So far the goals of /TKG/ have been: >creation of FAQ >creation of /prep/list >make memes >keep threads alive >have informative, educative and entertaining discussion
ITT: discussion not only Ted's published works, but all related subjects as well, such as self-sufficiency, self-improvement, SHTF, /ggg/, /prep/, Transhumanism, propaganda techniques, and anything else anons ITT might consider related.
>Any and all thoughtful subject-related posts are encouraged and appreciated, especially pro-tech or anti-Ted posts. As long as they are thought-out and well-defended, these types of posts certainly have a home at /TKG/.
Low on schizos for a psiop? Just post about how smart a lunatic was! Rake in those yummy sympathizers.
Juan Rivera
I have a question: How can Ted, (or anyone who follows his ideology) be against technology as “unnatural” when it has been the natural path of humanity for over 12,000 years? How do you attempt to reverse something this natural, the drive to advance onesself? Even if we do return to a caveman society, how do you ensure technology does not arise again? Isn’t your entire attempt to return to nature unnatural itself?
Brody Williams
What would need to be done to sever the fiber optic cables that connect North America to Europe? Fiber optic can’t be that tough. The locations are public. Cut three or four cables and you knock out a good deal of internet traffic. With the pandemic going on that’s gonna scare the shit out of a lot of people.
Sebastian Ortiz
>How can Ted, (or anyone who follows his ideology) be against technology as “unnatural” when it has been the natural path of humanity for over 12,000 years?
>Isn’t your entire attempt to return to nature unnatural itself?
There is an inherent contradiction in your premise: if you, user,accept that technological progress is indeed natural, then it should follow that ANY action taken by man, whether FOR the progress of technology or AGAINST it, is aso natural. In other words, there is nothing unnatural about any actions taken by the human mammal, thus, any attempt to thwart technological progress is also within the confines of the Natural.
To put it simpy with an example: it is quite 'natural' indeed for lions to hunt, kill and devour gazelles.... Should gazelles be expected to simply NOT run for their lives because their demise is somehow 'preordained' by nature....?
The point of these threads is discussion of ideas, books, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. Cut the shit with the fedposting, man. It doesn't do anyone any good, on the contrary, it just scars off anons who might be willing to simply discuss ideas.
Okay, I get that. But why is the technological drive in humans in the first place? Also, what about the second part of my question, how would you ensure technology does not arise again if or when we return to a primitive society?
Nicholas Johnson
*scares
Juan Wood
>how do you ensure technology does not arise again? because once the base resources have been depleted, you need the entire techno-social system to be able to efficiently exploit them for energy. but you won't be able to do this after the techno-system collapses, and the techno-system won't be able to rise again because it can't get the energy and resources at a primitive level efficiently.
once we go back, it's almost 100% certaion to be likely. though there will be a lot of scrap metal lying around.
Luke Allen
>why is the technological drive in humans in the first place? all self-propagating systems are driven by a quest for power, in biology as in society. tech gives power, thus there is a drive in humans for tech. but once the system collapses, and the tech is not possible to build, the drive for power will have to be expressed through the limited means (low-tech) available.
for a more detailed account of WHY humans experienced the explosion in tech over the last many thousands of years, you should start with Kaczynski's Technological Slavery, and then read Lewis Mumford.
Josiah Martin
>Okay, I get that. But why is the technological drive in humans in the first place?
That is anyone's guess.... Some anons might say God, others might sai Darwinina evolution, yet other might even say ayyys lmao, you are probably familiar with all of these theories or whatever.
One possible answer to your question might be that since there appears to be some sort of immutable laws to the material universe, (laws of physics, logic, chemistry, etc) it was only a matter of time for these laws to manifest in a tool-making animal. But again, it is anyone's guess....
>Also, what about the second part of my question, how would you ensure technology does not arise again if or when we return to a primitive society?
Sorry, overlooked it. That question is addressed in the /TKG/ FAQ. Hang on a minute, will copy paste it here for your convenience.
Xavier King
I see. How long do you think it will be until the base resources (such as oil, uranium, rubber, etc) run out? Will read. I found audio recordings on YouTube, too, but I didn’t finish it completely since it’s like 5 hours long
Ayden Reed
You've missed the point. It is not a matter of absolute quantity of resources, but resources RELATIVE to the technical ability to exploit them efficiently.
>But why is the technological drive in humans in the first place?
It's an epiphenomenon. Any species sufficiently exceptional at developing adaptation and self-preservation strategies will trend toward the use of tools as a means for survival, as they're more resourceful and efficient than just using one's own body. That doesn't mean the tools themselves are natural, only that they arose as a consequence of natural evolutionary adaptations (larger and more sophisticated brains).
Lucas Howard
>Also, what about the second part of my question, how would you ensure technology does not arise again if or when we return to a primitive society?
4. Industrial society can not truly collapse! Everything will be back to modernity soon after.
Many anons -including Ted- believe there won't be enough 'steam left in the engine' to jumpstart industrial society ever again. There is an intuitive truth in this: fossil fuel consumption and utilization requires much technical knowledge and a reverence for efficiency, logistics and high-organization which will be very hard indeed to find if technological civilization does in fact collapse. Machines will rust and decay; whomever is leftover -including the occasional technician here and there- after collapse will be too busy eating grubs while trying to get their garden going to even worry about lighting, central heating, etc., much less bringing the decaying dams, electric plants and other generators of energy up and running again.
Now here is the rub: even if all these psychological/sociological/anthropological difficulties were to be ovecome, Ted -and others- posit that there will literally not be enough raw material (fossil fuels) left to bring another Industrial Revolution about. Furthermore, Ted clearly makes the case in ISAIF that we can only concern ourselves with our present era and possibilities; what humans may choose to do or attempt to do 100, 500 or 1000 years down the line is beyond the control of anyone alive today.
Owen Clark
Let me give you an example: in order to efficiently extract oil, we rely on an enormously complex technological and social system--the computer systems, the radar mapping, the advanced super-deep drilling, and the complexity of the economy to sustain this system, including the education of all the technicians, the transportation and communication to coordiante this system, the supply chain and manurfacturing and logistics to feed and cloth these technicians but also produce the machines necessary to be able to extract the oil.
(all of the shallow, surface level oil that is easy to extract with simple 19th century technology is gone.)
so, once the techno-social system breaks down, it doesn't have the ability to extract the oil efficiently anymore, and YET, it needs this oil to be able to build itself up to the level of complexity needed to efficiently extract it. so it becomes a catch-22 and society is stuck without the techno-system.
I am giving you a very simple run-down for the sake of brevity.
Luis Hill
Alright I get that. So basically, by the time tech-industrial society collapses, all the base resources sustaining it well be depleted and it can’t rise again.
Evan Murphy
in a nutshell yes
Parker Clark
You don't seem to understand Ted's ideology at all. It's not about destroying technology and forcing a cave man dark age. It's about recognizing the inherent value in human lives. Today we put more value in technology and we allow modern technology to pervert, manipulate and destroy human lives. We should have technology, we should have a permanent presence in space, we should colonize mars and start mining asteroids. But we should do so while we cherish and respect the natural way humans interface with the world. Our hands and our minds are tools we can use to build a house or a whole nation. When we become too reliant on OTHER TOOLS such as engines and integrated circuits we loose our individual usefulness and thus our humanity.
We need to focus on using our own abilities and our own minds to accomplish necessary useful daily tasks. When it becomes necessary we should absolutely use more advanced technology but the human machine must take precedence in all cases.
I would rather build my own home with my two bare hands than have one delivered on the back of a truck. If I build it myself I maybe tired at the end but at least i accomplished something and I was useful.
How the hell does one set one food outside of industrial society and make the leap out without absolutely wrecking one's life? It's necessary to engage with the existing system in order to even begin to think about distancing oneself from it. I'm talking about basic things like how to not get murdered by cops trying to enforce tax and building codes. Is this outlined in ATRev?
Carter Russell
(((Kaczinsky))) anarchist hang yourself
Sebastian Nelson
>It's not about destroying technology and forcing a cave man dark age
False. It is absolutely and totally about destroying tech.
you don't know what you're talking about.
Ayden Sanchez
The only problem is, with oil for example, aren’t we using base resources less and less, and “renewable” resources becoming more common. In just a few decades, for example, solar energy will pretty much replace oil. Fusion might replace fission as the source of nuclear reaction. As for the resources on earth, it is predicted that we will start using asteroids and other extraterrrestrial objects for mining. Wouldn’t that prevent this prophecized collapse?
Asher Turner
>for a more detailed account of WHY humans experienced the explosion in tech over the last many thousands of years, you should start with Kaczynski's Technological Slavery, and then read Lewis Mumford.
Which one or two books by Mumford might you recommend, user...? Read a little bit of his work many years ago, but not much at all ....
>So basically, by the time tech-industrial society collapses, all the base resources sustaining it well be depleted and it can’t rise again.
Not just depleted, even 'worse', they will be inaccessible without the advanced and highly coupled technical complex of today.
Tyler Nguyen
No. these things are not outlined in Ted's books. He may have written letters where he speaks of this though.
Ted is not about personal autonomy on the individual level. Ted's works are about destroying the techno-system. Because without first destroying the techno-system, living independently will be impossible.
Brayden Gutierrez
Yeah I can agree with this. I too think we should become *less* reliant on technology. Destroying it all, however, seems useless and a spit in the face in all our progress.
Matthew Garcia
Yes, you bring up a very important and critical point. it is something that the "Peak Oil" people overlook or chose to ignore (for psychological reasons).
This is the reason why there must be a revolution to destroy the techno-system sooner rather than latter. An excellent over-view of the danger of "renewables" and their wider implications for the growth and development of the techno-system, you must absolutely read the second chapter of "Anti-Tech Revolution."
Evan Sanchez
This is an excellent question..... he does address this matter. But SURELY there must be literature available out there that deals with this.
If you could at least spell his name properly, user.... Also, the parethesis are uncalld for, he is NOT of the tribe. In fact, NO ONE is more decidedly against the life-blood of the tribe, (current technological civilization) than Ted. If only you would bother to actually read the man's work....
Hunter Watson
>Ted is not about personal autonomy on the individual level. Right, but there is still an individual component to it. Something I find very difficult to do is convince normies of this, because the usual brain-dead retort is "hurr durr you're using a computer to talk shit about technology". Absolutely maddening.
>“renewable” The other point I want to make is that the "renewable" energy sources are still subject to the same phenomenon I speak of: in order for them to grant energy efficiently to the techno-social system, they are dependent on the highly complex social and technical arrangement of the system itself. So the same principles apply to hard to reach oil as they do to solar farms.
Liam Young
He had no endgame, that's his problem
Christopher Smith
>creation of FAQ list the questions so we can answer them.
Ethan Baker
Renewables rely on rare earth minerals Any way the complex society that relies on them is just as sensitive to instabilities as our current fossil fuels one is
Jacob Williams
Don't worry about those people and you have to learn to just ignore them. revolutions are carried out by highly organized and intelligent minorities. an anti-tech revolution requires in theory only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population.
also, it can be expected that normies will react this way because things are relatively stable and they don;t feel like the ideas you mention have any consequence. Once the system becomes very unstable (which it will, either due to coronavirus or other disruptions on the horizon), AND there is a revolutionary movement that is made known (however small). these normie people will take what you and I say very seriously. So the key now, absolutely, is to ORGANIZE a revolutionary movement. this is why Ted places such a huge emphasis on this.
Kevin Garcia
> digits > truth It has been pre-ordained
Hunter Bailey
Revolution, a kikemason meme Careful with words
James Kelly
Here’s a limited edition pepe to commemorate the occasion
technology is certainly natural and it is itself a life force. the question is about man's relationship with technology. are we its master? is it a symbiotic relationship? is it a parasite? or at this point has technology become our master? i think ted's answer is to be a master of the technology you allow into you life. the argument is about choosing a society where it is a requirement to be a master of your technology. in our current society i believe the technology is the master.
