I'm going to spoon-feed you because I feel kind of bad for you. I'm not going to lie though, your post was a bit funny.
I'll begin with a smaller one:>What stops you from going off-line? What stops you from living as a homeless bum in the wilderness like many homeless people do.
This isn't the point. Even if you were to 'live as a homeless bum in the wilderness' you wouldn't have escaped technology or its effects. The problem is that you really don't understand the point of this sort of ideology and you think it's all about "I don't like technology, it's the reason I'm so fucked up!!!!" and that's not it at all. Nobody is in the end forced to use technology, but it will
be forced upon you, either through the actions of others, the effects of industrial society on the environment, or the the way that regulations will be enforced.
If one were to live as a homeless bum, you would certainly not be able to live without technology. Imagine an average day of a homeless bum and please explain how it is without technology? How would you even manage to find “wilderness” that is unregulated? If you were to go to a public park you would be subjected to technology every day. Most parks are not large, and a 10 minute jog will lead you straight into city. On the off chance that you manage to find some large swath of “wilderness” it will either be government property in which it is illegal to grow food, hunt, cut down trees, construct buildings, or start fires(for warmth and cooking purposes). Assuming you found private land, you wouldn’t have managed anything but putting yourself at the mercy of another agent of industrial society. The moment that person changes their mind about your residence there, or perhaps if they die or something or another you will have to leave and become once again subjected to industrial society.
By and large, the outcome of almost any real attempt to live a primitive lifestyle will result in the same recurring theme: you would be found on short notice, arrested, jailed, and subjected to far greater levels of technology and industrial society than you would had you stayed in your room all day.
Also, to quote Ted Kaczynski:>P. 73…Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners.
Throughout the rest of the book he explains the reasons why simply escaping technology isn’t enough
and why the abolition of industrial society is necessary to re-establish the freedoms of primitive society.
Now, all of this will lead you to believe that issue is technology itself, which isn’t the case. There is nothing wrong with each individual piece of technology on its own. There’s nothing wrong with something like a phone, a car, air conditioning, et cetera. Nobody except as you say “deluded” people are going to think that air conditioning just on its own is bad; The issue is with industrial society and its effects.
It’s a complex topic to explain just here; you will honestly have to read Ted Kaczynski’s book to have a full understanding of the topic, as the entire book is the shortest amount of words it takes to rationally convince someone of what I am telling you now. (It’s also very, very short and you can read it in a couple of hours and still retain all the information fully. Seriously read it so you stop making these accidental false assumptions) However, I do have a video that I found just for you which outlines why individual technologies are not bad on their own, but technology as a whole is bad, and I’ve embedded it.
The guy looks like a 4chad but his video is really good. His topic is on roads, but it applies to all technology in general. A quick look at his channel shows that he seems to be an unironic “kaczynskist”
Now, I will address another one of your points:>And why is this bad, again? The majority of people don't want to live like fucking cavemen in the wilderness, conditioning or not. You know why? Simply because it would bring us more pain and suffering. There is a reason industrial society came into being. There is a reason technology was developed. Both were created for the sake of lessening pain and suffering.
Here you make another fatal assumption built purely because you don’t really understand the motivation behind this ideology. The issue is that YES each individual technology does reduce suffering in some way, but that the effect of technology as a whole causes more suffering than is cured. It is already well known that suicide rates in developed countries are higher than those of poor countries, and that tendency is directly correlated with access to industrialization.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210600616300430
This is outlined in ISaiF. Although I'd rather not give a gigantic quote, I'm going to have to because if I don't you'll just use that as your "gotcha!" in the next post. Here you go:
[continued in the next post]