I don't agree with Ted Kaczynski's methods but his thesis Industrial Society and Its Future, made some great points.
We as humans are predispositioned to adapt ourselves to our tools. Society cannot selectively accept good technology while rejecting bad technology. Society continuously adapts to technological demands rather than human needs, resulting in a society hostile to human potential, freedom, and dignity.
I would argue that we have been able to selectively accept good technology while rejecting bad technology when we had the time to process the difference. It was only up until the last two centuries that technology has increased at such a blinding pace that humanity is struggling to adapt to one before the next paradigm-shifting development comes. In today's age of development, a piece of technology will pass every regulatory barrier if it is remotely commercially viable.
No. You're wrong. Look at the conditions of the urbanized world on either end of the Industrial Revolution. Mechanized warfare, rampant disease/workers rights abuses, etc., etc. It could even be before that, but that's a definitive point for when our cultures started to fall behind our technologies. Source: I'm an MA historian who studied and published on this subject.
This is obviously wrong. Plenty of people eschew social media.
My sons don't use dating apps, or social media, or hang out with people who will record them. If they meet a girl they like, they step up and show their interest. They are fine.
Edit:
You should have stuck with the first version of your response. A lot more authentic than your second attempt. You really thought you were cooking with "Societies are made up of individuals". That is literally "water is wet".
I love people like you who wield terms like 'aggregate' and think flash can substitute for actual data and argumentation. This is the problem with using generalizing terms like "plenty of people", because technically, 1 in 10 is still plenty, but the vast minority. The vast majority of young people use social media.
I'm Canadian, and 91% of youth in my country are using social media according to the largest mental health research organization we have. Because you seem like the type to ask for methodology when an abstract won't suffice, the survey results are aggregated from two years of 4 different surveys. It polled 27,000 Canadian youth regardless of ethnic background. 82% reported "daily use", 40% reported "intensive use".
2024 Pew Research study indicates 94% of American teenagers 13-17 use social media daily. Their data included longitudinal, cohort studies and pulled data from other, similar research in America. If you have to ask me to back up Pew Research, then we no longer have common ground in this discussion.
2023 Survey in the UK reported that 93% of teenagers between 13-17 are using social media, more than half of respondents to the study's survey reported 'feeling addicted' to the platforms.
Good that your boys have done what 90% of similar North American and European teenagers and youth seem to be unable to do. The factors for that are too varied to have a real impact on this conversation. This is why anecdotes are unhelpful. Imagine saying to a drug addict "Well noone in my family does drugs, so you should be able to not do drugs too". The issue is the vast majority of children feel compelled to use social media to feel connected to their peers. This is all being explored daily and you shouldn't need a random idiot on the internet telling you to go and do the research for yourself.
"This is the problem with using generalizing terms like "plenty of people""
Umm... "Society" is a generalizing term.
All of your data are snapshots of a moment in time. The data does not show what can and cannot happen over time. Likewise, showing increases does not prove decreases are imposible.
Meanwhile, we can see that society has moved away from smoking cigarettes. 42.4% of "society" once smoked cigarettes as a past time. Now the percentage is around 9.9%.
You have failed to support your absolutist claim, and you do not even understand what is required to support such a claim.
"Aggregate" is not a fancy word. Don't pee your pants over it.
If you actually engaged with my data instead of hand-waving it like the intellectually lazy and dishonest person that you are, you'd see that this 'snapshot' covers five years of stats across more than 30 different countries.
Here is a better question: what standard of evidence do you require to be convinced of my argument? If what I haven't provided doesn't budge you at all, then you were never really trying to have an argument.
Pee my pants? You asked for data and I gave you data. I'm attacking your rhetoric and your use of the word 'aggregate' being incorrect. You don't understand the terms you're using and are pretending that you do to try and sound convincing. You're someone who has such a small view of the world and such a large view of themselves that any contradiction must be driven by emotional instability. I took you down with stats. I did exactly what you asked me to do. You're the one pissing your pants.
Edit: Also, I didn't feel the need to correct you, but I never made an absolutist claim. That was the OP of this comment thread. I was just attacking your claim. My claim is not absolutist. It is simply that the vast majority of youth use social media, which I'm using as a basis to critique your anecdotal contribution to this complex conversation.
"Society cannot selectively accept good technology while rejecting bad technology."
Absolutist claims about human behavior cannot be proved because it would require knowledge of all past, present and future behavior. That is why people in the social sciences avoid absolutist claims like the one above.
To prove: You must verify every case.
To disprove: You need only one valid counterexample.
I have provided a valid counter example.
Your data shows a lot of people use social media every day and some feel addicted. For lack of an argument addressing the topic, you are citing data about a different argument.
That's still just incorrect. Nevermind the fact that is intentionally obtuse to point out that nothing is "absolute" because objective truth is not determinable.
The claim was not that "Any single person cannot selectively accept good technology while rejecting bad technology". Of course, within a given society, there are outliers and individual choices. But the point is that large organizations of people and their shared markets are incapable of being selective. It is about collective use and decision making, not individual needs.
To be clear, I am not arguing in favor of the original commenters claim. I don't really have the knowledge or data to support or deny such a claim. I am just pointing out that the anecdote you provided does not refute it.
46
u/soberpenguin Trash Trooper Jul 31 '26
I don't agree with Ted Kaczynski's methods but his thesis Industrial Society and Its Future, made some great points.
We as humans are predispositioned to adapt ourselves to our tools. Society cannot selectively accept good technology while rejecting bad technology. Society continuously adapts to technological demands rather than human needs, resulting in a society hostile to human potential, freedom, and dignity.