4 ms·

In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, it's (apparently) the transition that was not handled gracefully.

ntsplnkv2 10y ago
That's a strong claim to make without an argument. How has automation and technology made society a better place?
- adrianN 10y ago
  Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
  - ntsplnkv2 10y ago
    Neither would the millions of deaths from new advances in military technology be possible without automation and technology. Neither would the perpetuation of fake information and news on a global scale be possible. For every bit of good the internet has done, it has also allowed bad things to occur too. I'm not saying there is no good, but to say that it is only beneficial is a strong claim, I would argue it is more neutral.
    - julianmarq 10y ago
      I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the strong one, but also one very easy to test: Don't use or consume anything made possible by technology, if your life isn't impacted in any way then you're correct... In this isolated, anecdotal case.
      - ntsplnkv2 10y ago
        > In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.
        adrianN 10y ago
        Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
        ntsplnkv2 10y ago
        Actually new technology IS forced on others-see the countless peoples killed by weapons of war. They didn't choose to get bombed out by a GPS guided missile, did they? What about the people killed after the atomic bomb killings? Technology is forced on everyone. Things we thought were convenient (cars, ships, the ICE, fossil fuels) may now plunge the planet into chaos and cause immense damage to our environment. Many people who have never had the choice of owning a car are now suffering from droughts and famine because of fossil fuel burning. It's naive to say technology isn't forced. It is, and always will be. Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. It's typically neutral. Technology is not universally beneficial. You can go back maybe to the first group of humans who used a fire to survive a cold spell but since then, there has been destructive and constructive technology.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
imartin2k 10y ago
True, and it is likely the same now again. So the only real question is: Can we get there without the devastating side effects of the transition period, and how?!
- wav-part 10y ago
  Yes we can. Food & Shelter is cheap. We can very well survive until new marketable skills can be learnt.
  - ska 10y ago
    The lesson of the Luddites is that this doesn't really work - you are likely to have multigenerational negative economic effects. As a society you can either decide that is acceptable or plan to mitigate it, but ignoring it or wishing it away doesn't help.
  - ntsplnkv2 10y ago
    Maybe for people living in Silicon Valley or the west, if this is even feasible.
marcosdumay 10y ago
On the short term - I mean, a century, maybe plus another half - it wasn't. Technology was making the life of everybody miserable, except for some very few. With time something else changed¹, and tech became a good thing. 1 - My bet is on ubiquity. Capital became so common it started to lose the competition with labor, and all the low hanging fruits for automation were gone, so it couldn't compete on new ways.

ntsplnkv2 10y ago

That's a strong claim to make without an argument. How has automation and technology made society a better place?

adrianN 10y ago
Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.
- ntsplnkv2 10y ago
  Neither would the millions of deaths from new advances in military technology be possible without automation and technology. Neither would the perpetuation of fake information and news on a global scale be possible. For every bit of good the internet has done, it has also allowed bad things to occur too. I'm not saying there is no good, but to say that it is only beneficial is a strong claim, I would argue it is more neutral.
  - julianmarq 10y ago
    I read the comment you replied to several times and couldn't find where it said that technology was only beneficial. Now your claim that is neutral is the strong one, but also one very easy to test: Don't use or consume anything made possible by technology, if your life isn't impacted in any way then you're correct... In this isolated, anecdotal case.
    - ntsplnkv2 10y ago
      > In Luddites' case the tech was clearly making our society a better place, Is what OP said-that is subjective. How is our world, better? Is it truly better? Sure-I have benefited from use of computers, but many people have been killed from use of computers (drones, for example). It is very possible that all of this technology eventually wipes out humanity, which would not be beneficial, would it? The claim that technology has made society better is a very strong one, which no argument was made as for why. Your test isn't a proper test. Technology is neutral in the sense that all of the good it has brought, has also brought upon lots of bad. For every piece of technology used for good(missiles for space travel) there is an equivalent use that has done harm. (Cruise missiles, which have killed scores of people.) I'm not debating that technology had impact-but to say it is all beneficial, is a huge stretch.
      - adrianN 10y ago
        Nobody forces the development and adoption of new technology. So any successful technology is "better" for the people buying it. How far back would you go to claim that technology is not beneficial? Pre-industrial? Pre-agriculture? Pre-tool use? Technology made humans the most successful multicellular species we know.
        ntsplnkv2 10y ago
        Actually new technology IS forced on others-see the countless peoples killed by weapons of war. They didn't choose to get bombed out by a GPS guided missile, did they? What about the people killed after the atomic bomb killings? Technology is forced on everyone. Things we thought were convenient (cars, ships, the ICE, fossil fuels) may now plunge the planet into chaos and cause immense damage to our environment. Many people who have never had the choice of owning a car are now suffering from droughts and famine because of fossil fuel burning. It's naive to say technology isn't forced. It is, and always will be. Again, easy for us to say in the west, especially the US. We've seen a lot of the good, but we too have seen the bad. It's typically neutral. Technology is not universally beneficial. You can go back maybe to the first group of humans who used a fire to survive a cold spell but since then, there has been destructive and constructive technology.
adrianN 10y ago
Look at the machine you're writing your comments on. That thing wouldn't be possible without automation and technology. Fewer people than ever are working mind-numbing, dangerous factory or agriculture jobs. That is a good thing.

imartin2k 10y ago

True, and it is likely the same now again. So the only real question is: Can we get there without the devastating side effects of the transition period, and how?!

wav-part 10y ago
Yes we can. Food & Shelter is cheap. We can very well survive until new marketable skills can be learnt.
- ska 10y ago
  The lesson of the Luddites is that this doesn't really work - you are likely to have multigenerational negative economic effects. As a society you can either decide that is acceptable or plan to mitigate it, but ignoring it or wishing it away doesn't help.
- ntsplnkv2 10y ago
  Maybe for people living in Silicon Valley or the west, if this is even feasible.

marcosdumay 10y ago

On the short term - I mean, a century, maybe plus another half - it wasn't. Technology was making the life of everybody miserable, except for some very few. With time something else changed¹, and tech became a good thing. 1 - My bet is on ubiquity. Capital became so common it started to lose the competition with labor, and all the low hanging fruits for automation were gone, so it couldn't compete on new ways.