I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
The Unabomber thread
Author Message
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #76
RE: The Unabomber thread
On the first point, a lot of people like to pick and choose what they believe. I don't do that. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with the Biblical account, even if we take the language in it poetically (as we should in some cases). Whoever wants to make it so is either fooling himself or others.

As for the other point: as it stands, if a societal breakdown would occur taking out modern technology I would probably not survive. I still live in the city, and the small farm my inlaws have is not even close to self sufficiency (also because we're not there full time). But it is my duty to make it as close as possible to it; to try to make a community that will help itself in times of need. But as it stands, I would probably die or at the very least suffer a lot. I have been preparing myself mentally for that, but only when it happens will I truly know if I am or not.

Equally important, as a rational man I have to separate what is good for me in the immediate, to the larger societal considerations. I am well aware of the difficulties, but in the long run, and on a larger scale, I see either that unplugging or complete submission to the power structure through technology. I mean, it already is at this stage (can you have a job without a smartphone, or participate in society without the internet? very difficult). This is how technology takes over - luxury/extravagance turns necessity. The whole structure is changed underneath your feet - after which you will have a tough choice to make. I already thought of when 5G will be made mandatory and they disable 4G networks - at which point, I will cease to have one and probably flee to the country side. I hope I still have a couple of years to prepare more. Imagine when the implants and mind-connecting to the cloud begin. I really, without a doubt, would rather die free than live like that, because that is no life at all - and believe me, to belong to that system, we will have to concede much more than the privacy and freedom we do now. It will be our own humanity which will be at stake.

I have not read the book, nor have heard about it, but will check it out.

EDIT: after reading the wiki on the book - I know perfectly that a lot of suffering will happen as a result of a loss of modern technology. But 1) suffering already exists and is increasing - both physical (due to illnesses caused by our unnatural lives) and mental (for the same reason, and as never seen before); 2) the longer the system goes on, the more suffering it will cause - either by itself or as a result of its demise. So, all in all, suffering is unavoidable and in my opinion, avoiding suffering is not a particularly good goal in itself. A lot can be learned from it and we wouldn't be human without it. The fact remains, that the longer the system exists, the more suffering it will cause. And in my opinion it is the technocrats who have the burden of proof - society has existed perfectly without it, and for the 200 years we had it, if I am being optimistic, it's a very mixed bag between good and bad. It doesn't look like a good case to me.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2019 09:14 AM by ilostabet.)
09-07-2019 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes ilostabet's post:
NoMoreTO
Oberrheiner Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation: 5
Post: #77
RE: The Unabomber thread
(09-07-2019 09:09 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  can you have a job without a smartphone, or participate in society without the internet?

Internet is certainly a very interesting thing from an evolutionary point of view - it might make you realize you have more in common with other intelligent people of other tribes/races than you might have with most of your own.
I don't like at all where this goes if you take it to its logical conclusion though.
But then I take it from the beginning of your answer that you choose to believe in the bible's creation tale instead of evolution anyway ?

Ravage is not really about suffering, it's more a feel-good book to me, it basically describes what you'd want to happen, with a hero which anybody can (or should) relate to, and a happy ending.
I just don't agree with what happens at the very end but you probably would, that's why I asked if you had read it.
In any case I definitely recommend it to anyone, it's a good book and an easy read, and it will make you question some things in a good way.
Just don't let wikipedia spoil you Wink
09-07-2019 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Oberrheiner's post:
ilostabet
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #78
RE: The Unabomber thread
I don't choose to believe it, I just believe it (I assume you don't choose to believe evolution, but simply do) - I do believe in adaptation, but that is neither original nor exclusive of Darwin and his acolytes.

To my eyes evolution has more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Roosh has a good article on it, but all you have to do is look at the fertility rates of believers in evolution vs the ones of non-believers. If evolution exists, it clearly favors its opponents.

Back to the topic, the technological stranglehold on humanity shouldn't be a concern of only atheists or Christians, but everyone. More than half the problems raised in this forum can be traced back to a technological innovation - not one that went wrong, but one that does exactly what it was intended to do. If one analyses the promises of any revolutionary piece of technology we see how it either failed (like the internet would be this tool that would make ignorance a thing of the past), or succeeded but created associated problems that then must be fixed by further technology and social engineering (like cars, industrial agriculture or the pill).

We've gone beyond the point of technological optimism, in which we think it will bring more benefits than detriments - now we know how these developments will enslave us in ways that make previous tyranny a walk in the park, and yet, we say 'it's inevitable' - well, yeah, with that attitude.

Everyone discusses the implications of new laws or policies (when we know, at the same time, how politics is actually just a show that influences nothing), but not of new technologies, the actual means by which the world is controlled and steered. Everyone decries the power structure and what they promote, but not the technical means that actually allows that power to be wielded. Each one of these technologies were pushed by the same oligarchs everyone complains about - but somehow, their promotion of these things raises no red flags, or everyone thinks we can take it from them and use them for good, instead of thinking that we'll be corrupted into the same social engineering temptation they were.

It's the ultimate elephant in the room, but there's no room anymore, it's just us and the elephant, which has destroyed the furniture, tore down the walls and ceiling.

Side note: it would be nice to change the name of this thread because discussing the unabomber is more or less irrelevant, but it's important to discuss the technological nature and implications of modern society.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2019 07:48 AM by ilostabet.)
09-09-2019 07:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes ilostabet's post:
Leonard D Neubache
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #79
RE: The Unabomber thread
if the dissident right existed in the time of the tower of babel, they would oppose the stated objectives of its construction, but wouldn't remove one single brick, thinking the structure could be used to keep people closer to the ground.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
09-10-2019 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Oberrheiner Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation: 5
Post: #80
RE: The Unabomber thread
(09-09-2019 07:47 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  I don't choose to believe it, I just believe it (I assume you don't choose to believe evolution, but simply do)

Hmm.

Well there is one thing about science in general : it's not the truth.
And more importantly : it was never the goal.

Look at Newton : you can throw something of a given weight, with a given force in a given direction.
Then pause, fetch the calculator, and you can know where it's gonna land.
Isn't that great ? You can predict the future !
Thank you newton Smile

Now is it the truth ?
Well no, we know since that it doesn't hold in all conditions, plus relativity, field equations etc.
However that's not the point, truth is not the point - usefulness is.
If a theory is useful then you should use it, and accept that at some point it might be replaced by something better - that's the whole idea of science.

So basically evolution just seems to me to be the best explanation I came across for what I witness.
But it's not about truth, or belief, or faith - science is a tool, not a religion !

It might be a digression so sorry if you don't like it, but it is an important point I wanted to make several times already (not to you in particular).

Now the second point I wanted to make is this :
Regarding Roosh's article I read it the first time you linked it IIRC, and some good points were made.
However it's based on the false premise that evolution still occurs to this day.

Which is of course not the case - for evolution to occur you need environmental pressure.
However everybody and anybody has been reproducing for quite some time already.
We could discuss when exactly this started of course, but it's a fact.

And as you said it's even worse than that, since many "modern" countries have various combinations of social help and immigration which favors more offsprings from the less desirable members of the society.
This is like a man-made evolution, in reverse.

That's maybe some content for the satanic inversion thread .. I don't know.
I mean catholicism in the west also encourages having as many children as you can, basically pushing r-selection on K-selected people.
And don't even get me started on the christians I know who did not abort their foetus who had down syndrome because "all life is sacred", otherwise .. well you'll just make some guy a couple of countries away very unhappy over the internet Wink
It wouldn't be the end of the world either, but well ..
09-10-2019 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Kid Twist Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 2,862
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #81
RE: The Unabomber thread
Selection is always occurring given the environment. Of course it is. Thing is, as many on this board predict too ... the environment of recent history has been an aberration and thus, selection will come roaring back in a very acute way, probably pretty soon. Notice that because of the 100,000s of years that made humans what you view them as, these 100 year blips of artificial nothingness do very little to change the overall process, save for an extinction event or something that markedly drops a particular gene pool. Even though it is hyped and seems dire, I just don't see that happening as a big picture crisis, even with european lineages.

In any case, back to selection --- which will come roaring back to your idea of environmental pressures causing greater adaptability --> That will lead to what you classically think of "evolution" as, which is slow steady "progression" or selection of superior characteristics over time. Why? The people propped up in the modern altruist type world economies will be the first to perish, providing a bigger percentage base of growth for the more adaptable gene pools, which now have greater room and resources not hogged by the freeloaders.

This is a very complicated subject because not a lot of people understand how humans have evolved to be more generalized vs. specialized (this is what differentiates the races of men, by and large) but since it took so long they consider that to be what "evolution" is (intelligence, advanced use of tools and technology, etc).


I don't know if I agree with what ilostabet has to say about "evolution" and "biblical accounts" I think mainly because it actually doesn't matter, as long as don't try to say the universe began with something you can't explain and just happened, and expressly not try to call that initiator his name, which is God.

Get your passport ready!
09-10-2019 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 623
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #82
RE: The Unabomber thread
Well, I don't care about usefulness of theories, because I will always be judging them based on what is useful to me. Things are either true or not.

I also think the k-selected, r-selected is mostly bs (along with most evolutionary theory - scratch that, most 'science', it has some truth to it, but 90% is bunk).

I would definitely not abort a down syndrome child for various reasons - I wouldn't know it was one before it was born, for one, because I am against those tests. I also have had a down syndrome woman in my family, who was probably the best person I have ever met, and because she was accompanied from childhood she actually learned to read, write and got a job. Despite her diminished lifespan, she was happy and definitely not a net negative on our family or the world. Radical biological determinism is just as dumb as denying it altogether. Besides, killing babies is immoral, whatever rationalization you use.

Since we have threads about evolution and creationism already, I'd rather take this discussion to what effects technology has on this process of natural selection.

Again it's funny to observe that scientists and technophiles tend to be evolutionists as well, but their very inventions radically undermine that process of selection they hold so dearly (as exemplified in modern human society). God is indeed the supreme ironist.

Question for Ober: I can take from your posts that you value race above all, but you also value the technological society (to a certain extent). In the near future, and barring catastrophe of biblical proportions, it will be possible for scientists to engineer babies of a certain appearance (blue or green eyes, blonde hair) and characteristics (strength, intelligence), even if their parents have none of those things. So, what will you choose in that instance: race or technology? In a sense, the latter will make the former a thing of the past.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2019 02:53 AM by ilostabet.)
09-11-2019 02:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Oberrheiner Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 2018
Reputation: 5
Post: #83
RE: The Unabomber thread
I don't value race above all, I value my bloodline above all Smile
And I think everybody should do the same.

I don't really have a solid concept for race, I see it more as local evolution(s), so mine would be much narrower definition than what racists use AFAIK.
I mean white race, black race, that's a joke .. take two people from the opposite ends of a continent (europe, africa, whichever you fancy) and they won't have much in common, since they adapted to totally different conditions.

But that's all fine, I don't hate anyone in case it must be said, everybody has a right to live.
Not necessarily in a country which isn't theirs but that's a different subject Smile

Also I'm a scientist but I'm extremely wary of technology - I make it, and thus know how fallible it can be.
I work on safety-critical systems, which makes me very aware of how complex makes fragile.
I'm actually pretty low-tech in what I buy or make for myself.

So no, I would not want an engineered baby.
If I hadn't been able to conceive myself naturally I wouldn't have wanted any help and would simply have accepted that my genes do not deserve to be passed on for some reason.

Regarding abortion sure killing babies is wrong.
When abortion came to be discussed in this country the arguments for it were that it would be helpful for cases of rape, malformations, etc.
I'm not sure I have a problem with that, the problem I have is that nowadays it's used for precisely anything and everything - except these very cases which lead to its adoption in our legal system.

And technology (to go back to the original topic) is not a very interesting subject IMHO, it's always the same thing :
With great power comes great responsibility, the people proved they cannot handle the responsibility and yet the "free" market will keep on pushing new technology until it all collapses.

Well if we are really too stupid to see this coming and correct course then yes we will collapse.
To me it doesn't change the game fundamentally : adapt and survive. Or don't Smile
The universe won't care, only you know what you have to lose and can decide to do something about it.
Or not.

It would be disappointing sure, but I have been way past that for a long time already Wink
09-11-2019 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Teedub Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,182
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 81
Post: #84
RE: The Unabomber thread
I just finished the show about his capture on Netflix and began re-reading some of his manifesto. If he'd targeted banks and tech corporation offices when they were empty, Fight Club style, then he'd possibly be seen as a sort of Guy Fawkes-type antihero. He ruined that possibly legacy, and the legitimacy of the good points he makes about consumerism etc, when he decided to actually kill random innocent people. Not even the Bill Gates' of the world, but just people who worked in computer repair shops and stuff.

Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. - H L Mencken
10-11-2019 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Teedub's post:
Aurini, Buck Wild
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Me, the Unabomber, and "Acting White" BLarsen 55 32,059 07-03-2014 02:05 PM
Last Post: Giovonny

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication