5 ms·
> This seems crazy to me, leaning heavily on the proof that you yourself obviously are not choosing that life when you easily could. Yeah, you know who already
by avgcorrection 3y ago
> This seems crazy to me, leaning heavily on the proof that you yourself obviously are not choosing that life when you easily could.
Yeah, you know who already did that? The Unabomber! And instead of just keeping to himself, he eventually realized by all the development being done near him that Civilization would eventually encroach upon him and keep him out.
As a politics, “choosing that life” is not sufficient because only a small amount of people can do that; it is not sustainable for a large mass of people to opt into that lifestyle since we (at least in population dense areas) haven’t been able to live like that for thousands of years.
The idea that you can just shut up, f off and “choose that life” is a liberal fantasy. But political liberalism is the dominant ideology so that’s the usual response.
- bbor 3y agoWell Tbf he saw a road - not exactly “forced out”. His campaign of violence was over a decade long and I don’t think I’ve read anything about him starving or caving on his self-sufficiency ideals in the meantime. But maybe this is covered in the manifesto? I’d say that if people who value a self-sufficient primitive existence decide they can’t coexist with me in my tech-enhanced world, my natural response is “suck it up”. The idea that they like something that a huge majority of people don’t so we all need to comply to make room for them feels selfish to the point of narcissism. It doesn’t help that, as you said, going this route today would necessitate a massive… let’s charitably say “intentional population decrease”. Not sure if you're endorsing such views or not, but point well taken - I see how some would find self-sufficiency unsatisfying if they can’t escape all traces of the rest of society.