these changes on their previous routines (i.e. crosswalks, jaywalking, drunk drivers, traffic, highways, long travel times, pollution). The automobile, on paper, seems quite fine. It lets you go from one place to another in a quality controlled environment with stored luggage, and you can listen to music while doing it. For reasons I already explained, the automobile is against freedom. All technology is like this. It starts innocuous because the System hasn't adapted to it. It ends restrictive because the System has adopted it.

My biggest gripes with Ted are his views on history, governance, and race, but those aren't /tech/-related.
Replies: >>11114
>>10993
It's not the technology itself that's bad, its the fact that a tiny minority use it as leverage to control the masses. So it just comes down to a human problem in the end. The source of the problem is human nature, not technology. You can greatly reduce their influence by limiting technology, but ultimately the root of the problem must be addressed.
ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (863.8KB, 1252x704)
>>11111
>>11111 (holy checked)
This.
>>11109
>system
The "system" way of thinking is a misdirection. The "system" is a concept and is not real. If the  "system" is the society complex in which our current hell is made, then the problem is people. There are people with power and/or resources to change the "system". But they either don't, or even worse progress their plans to send us to a deeper hell. Most of them are jews. They then control the mass in order to adjust the "system". The mass either  are too stupid to realize this, or compliant to this in exchange of money, sex and other goods. At the end, there are those who are not compliant to this but do nothing, try to escape into smaller and smaller safe zones, or are trying to do something about this.
If the "system" is the problem, what is stopping you from changing it? There are polices enforcing laws that you don't have the resources to change. Then why can't you change the law? There are the mass who won't vote for you and other ((( politicians ))) who compete with you. Then, why can't you buy off a country or an island? You don't have enough resources and guess who is gatekeeping them. Even if you have your own country, why can't you stop the "system" from entering it (through media, education, imported food, or even army)? There are other countries who will destroy you for that. Keep on this way and you find out ((( people ))) who have the most wealth and are ceos could have made a difference.

>technology
I want to have autonomy as well. If the problem with technology is that only certain people or groups of people can build them, then the same can be said about food, metal or others. Without miners, you can't get metal. If a person is to be autonomous, he only has so much time to be able to gather food on his own and other resources. He would not be able to mine, or acquire other resources. An autonomous person or people is only possible on a land with rich resources and at a population level stone ages can sustain. Otherwise, there would be resources that can only be acquired from a person or a group of people.
Why is this not a problem but it is a problem with technology? It is because of competition and lack of monopoly of power. With a consolidation of power, it is ((( those ))) with power that decided freedom would also be monopolized.
Replies: >>11381
>>11111
>but ultimately the root of the problem must be addressed.
And how will that be done?
Replies: >>11358
>>11357
see >>10153
image.jpg
[Hide] (307.6KB, 1600x993)
In ancient times, there were plenty of people who refused large-scale civilization. Taxes and laws restricted their freedom, so they escaped to live in smaller groups in the wilderness. They had freedom, but they never invented arithmetic, irrigation, or iron tools etc, and so the civilizations expanded and they couldn't compete.  

It's unfortunate that technology restricts our freedom, but large-scale collaboration (in the sense that all employees at a company are collaborating) is too advantageous. Especially in the long term. 

Frankly, even if the little guy has less freedom, that's not important. There's 7 billion more little guys than before the industrial revolution. Meanwhile, the freedom and power of the human civilization has increased massively.
Replies: >>11375 >>11435
>>8674
>What I need is to find some kind of meaningful activity without serving the (((  powers that be  ))).
The come help us build opensauce robowaifus Anon.
https://alogs.space/robowaifu/catalog.html

It will be extremely meaningful to millions of men when we succeed. And I can assure the Globohomo and their cabals are no friends of ours.
16c856880dc45e498bcec8834e2819a0f41b9ac35f2443e17151155cec256e9d.jpg
[Hide] (21.6KB, 250x155)
>>11366
we also know there were lots of illiterate people because they wrote it down
1661049927865839.jpg
[Hide] (98.1KB, 668x1000)
>>11114
>the system is not the problem, it's the people
It's the same as saying Heroin is not the problem, it's the addicts. 
If the system can be abused in the way it has been for the last 100 years or so, then indeed one has to conclude that it is faulty.
The right - everything that's sane and decent in this world - has been on the losing end even long before the chosenites took the stage. Think about Bismark for example - one of the founding fathers of the German nation. In the end the nation state was what enabled globalism. It was just the next logical step.
Think about National Socialism - the last large scale rebellion against the decay - it ended up using the technology to annihilate large parts of its own livestock in a devastating war.

Indeed most people are dumb cattle and will always go the path of the least resistance - only few can resist, not turn into soulless husks - as such the satanphone and the internet is equivalent to freely issuing Heroin to the population. The usefulness and damage it does to the society at large stand in no relation.
Watching old interviews I am always taken aback by the rhetorical abilities of the average person before all the mass communication tech came along even as far back as the 70s/80s. https://onion.tube/watch?v=eNT1L3jGjbA

The only way I can imagine right now that this modern technology could coexist with humans in a healthy way would be some kind of collapse (that is not some jew instigated gayop) like Faye predicted.
Small communities where honorable people consiously get together to isolate themselves from the niggercattle to form some new myth beyond the long refuted continuous progress narrative.
Replies: >>11388
>>11381
>Heroin is not the problem, it's the addicts
Yes, anyone stupid to do drugs is the problem. It is not a new invention, like jews and their tricks.
By saying "the system", you assume it exists. It is an illusion that there is a system. Only resources and power are real. They determine "the system" illusion that you perceive instead of the other way around.
If you are given 99% of money or army right now in the world, tell me how a system stops you.
Anything can be abused. Human nature being the most common, then humans are faulty and should be removed. Just because something can be used wrong doesn't make it wrong. Wrong or not is a human construct.
Of course there are artifacts created with the purpose of causing harm. Whether they should exist or not is a matter of decision by people with power. But technologies is not one of them.
Smartphones and the internet could have been a good thing. You can make the same case for books. It is the content and management of them that matters. Smartphones could be fully open source. The internet could have been how it was in the past without political control. Browsers could have been just a VM with a simple instruction set (not java bytecode shit).
If people are always stupid and heroin are freely available. People should be removed instead of heroin. Even if you remove heroin, they will just find an alternative. There are always rats who take advantage of others to gain power and resources. The only way to win this is with more power and resources but used to remove receptive people and rats.
>11366
>11375
>((( we )))
Civilization didn't gain freedom and power. ((( They ))) did.
Replies: >>11412 >>11433
>>11388
>Smartphones and the internet could have been a good thing. You can make the same case for books. It is the content and management of them that matters. Smartphones could be fully open source. The internet could have been how it was in the past without political control. Browsers could have been just a VM with a simple instruction set (not java bytecode shit).
Even if we live in a world where these technologies were made with good intention and were all open-sourced, they can still be abused by the elites. Just look at Wi-Fi routers. Now, every single one of them is potentially a 3D camera that can see through walls without any modifications, thanks to AI. I highly doubt that the creators of Wi-Fi ever intended it to be used that way.
Replies: >>11434 >>11438
1620856692053.jpg
[Hide] (89.3KB, 700x525)
>>11388
It doesn't fucking matter if smartphones are open sores or if it uses java or whatever irelevant nerd shit that isn't even related to the issue at hand.
Without the internet and smartphones ((( They ))) wouldn't even have a medium to spread their globohomo brainwashing in the first place.
Smartphones were made with the intention to make computers available to people who shouldn't even be near them.
And yes, that's the majority of the population. 
The masses are pleasure seeking idiots. But they would be much less so if they didn't have the possibility to act out their most depraved hedonist urges wherever they go.
Especially women which are even more susceptible to the brainwashing. And call me a failed normalnigger - but I just don't care about corporate 2d depictions of females that's supposed to keep me a good docile goyim. I'll stay incel as long as I don't get a real artificial womb where I can shoot my useless autism mongoloid genes into. I WANT A ROBOWAIFU 
NOW!
Replies: >>11436 >>11443
>>11412
Exactly good intention doesn't mean anything. It's completely naive to believe this.
Technology has  it's own dynamic completely independent of human intention.
It will just reproduce like a real living organism, devouring everything that stands in its way in the process.
1492283640348.jpg
[Hide] (31.8KB, 396x353)
>>11366
We have only lost freedom over time, legally, as more and more laws become a thing. We've only lost power, and now there's a ton of people without power that even the unlucky few peasants born before us had. Depending on where you live even falling asleep outside is illegal thus being homeless is illegal, tip of the ice on that. They made so many bullshit tyrannical laws. There's too many to even thin of. LIke, I can own a gun but not have it in a bar, hospital, gov office, school, jail, etc, and cannot even duel to the death anymore? Hookers banned for the poor when escorts are there? Trickle down economy? Silver quarters were worth how much, 20x my money? min wage could be 300 usd an hour after all the data is done??  Middle ages were taxed 15 percent at most and only worked 4 hours a day? No mandatory insurance and shit. No privacy, no defense, no legal representation due to inflation, there's just nothing but slavery and they call it wages. 300 because we make 10x the shit we used to by the by, and by we I mean the USA as it's a US perspective. We have for profit prisons and the chain gang, also community service that can be mandatory, but le slavery is illegal. We have voting but you get two shitty options? Fixing it is terrorism?
Replies: >>11438
>>11433
/throd.
>>11412
It is not about the intention. It is about using things for the benefit of yourself. When I say could have been a good thing, I mean controlling technology for yourself. Destroying technology remove the possibility all together.
>>11435
This.
amstrad-cpc-6128-1.jpg
[Hide] (99.1KB, 743x552)
>>11433
Before the masses got on Internet, they just spread propaganda through TV, movies, music, radio, and of course schools. So even without smartphones, they'd still be spreading propaganda to the masses the old way.
The main reason smartphones and other modern tech are bad is because (as others pointed out) they're used as control and surveillance mechanisms. The 80's computers were too simple and limited to support that type of subversion. And also, they were generally designed to be programmed by the user, without any limitations from nanny "we know better, it's for your own good" operating system and hardware.
Replies: >>11446
>>11443
>without any limitations from nanny "we know better, it's for your own good" operating system and hardware.
My own view is far, far more cynical than that today Anon. The Globohomo's Surveillance State division absolutely intends to provide conclusive data to their Police State division to kick your door in for wrongthink and drag you into the Ministry of Love's torture chambers before offing you.

Back in the the 80's? Maybe there was some of that Nanny State shit. Today it's Satanic AF b/c ((( reasons ))).
>>8663 (OP) 
yes, no doubt
[New Reply]
46 replies | 13 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

Captcha:

Select the solid/filled icons
- news - rules - faq -
jschan 1.4.1