Was he right about everything, Zig Forums? If not about everything - right about what?

You literally read 2 lines on wikipedia about him, right?

1 - birth location, year when he was born
2 - killer and terrorist

contents in space: x rays

space is fatalistic, not uncle ted

yes.
So was Tim

Attached: BN-RX979_Oklaho_GR_20170202142819.jpg (1242x810, 159.68K)

yeppers

Can you refute either of those claims? What exactly made him great? Why should he be revered? He mail bombed literal nobodies in the grand scheme of his own master plan. You'd think if he actually believed in what he said then why didn't he choose higher value targets?

I think what Ted meant (and also shared with us in his manifesto), is that, that we're all going further and further away from our natural instincts. He's right, that technology may cause psychological suffering. He was right about so many things, and as user above said - he has predicted many things.

I may ruin your dreams user, but unlocking the secrets of the universe at our current state is almost impossible. Some statistics say, that it won't be ever possible to achieve further goals than our solar system.

The weirdest thing about me and Ted's point of view is that, that I didn't know about him before constructing my own view on the world, and I've came to the same conclusion as he did.

All I'm saying is, that we're actually going deeper and deeper in this fucking shithole. This progress is swallowing us, we can't stop. I'm just concerned about further generations, since this hole will be deeper and deeper.

On the other hand, sometimes I feel like the internet and technology is making us feel that way - that we're going insane, while in many cases we're not.

"No, what worries me is that I might in a sense adapt to this environment and come to be comfortable here and not resent it anymore. And I am afraid that as the years go by that I may forget, I may begin to lose my memories of the mountains and the woods and that's what really worries me, that I might lose those memories, and lose that sense of contact with wild nature in general. But I am not afraid they are going to break my spirit"

Attached: 220px-Unabomber-sketch.png (220x293, 38.1K)

Based Pole

Because the flaws in human nature will follow you wherever you go in the universe like a shadow and pervert whatever discovery is made into a hellish joke. no matter how far or fast we run, we cant outrun ourselves. maybe one day we will be evolved enough to handle the power technology gives us. But until then we will just sprint into the trashcan of human suffering that people like to call "progress".

To have resorted to murder to further his message, his spirit was broken a long time ago.

To answer the original question. its to be happy.

I agree that we're moving further away from our human nature, and that that is bad for our wellbeing. I would also agree that on the current trajectory we are going to crash and fail to meet even practically achievable goals like colonizing mars. Where I diverge from Kaczynski is that I don't know that it's in our nature to give up these goals of exploration and invention. If technological society completely collapses, I see it more likely ending up as A Canticle For Liebowitz rather than a return to pastoral sustainable villages across the world. Humanity has been engaging in the technological society since before the agricultural revolution, it seems to be programmed into our DNA to optimize and innovate and all this shit.

Attached: 25254688767_59603ff06c_o.jpg (3000x2000, 490.51K)

He was right about some of the effects, but wrong about the causes. Every major advance in technology through history has been met with a bunch of people who are just fucked by it, a bunch of people who are just benefited by it, and a mass of people who just needs to adapt and move on. The adapting part is the tricky one. We are doing a bad job of adapting technology into a healthy way of life, but it's not technology's fault, it's our fault. You don't have to stare at a screen so many hours a day, you don't have to keep checking your phone every so often, unless you hold some very specific kind of job and you absolutely love it, you don't have to do any of that. You do it because you like it better than the alternative. It's absolutely possible to make use of all the advantages of technology without becoming a slave to it.

>Because the flaws in human nature will follow you wherever you go
Yes exactly. If industrial society collapses, we'll still be the same people who continually habitually built it for the past tens of thousands of years

lol

Attached: putinlaughing.gif (347x244, 3.72M)

damn, hardcore reverse card you got there.

Attached: 1576294188925.jpg (491x488, 18.55K)

people here unironically listen to low iq retards like varg and other braindead parasites/e-celebs lmao. At least this guy made a noteworthy manifesto

Thank you for being the first other person beyond myself to claim positively that human beings are not responsible enough to handle technological power.

He nailed it on leftists.

>doesn’t blame the Jews for anything

I am having a hard time connecting his logic

It's encoded in all DNA since evolution is pretty much an optimization algorithm, and no matter how far above it we may dream ourselves to be with all our clever technology, the process still applies to us in full. The problem is much more fundamental than human nature or our planetary neighborhood - it concerns the basic laws of matter and energy, namely the fact that matter would organize itself to exploit free energy. If you think about it, Ted's gripe is in fact with evolution itself - he loathes the fact that a new human is emerging, the kind of human that depends on his gadget and his bottle of antidepressants much like a butterfly depends on flowers, but ask yourself if you can really draw a line here. The primitive human that Ted praises as possessing the dignity the technohuman has lost had itself evolved for no particular reason and has no objective value generally speaking. The evolution of course didn't stop there, and now it's making the new human, with our full cooperation, and of course it's re-purposing the vestiges of our past form towards this new function. For example the social instincts that we inherit from our tribal fathers and which Ted laments are being hijacked by the industrial-technological society to produce the oversocialized abominations are in fact not unlike a fish's fins being evolved into legs. What difference does it make that we now create our own selective pressure and our own artificial niches? Plenty of species had to evolve to deal with the consequences of their own activities, including, I'm sure, our own, in the past. And so what if we start doing it intentionally through gene therapy and other magics? We are still a product of evolution, so us acting upon ourselves is evolution all the same.

To deny technology is to deny evolution, and to deny evolution is to deny the universe. That's the biggest hole in Ted's thinking, as opposed to the incidental stuff like the fact that society will get rebuilt eventually.