>Detergent DRM
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. (...) The continued development of technology will worsen the situation.
The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. (...) The continued development of technology will worsen the situation.
The real problem here isn't the availability of technology as much as broken laws which prevent us from modifying the things we own to best suit our needs.
I don't have much issue with selling convenience. Most people I know will happily pay multiples of an optimal price for small convenience (most people I know will buy bottled water). As long as the law doesn't interfere with people who want to add their own caustics and detergent this way, then what's the actual issue?
I'll take detergent DRM any day over being a medieval serf.
Yet left on their own they will uncontrollably grow like what happens with invasive species. Then they'll collapse. Repeat a few times and some type of equilibrium may happen for a while until something else breaks it.
Animals have no magic "equilibrium" sense but rather the surviving ones have evolved to have an equilibrium with their environment. That doesn't even mean the animal changed genetically but rather that other animals (ie: the environment) did to provide competition.
There's nothing magic about persistence balance in nature. It happens in millions of ecosystems.
There are many others that I can't think of right now, I don't really keep a list.
In any event, nowadays it's extremely easy to get a full time remote gig and live in a truly remote location - especially factoring in lower cost of living. This doesn't seem like an actual problem. Actually, it seems like the industrial revolution has provided an idyllic outcome for people in your situation.
Regarding the original point, I think it's important to highlight that without the industrial revolution humans wouldn't be able to live closely together in cities. Living in a city is a choice, and you've chosen the modern option because it's superior.
This doesn't seem like a disaster as much as a net-positive with some fairly mild tradeoffs.
Note that settlements have naturally occurred around rivers because of agriculture (e.g. Mesopotamia), so "cities", in some sense of the word, have existed long before the industrial evolution.
I am aware that civilization brings good stuff with it - it's hard to not be aware of it - but I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. I think it can be, and ought to be, much better than this. It is my opinion that each and every human deserves to (be able to) live in an environment that is pleasant to them. I see it as a fundamental human right.
It helps tremendously.
I highly recommend reading it. His killing people to get it published put me off reading it, but a friend recommended it so I relented. I found it a good read.
I should point out that the consequence he was warning about was being made into a techno serf and that the danger was so great that it was worth abandoning technological comforts to prevent it.
Come on, you can’t find something to support your ideas that doesn’t help glorify random murders?
you’re talking about the unabomber like he’s a victim of cancel culture instead of a guy that killed 3 people and maimed a dozen more
If this were a unique idea not repeated since by others, I'd be more likely to agree with you... but it's not.
If you were recommending this reading as a cautionary tale about extremism, I'd also be more inclined to agree with you.
But in reality, all of the information found in the unabomber's manifesto can be found from sources that weren't serial murderers... so what does recommending this writing, and not other related writing accomplish? from my perspective it only serves the murderer. The original publication of the manifesto was also forced under the threat of murder.
You're trying to shift the burden of justification to me, when you are the one trying to censor.
What does censoring me accomplish in the real world?
Does me talking about him make his murders worse then they are?
Are Kaczynski's murders going to disappear once every single person stops talking about him?
Why should I even bother figuring out alternative sources, what difference does it make in the real world whether I talk about him or about any other anarcho-primitivist?
I just hope that the eventual dictator will be a "soft-hearted leftist" and decide to turn the world into a huge human zoo, instead of some sadistic overlord that will turn the world into a huge human cage.
EDIT: soundtrack for today: "1000 eyes" by Death
Essentially, the idea is that you get your payment for your work and resources over the course of use without using intermediary for financing the customer. You spend the resources upfront(record music, film a movie, produce appliance and give it away for cheap) and later you enforce payment per use where usage almost doesn't cost you anything.
From consumers perspective, you can achieve similar savings on games, music, movies and software if you use torrent trackers and a seedbox.
IMHO, it's only a problem when prevents legitimate use cases like lending it to a friend(was not a problem with DVDs, huge problem with DRM protected video purchases).
> "We give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society's standards. That, and we're too plugged in. We're letting technology take over our lives, willingly."
Edit: in case anyone was wondering, the industrial revolution, namely the dye industry, started mass production of antibiotics, without the industrial revolution = no antibiotics
Also, do you know what the adult life expectancy was in pre-industrial times?
Non-joke answer: DRM wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Steam Engine. That argument is central to anarcho-primitivism - industrial society will enslave people more and more through technology, and there is no way to prevent it, therefore industrial revolution is a mistake.