*scares
/TKG/ - Ted Kaczynski General #28 - No Driver at the Wheel Edition
Nicholas Johnson
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.
Owen Morgan
This thread is blessed by Professor Uncle Ted!
Charles Collins
>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.