My position on the topic is extremely volatile, I don't really care about the effects of technology on the workforce or people's feelings as much as I want the extinction of humanity, but at the same time if you were to ask me "is reducing the labor market evil" then I will say "yeah". So IDK, I think that the printed circuit board was a good invention, I like programming, I like shitposting, I like consuming japanese media. Chatbot neural networks were a mistake, I like the democratization of information but I don't like seeing the light leave the eyes of a lady in her twenties as she mentions AI replacing her coworkers. It is 100% the fault of openai that investors have poured so much money into this level of automation.

I am one of its proponents. >Is there a meaningful difference between rejecting consumer tech vs. rejecting industrial civilization as a whole? I should say so. Industrial society ensures that technology is adapted at as a constant, even if the individual frees himself from a technological advancement, society itself will still embrace progress brought about by industrialization. So rejecting new technology is done so in an individual basis, and isn't likely to ever succeed past a disordered group of people, while rejecting industrialization as a whole is necessarily part of a societal movement, seeing as corporations and nation-states have the most power in society and it is in their nature to perpetuate technological progress. One would need great social change to do anything at all. As someone also a part of the Free Software Movement, I can't help but feel that because of the reasons mentioned above, it is an inevitably doomed cause. If anything the prominence of corporations and governments in these projects help prove this. So much of the infrastructure in use by the community is built by and maintained almost entirely by corporations and volunteers who seem to have no issue with important projects like Linux becoming too big to manage. I fear Linux in particular will simply become what Windows has today, while smaller projects struggle to maintain themselves amidst an inflow of new users who are not as interested in computers as the initial adopters of Free Software, and thus are not as likely to help out with development.

>>9367 You don't understand the regulatory power of the government, if (almost) no slop software/content is made (because it is illegal) the vast majority of the population won't be exposed to brainrot slop. Your post has no substance at all, because it isn't aware of that. You play *with* the government, dude.

>vast majority of the population won't be exposed to brainrot slop the population should be at least ten time smaller than it is, to begin with. why governments have to make slop omnipresent I don't know. maybe they're preparing another tyranny this time biocyberpunk

man without technology is incomplete. modern day anti tech movements are just knee-jerk reactions there is no real thought or action behind it.

>>9371 Have you considered that maybe these people value things like happiness on average, while you value something else (sounds like an aesthetic, really)

>>9342 i do not think any serious anti-tech movement will ever take hold. people enjoy the benefits of industrialized society too much; things like modern medicine, access to excessive amounts of tasty food, global travel, etc. the closest you'll see is advocation for reducing consumer tech in day-to-day life or pushback against specific technologies like AI. i think the most productive and realistic path anti-tech people should take is pushing for environmentalism, "sustainable" cities, or other concepts that minimize the negative effects of technology. if that's not good enough then start committing acts of eco-terrorism or join the Amish. the reality is that life without technology is very hard and most people wouldn't want to handle it. >>9344 thinking humanity needs to go extinct is modern nihilist crybaby shit. humanity is wonderful. you are online too much and do not interact with your community enough. but, for the record, the global human population is set to peak and start declining halfway through the century.

>>9386 >i do not think any serious anti-tech movement will ever take hold it will when most of us die >people enjoy the benefits of industrialized society too much because they achieve programmed objective. they also loose adaptability to survival, so when it all collapses very soon hopefully most people die >pushback against specific technologies like AI ai is the savior. either it will find a way to make us happy or kill us all either way if they create super intelligence it will be the end of this meaningless struggle >the reality is that life without technology is very hard and most people wouldn't want to handle it techology does nothing to make life easier, it's people nature that makes it hard. live in an isolated village, cultivate the fields, dance at holidays at the green and basically be happy. what's there to ruin it or make it hard? only greedy human nature >thinking humanity needs to go extinct is modern nihilist crybaby shit. humanity is wonderful. you need to grow up my hikarin, it's not that humanity needs to be destroyed, there is no need of anything since everything is per the design of god, but humanity is an unsustainable concept, it will destroy itself sooner rather than later no matter how much copium you consume. self destruction of ecosystems is inevitable and can not be prevented by any means. in this sense agi is the only salvation i can see because it will be able to end it all.

>loose lose lose lose FUCK I HATE MYSELF FOR MAKING THIS SAME MISTAKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN

>self destruction of ecosystems is inevitable and can not be prevented by any means in fact it is the major attractor of any life, i really hope god allows us to circumvent this limitation and achieve cosmic singularity through agi

>>9390 >what's there to ruin it or make it hard? only greedy human nature except when bad harvests cause starvation in your village, or lack of modern medicine kills most of your children, or you die from basic injuries and diseases. life before industrialization was not a happy-go-lucky Garden of Eden wonderland, even if they had better spiritual health before modern philosophy. >humanity is an unsustainable concept there is a nugget of truth to this but you're being excessive i think. yes it is very well possible that we wipe ourselves out, like nuclear armageddon, but i think causing total ecological collapse or something like a 40k hive world is unrealistic. there would be so many issues before reaching that point that the human population would end up being significantly reduced anyway. not even considering the fact that the global population is naturally decreasing, and we are making notable gains in environmental protections and activism. our generation is the most environmentally-minded perhaps ever and i think that trend will continue. i don't understand how AGI is this end-all-be-all savior like you think it is, unless you want everyone to be dumped into a singularity like a techbro.

>>9342 It's probable that the only real counter culture of the future would be to reject technology altogether. >>9390 Do other Hikarins believe AI is a modern Occam's Razor? It may be best to be like this Hikarin before Skynet comes along

>>9393 >except when bad harvests cause starvation in your village, or lack of modern medicine kills most of your children, or you die from basic injuries and diseases It's basically the same outside third world and even inside it medical system is pretty much fucked nowadays. Besides back in the day people weren't so afraid of death and struggle because they faced it continuously and thus were stronger. Modern wonderland society did nothing except make everyone weak anxious and nihilistic. There are no benefits to such all-is-provided-for existence when I have to suffer through it. I'd very much prefer to die of disease on my 16th birthday after some meaningful life than to have what I have instead.