13 ms·

Why the Luddites Matter

261 points by imartin2k 8y ago

jhbadger 8y ago
Yes, it is unfortunate that the term "Luddite" has become shorthand for irrational dislike of technology while the historical Luddites had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike mechanization.
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  They didn't even intrinsically dislike mechanisation. They just viewed machine sabotage as an effective tactic. The straw man of them being anti technology crusaders was entirely a stereotype created and perpetuated by capitalists.
  - shams93 8y ago
    Yeah the story is not so much about being anti-technology rayger it's about taking action when technology ceases to be a tool for the common good and instead enables a handful to place inhuman levels of leverage over the majority with it.
  - jpttsn 8y ago
    The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.
    - wiz21c 8y ago
      >> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Compassion and sympathy without reason just lead to activities that don't help those who are supposed to be helped, and may even harm them. Reason is not incompatible with compassion.
      - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
        Why are those superior attributes to rationality?
        anoncoward111 8y ago
        because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine
        roenxi 8y ago
        There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen. You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath. What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.
        anoncoward111 8y ago
        ok, i have a better one: "rationally", i shouldn't care about global warming because it's inconvenient to alter my lifestyle and because global warming will not affect me as much in my lifetime but "empathetically" i care about the future environment i'm leaving for future humans
        shakna 8y ago
        You're using 'rational' as something devoid from worldview - which it can't be. Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name. Still rational, differing worldview. Part of the worldview your thoughts on rationallity betray is that only the 'here and now' matter. Which only fits a very small philosophy even within the subset of humanity that have no belief in anything supernatural. A worldview guides not just our view on our relationship to others, and ourselves, and not just moral conduct, but the end goals being targeted. Our rationallity cannot be divorced from our motivations. Some worldviews are just 'to live another day', others are more nuanced, measuring impact against criteria. For example, frugality is a worldview, where you don't have any rational compulsion to kill, steal and hoarde, as you don't need it anyway.
      - megaman22 8y ago
        Rational is exactly what is needed. People suck, and sympathy for their suckiness and failings is the last thing that will spur meaningful progress in the crusade to make people suck less. I wish I was kidding.
        projektir 8y ago
        That's a really high horse you're sitting on.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Rationality is mostly orthogonal to empathy, sympathy and compassion. Think of it this way: empathy, sympathy, and compassion are inputs. Rationality is the reasoning process. If you're rational but don't have those three inputs, you'll end up as a highly-functional sociopath. If you do have those three inputs but don't think rationally, you'll make a lot of wrong decisions that hurt people you're trying to help.
simula67 8y ago
> Frankly, the Luddites wanted to be able to feed their children, they didn’t want to be driven into poverty, and they thought those things were more important than the factory owners becoming wealthier and more powerful The effect of industrial revolution was not just factory owners being wealthier or more powerful. It raised the workers wages and increased living standards for everyone
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Over time, and over lots of fighting. It didn't look like it when it's your boss that started to suppress your wages thanks to a new machine. Yes, the industrial revolution enabled increased wages and living standards. But for them to actually happen, and trickle down to workers, people had to fight hard. The modern working standards are literally written in tears and blood of our forefathers.
  - wiz21c 8y ago
    >>> people had to fight hard that's the unfortunate truth about "wealth redistribution" (aka "inequality"). it's quite logical : those who have much don't feel the need to give as much as those who feel the need to have more.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      It wasn't really about wealth redistribution. It was about not exploiting people to the limits of possibility, and then discarding the hulks. The work conditions during early industrial revolution were inhumane.
  - a1369209993 8y ago
    Technically, (somewhat) increased living standards are a inevitable consequence of significant production improvements in a not-completely-disfunctional economy. That doesn't really help in the short term though. Also: > literally written in tears and blood figuratively; tears and blood make shit writing materials.
627467 8y ago
Class wanted to maintain status quo, and resorted to violence as part of that campaign... it has nothing to do with technology itself. Why does it matter? It may matter like any other labour movement matters.
benbreen 8y ago
Thoughtful, well-researched post. People reading this may be interested in Lord Byron's first speech to the House of Lords as well, which was a full-throated defense of the Luddites. As you might guess, it's beautifully written. It also nicely magnifies the historical irony of Byron fathering Ada Lovelace. http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html "Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment. Yet it is to be observed, that the work thus executed was inferior in quality, not marketable at home, and merely hurried over with a view to exportation. It was called, in the cant of the trade, by the name of Spider-work. The rejected workmen, in the blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master without being detrimental to the servant; yet, in the present situation of our manufactures, rotting in warehouses without a prospect of exportation, with the demand for work and workmen equally diminished, frames of this construction tend materially to aggravate the distresses and discontents of the disappointed sufferers. But the real cause of these distresses, and consequent disturbances, lies deeper."
- cornholio 8y ago
  I think this fragment clearly spells out what the Luddites were back then and what they are remembered for today. No, the Luddites where not against technology, and those using the term properly are not saying that. Luddites rebelled against workplace automation, with the explicit view that it renders skilled human labor unable to compete and has disastrous social consequences. To call someone a modern Luddite has a very specific meaning, it denotes opposition based on employment circumstances. We aren't talking about Google Glass, mass surveillance, social credits or any ethically troubling technology that is yet to be accepted by society. We are talking about technology designed to increase productivity of regular, already accepted goods that has no nefarious effects other than unemployment, and that, during the last 300 years, increased productivity, lower prices and released humanity from industrial slavery. The question is: can this process go on forever, aren't we hitting a hard ceiling of human adaptability where the thinking machines will make us totally unable to compete in the workplace? The Luddites matter, but not in the way the author surmises.
zer0dayz 8y ago
This author: “Luddites did not hate machines, they only hated and smashed certain machines at certain factories in certain situations.” Also this author: “The KKK did not discriminate against all black people. Only certain black people at certain times for certain reasons.” The idea that they are going to carve up the phrase “Luddite” in such a surgical way to make it prove whatever point they are trying to make here is pretty funny to me. Did they smash machines to protect their wages or not? The reason this article is even on the front page in the first place is that we are already in a Neo-Luddite period featuring socialism reworded as “Universal Basic Income” (no people, it really is just “socialism” you don’t need another phrase for it) and the scare tactics being used to promote it (automation and robots). The social mood is swinging Luddite, the reason people are voting this up is because they feel the need to justify what is becoming a common opinion: Tech is bad, we must regulate it, it is a threat, we must burn all tech to the ground and tax it as hard as possible. Go ahead and hate tech, but don’t try to pawn off this pretzel logic on us.
throwaway_234 8y ago
As a UI/UX Designer I design with this audience in mind. Though working with one is a bit annoying. Hey let’s design it this way it’s simpler umm no I don’t know how to code it that new way let’s do it the way I know. Sigh.
cheschire 8y ago
Try explaining to people that you’re a programmer who doesn’t own a cell phone, and count the seconds till this term gets raised. It’s disheartening to watch our society practically force others through attempted shaming to follow the acceptable path. I admit feebly that I bought a cell phone because the infotainment system in my car is garbage, and that seems to silence the worst of it, but I feel it’s going against my own values to even bring up that glorified internet radio as roughly equivalent to their pocket leash just so I don’t have to defend my pride yet again.
- ChristianBundy 8y ago
  Have you written about your motivations or experience without a cell phone? I've been considering getting rid of mine (and a local friend switched to a dumb phone[0]) but RMS is the first person that comes to mind when I think of a programmer without a cell phone. [0]: http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone-chronicles/ http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone-chronicles/
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    I'm a bit like your friend, and I add one more twist, I have my phone off quite frequently. Not switched to silence, just off. I don't need to be reachable at any time of day or night.
  - __s 8y ago
    I'm also a programmar without a phone or cell. No TV either. I beat people to the punch & laugh about being a technoluddite. Goes along with my at-home development environment being a linux tty & staying off Facebook. Have a nice century old home. My boss is thinking of buying me a cell. I tend towards a lot of seemingly contradictory behavior: philosophically I'm somewhat of a stoic/hedonist hybrid I think programmers are more likely to opt out of things like cell phones. More likely to be technically competent enough to be work around challenges of going with simplicity & more likely to want that simplicity. Also more likely to see behind the curtain of this post privacy world
  - cheschire 8y ago
haberman 8y ago
The author perceives an unjust smear against historical Luddites, and protests the way that this cuts off critical thinking about the issue of technology in our lives. They highlight that historical Luddites had noble and relatable motives, like wanting better wages to feed their families. They entreat us to think with nuance on the issue. A good and fair point. But then, just paragraphs later, the same author casually throws out two of the most charged smears in modern discourse: "In the midst of recent years that have shown the sorts of racist and misogynistic biases that are often endemic in the tech world...". There is no explanation or justification of what is meant by this. There is certainly no nuance. This seems endemic to modern discourse. We want a fair hearing of our own beliefs. We feel persecuted when others smear us. But we see no problem tossing around harsh judgments of others, with no nuance or recognition of other people's potentially noble goals. I wonder if this author would be willing to give a fair and nuanced hearing towards people who are conservative on immigration (for example). Worry about immigrants taking jobs is one of the top reasons people give for opposing immigration. So the original Luddites and people who are conservative on immigration have something in common. I think this paragraph from the article takes on new meaning if you substitute "immigration" and "xenophobia" for "technology" and "technophobia". I wonder if the author would still support the argument: > And I must report that it seems quite obvious that terms like “anti-technology” and even “technophobia” are just signs of lazy thinking, they say far more about the person using those terms than the people being accused of being “anti-technology.” In the vast majority of cases when you actually consider what these so-called “anti-technology” folks believe you realize that they don’t oppose “all” technology but (brace yourself) particular technologies, being used in particular ways, in a particular context. This is not to pretend that genuinely “extreme” cases don’t exist, but to claim that someone who thinks Facebook has become too big wants us all to go back to living in the woods is patently absurd. Yet it is the type of absurdity that becomes common in a society that has lost the ability to think critically about technology. My goal overall isn't to shame the author though. I want to argue that we should apply this charity towards everyone making arguments, not just the people who align with us.
- memonkey 8y ago
  I think one of those points is the historical context the argument considers and the consequences that surround it and who is making the argument. For example, if an accused white supremacist in a position of power makes an argument for immigration, should we apply this charity?
crazydoggers 8y ago
The problem I have with the Luddites was their assumption that they were entitled to their way of life. It’s a similar refrain heard today... coal miners want more protection so they can continue to live and work in cole mining towns. They just want to feed their children... something we can all related to. But if times change, then you have to change with then. You don’t get to hold the rest of society hostage... either thru slowing tech progress via violence.. or continuing to support an industry that is destroying the planet.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  Can the average coal miner realistically move on with the times, or are you just asking them to die in penury? Maybe when we phase out a whole way of life for the greater good, we need to take care of the people left behind. If not, then of course they’ll fight tooth and nail, and we deserve it for expecting them to just bed over and take it for everyone’s benefit, but their’s.
  - crazydoggers 8y ago
    Yes... I’m sure they can. It’s primarily a choice. And let’s not pretend that we’re talking about the underprivileged. Coal miners often make more than college graduates. Often those fighting the hardest are doing so because they have a sweet deal. The people who are actually poor are more flexible... already working several jobs, or taking night classes to do better. In the end it’s entightlement plain and simple.
    - dbasedweeb 8y ago
      Yes... I’m sure they can. It’s primarily a choice. And let’s not pretend that we’re talking about the underprivileged. Coal miners often make more than college graduates. Working harder too, and in a single very specialized field. So you take that away, what skills do they have? What choices are they free to make? Often those fighting the hardest are doing so because they have a sweet deal. The sweet deal of working deep underground on a coal face, in dirty, dangerous conditions? Uh huh. Besides you’re proving their point, when people out there just shrug and say “fuck ‘em, not my problem,” who wouldn’t fight? They don’t owe you anything either. Not to mention that your “average salary” bit is deceptive. The average salary for a coal miner is around $65,000, while the average salary for a recent college grad with a bachelor’s is $50,000. Obviously that includes everything from engineering to expressive dance, and there is no definite ceiling. A coal miner is stuck on the low end, period, and painting them as privelaged... on HN... is pathetic.
truculation 8y ago
>Of course, we know that today the Luddites are not viewed particularly kindly On the contrary, it is technology and progress that are viewed with scepticism -- watch almost any recent sci-fi movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM
pdimitar 8y ago
> you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mother's phone as well), I am unplugging microphones and webcams when not using them, I refuse to buy washing machines and any kind of kitchen tech with touch screens (they are awfully non-durable, big surprise right?) and prefer tech with real, physical buttons. I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV. I am even considering making my home WiFi network hidden (not advertised). If you manually specify SSID and password you will connect alright but you can never see the SSID. I feel this might be a necessary default before too long. We'll see. I did give WiFi access to my printer because accessing it through the router's USB port turned into a nightmare of problems and inconsistency. I disallowed it to make outgoing connections (through the router) anywhere but in the local network however -- I don't want it going to the internet. Point is, new tech is marketed as "progress" for mercantile reasons by the big corps and me and many others aren't just taking their word for it when they say it's for the best of all of us. My rather depressing observation has been that historically, ever since the 90s, technology and especially computers / phones aren't used to improve people's lives; they only complicate them and increase people's time, energy and money expenses. To actually improve your life with tech you have to go a lot of extra miles. The marketed "progress" technologies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt lately. It's all but a historical fact that most "progress" is mostly "guys, here's a new market we just invented, please buy because we want the money".
- lmns 8y ago
  If your access point doesn't advertise your SSID, your clients will. It's a bit counterintuitive, but in practice hiding your SSID does the opposite of what it says.
  - pdimitar 8y ago
    Could you please expand on that with an example? I am yet to read anything on hidden SSIDs, I'll appreciate the human explanation.
FrozenVoid 8y ago
Luddites are just people disempowered by automation and capitalism: if its cheaper to use machines than people, automation makes people effectively jobless - and if automation touches multiple sectors of economy it multiplies the effect by squeezing out people from multiple sides, reducing the labor demand significantly. If there are no alternative sources of income(welfare, UBI) that correct this, expect many more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation. Its not that these people would be "against progress", they would be against more concrete things(such as the article describes) like automated trucks/delivery and start attacking/robbing/sabotaging the machines to discourage their use instead of people. Just like some abuse automated cashiers(cash registers) to steal products and earlier trends of vending machine abuse: it doesn't register to people they are criminals because the target of crime isn't human, therefore justifying their impulse and intention. That means NeoLuddites don't lose their own 'moral high ground' and will be able to easily spread their ideologies as automation carries bigger and bigger chunk of the economy.
- gaius 8y ago
  more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation The difference being that the automation you want to smash is actually thousands of miles away in China; there are no local factories anymore for the neo-Luddites to target.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    The automated trucks and cash registers his post refers to cannot be "thousands of miles away in China" and serve their intended purpose.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  I think this is where the moral issue pops up. Is handing out bread and circus a meaningful response to taking away people’s agency?
  - mmirate 8y ago
    It is, if the goal is to be the next Roman Empire. That goal, of course, is quite dubious, since it involves illiberality, authoritarianism, etc.
knorker 8y ago
The term is overused, yes. But sometimes it's correct. The taxi industry (especially black cabs in London) fits everything in this article, in my opinion. People who "just want to feed their children" trying to force democracy and capitalism to purchase a product (their skill, called "the knowledge") that has become obsolete, a product nobody needs anymore. You have a skill. I'm sorry, that skill is no longer required in the world of 2018 for many years. Your job can now actually be done by anyone, and that is why you're getting competition. It's as if everyone with a liberal art's degree would demand to become a famous artist. (a difference being of course that London black cabs are hugely corrupt, as seen by blatant disregard for payment rules, tax law, traffic rules and the fact that they fairly successfully make TFL act against the interests of everyone-who-is-not-a-black-cab-driver, which is most people) rant over
indogooner 8y ago
My takeaway : "You probably want to be able to feed your children (if you have any), you probably don’t want to be driven into poverty, and you probably feel that your economic security is at least as important as your boss’s ability to buy a new vacation home"
darepublic 8y ago
I think a google glass type product will be back eventually
bleachedsleet 8y ago
The author's premise is that Luddites are a misunderstood group with a misunderstood agenda but then goes on to immediately say: "The historic Luddites were skilled craft workers laboring in England in the early 19th century, and they were amongst the first groups to see their jobs and lifestyles fall victim to mechanization; their opposition to 'obnoxious' machinery was in keeping with their view that the imposition of these machines would bring 'a sad end to an honourable craft.'" ...which is exactly why myself and others generally ignore ludditism. To me this seems perfectly in line with the general understanding of the term: people that are being displaced by progress and become generally opposed to said progress as a result, often violently so. I'm sorry if new technologies are hurting your lifestyle, but if the only way to become heard is to literally destroy that tech, then perhaps no one wants to listen. Adapt or die. This is the way of evolution.
- cjarrett 8y ago
  To give an older, 30 year long rejoinder by a famous, well regarded major American author: the question to ask is, is it OK to be a luddite? https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...
- Izkata 8y ago
  Yeah, this article actually confused me a bit, too. I always thought the common understanding of Luddite was "doesn't understand / doesn't care about" technology. Did nothing to dissuade that notion, either.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jefurii 8y ago
The Amish are another group whose name is synonymous with rejecting all technology, but whose story is much more nuanced. They carefully consider each technology and try it out on selected individuals to see what effect it has on them, their family, and their community. They're not afraid to reject a technology or to set limits on its use; they're also not afraid to adopt a technology if it's useful to them. Howard Rheingold's 1999 article (https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/) is a classic. Kevin Kelly has also written a lot about the Amish and their relation to technology.

261 points by imartin2k 8y ago

Yes, it is unfortunate that the term "Luddite" has become shorthand for irrational dislike of technology while the historical Luddites had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike mechanization.

crdoconnor 8y ago
They didn't even intrinsically dislike mechanisation. They just viewed machine sabotage as an effective tactic. The straw man of them being anti technology crusaders was entirely a stereotype created and perpetuated by capitalists.
- shams93 8y ago
  Yeah the story is not so much about being anti-technology rayger it's about taking action when technology ceases to be a tool for the common good and instead enables a handful to place inhuman levels of leverage over the majority with it.
- jpttsn 8y ago
  The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.
  - wiz21c 8y ago
    >> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Compassion and sympathy without reason just lead to activities that don't help those who are supposed to be helped, and may even harm them. Reason is not incompatible with compassion.
    - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
      Why are those superior attributes to rationality?
      - anoncoward111 8y ago
        because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine
        roenxi 8y ago
        There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen. You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath. What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.
        anoncoward111 8y ago
        ok, i have a better one: "rationally", i shouldn't care about global warming because it's inconvenient to alter my lifestyle and because global warming will not affect me as much in my lifetime but "empathetically" i care about the future environment i'm leaving for future humans
        shakna 8y ago
        You're using 'rational' as something devoid from worldview - which it can't be. Rationally I should have multiple children, as my only legacy is my name. Still rational, differing worldview. Part of the worldview your thoughts on rationallity betray is that only the 'here and now' matter. Which only fits a very small philosophy even within the subset of humanity that have no belief in anything supernatural. A worldview guides not just our view on our relationship to others, and ourselves, and not just moral conduct, but the end goals being targeted. Our rationallity cannot be divorced from our motivations. Some worldviews are just 'to live another day', others are more nuanced, measuring impact against criteria. For example, frugality is a worldview, where you don't have any rational compulsion to kill, steal and hoarde, as you don't need it anyway.
    - megaman22 8y ago
      Rational is exactly what is needed. People suck, and sympathy for their suckiness and failings is the last thing that will spur meaningful progress in the crusade to make people suck less. I wish I was kidding.
      - projektir 8y ago
        That's a really high horse you're sitting on.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Rationality is mostly orthogonal to empathy, sympathy and compassion. Think of it this way: empathy, sympathy, and compassion are inputs. Rationality is the reasoning process. If you're rational but don't have those three inputs, you'll end up as a highly-functional sociopath. If you do have those three inputs but don't think rationally, you'll make a lot of wrong decisions that hurt people you're trying to help.

simula67 8y ago

> Frankly, the Luddites wanted to be able to feed their children, they didn’t want to be driven into poverty, and they thought those things were more important than the factory owners becoming wealthier and more powerful The effect of industrial revolution was not just factory owners being wealthier or more powerful. It raised the workers wages and increased living standards for everyone

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Over time, and over lots of fighting. It didn't look like it when it's your boss that started to suppress your wages thanks to a new machine. Yes, the industrial revolution enabled increased wages and living standards. But for them to actually happen, and trickle down to workers, people had to fight hard. The modern working standards are literally written in tears and blood of our forefathers.
- wiz21c 8y ago
  >>> people had to fight hard that's the unfortunate truth about "wealth redistribution" (aka "inequality"). it's quite logical : those who have much don't feel the need to give as much as those who feel the need to have more.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It wasn't really about wealth redistribution. It was about not exploiting people to the limits of possibility, and then discarding the hulks. The work conditions during early industrial revolution were inhumane.
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Technically, (somewhat) increased living standards are a inevitable consequence of significant production improvements in a not-completely-disfunctional economy. That doesn't really help in the short term though. Also: > literally written in tears and blood figuratively; tears and blood make shit writing materials.

627467 8y ago

Class wanted to maintain status quo, and resorted to violence as part of that campaign... it has nothing to do with technology itself. Why does it matter? It may matter like any other labour movement matters.

benbreen 8y ago

Thoughtful, well-researched post. People reading this may be interested in Lord Byron's first speech to the House of Lords as well, which was a full-throated defense of the Luddites. As you might guess, it's beautifully written. It also nicely magnifies the historical irony of Byron fathering Ada Lovelace. http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html http://www.luddites200.org.uk/LordByronspeech.html "Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment. Yet it is to be observed, that the work thus executed was inferior in quality, not marketable at home, and merely hurried over with a view to exportation. It was called, in the cant of the trade, by the name of Spider-work. The rejected workmen, in the blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master without being detrimental to the servant; yet, in the present situation of our manufactures, rotting in warehouses without a prospect of exportation, with the demand for work and workmen equally diminished, frames of this construction tend materially to aggravate the distresses and discontents of the disappointed sufferers. But the real cause of these distresses, and consequent disturbances, lies deeper."

cornholio 8y ago
I think this fragment clearly spells out what the Luddites were back then and what they are remembered for today. No, the Luddites where not against technology, and those using the term properly are not saying that. Luddites rebelled against workplace automation, with the explicit view that it renders skilled human labor unable to compete and has disastrous social consequences. To call someone a modern Luddite has a very specific meaning, it denotes opposition based on employment circumstances. We aren't talking about Google Glass, mass surveillance, social credits or any ethically troubling technology that is yet to be accepted by society. We are talking about technology designed to increase productivity of regular, already accepted goods that has no nefarious effects other than unemployment, and that, during the last 300 years, increased productivity, lower prices and released humanity from industrial slavery. The question is: can this process go on forever, aren't we hitting a hard ceiling of human adaptability where the thinking machines will make us totally unable to compete in the workplace? The Luddites matter, but not in the way the author surmises.

zer0dayz 8y ago

This author: “Luddites did not hate machines, they only hated and smashed certain machines at certain factories in certain situations.” Also this author: “The KKK did not discriminate against all black people. Only certain black people at certain times for certain reasons.” The idea that they are going to carve up the phrase “Luddite” in such a surgical way to make it prove whatever point they are trying to make here is pretty funny to me. Did they smash machines to protect their wages or not? The reason this article is even on the front page in the first place is that we are already in a Neo-Luddite period featuring socialism reworded as “Universal Basic Income” (no people, it really is just “socialism” you don’t need another phrase for it) and the scare tactics being used to promote it (automation and robots). The social mood is swinging Luddite, the reason people are voting this up is because they feel the need to justify what is becoming a common opinion: Tech is bad, we must regulate it, it is a threat, we must burn all tech to the ground and tax it as hard as possible. Go ahead and hate tech, but don’t try to pawn off this pretzel logic on us.

throwaway_234 8y ago

As a UI/UX Designer I design with this audience in mind. Though working with one is a bit annoying. Hey let’s design it this way it’s simpler umm no I don’t know how to code it that new way let’s do it the way I know. Sigh.

cheschire 8y ago

Try explaining to people that you’re a programmer who doesn’t own a cell phone, and count the seconds till this term gets raised. It’s disheartening to watch our society practically force others through attempted shaming to follow the acceptable path. I admit feebly that I bought a cell phone because the infotainment system in my car is garbage, and that seems to silence the worst of it, but I feel it’s going against my own values to even bring up that glorified internet radio as roughly equivalent to their pocket leash just so I don’t have to defend my pride yet again.

ChristianBundy 8y ago
Have you written about your motivations or experience without a cell phone? I've been considering getting rid of mine (and a local friend switched to a dumb phone[0]) but RMS is the first person that comes to mind when I think of a programmer without a cell phone. [0]: http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone-chronicles/ http://jordancrane.me/2018/04/16/the-dumbphone-chronicles/
- jacquesm 8y ago
  I'm a bit like your friend, and I add one more twist, I have my phone off quite frequently. Not switched to silence, just off. I don't need to be reachable at any time of day or night.
- __s 8y ago
  I'm also a programmar without a phone or cell. No TV either. I beat people to the punch & laugh about being a technoluddite. Goes along with my at-home development environment being a linux tty & staying off Facebook. Have a nice century old home. My boss is thinking of buying me a cell. I tend towards a lot of seemingly contradictory behavior: philosophically I'm somewhat of a stoic/hedonist hybrid I think programmers are more likely to opt out of things like cell phones. More likely to be technically competent enough to be work around challenges of going with simplicity & more likely to want that simplicity. Also more likely to see behind the curtain of this post privacy world
- cheschire 8y ago

haberman 8y ago

The author perceives an unjust smear against historical Luddites, and protests the way that this cuts off critical thinking about the issue of technology in our lives. They highlight that historical Luddites had noble and relatable motives, like wanting better wages to feed their families. They entreat us to think with nuance on the issue. A good and fair point. But then, just paragraphs later, the same author casually throws out two of the most charged smears in modern discourse: "In the midst of recent years that have shown the sorts of racist and misogynistic biases that are often endemic in the tech world...". There is no explanation or justification of what is meant by this. There is certainly no nuance. This seems endemic to modern discourse. We want a fair hearing of our own beliefs. We feel persecuted when others smear us. But we see no problem tossing around harsh judgments of others, with no nuance or recognition of other people's potentially noble goals. I wonder if this author would be willing to give a fair and nuanced hearing towards people who are conservative on immigration (for example). Worry about immigrants taking jobs is one of the top reasons people give for opposing immigration. So the original Luddites and people who are conservative on immigration have something in common. I think this paragraph from the article takes on new meaning if you substitute "immigration" and "xenophobia" for "technology" and "technophobia". I wonder if the author would still support the argument: > And I must report that it seems quite obvious that terms like “anti-technology” and even “technophobia” are just signs of lazy thinking, they say far more about the person using those terms than the people being accused of being “anti-technology.” In the vast majority of cases when you actually consider what these so-called “anti-technology” folks believe you realize that they don’t oppose “all” technology but (brace yourself) particular technologies, being used in particular ways, in a particular context. This is not to pretend that genuinely “extreme” cases don’t exist, but to claim that someone who thinks Facebook has become too big wants us all to go back to living in the woods is patently absurd. Yet it is the type of absurdity that becomes common in a society that has lost the ability to think critically about technology. My goal overall isn't to shame the author though. I want to argue that we should apply this charity towards everyone making arguments, not just the people who align with us.

memonkey 8y ago
I think one of those points is the historical context the argument considers and the consequences that surround it and who is making the argument. For example, if an accused white supremacist in a position of power makes an argument for immigration, should we apply this charity?

crazydoggers 8y ago

The problem I have with the Luddites was their assumption that they were entitled to their way of life. It’s a similar refrain heard today... coal miners want more protection so they can continue to live and work in cole mining towns. They just want to feed their children... something we can all related to. But if times change, then you have to change with then. You don’t get to hold the rest of society hostage... either thru slowing tech progress via violence.. or continuing to support an industry that is destroying the planet.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
Can the average coal miner realistically move on with the times, or are you just asking them to die in penury? Maybe when we phase out a whole way of life for the greater good, we need to take care of the people left behind. If not, then of course they’ll fight tooth and nail, and we deserve it for expecting them to just bed over and take it for everyone’s benefit, but their’s.
- crazydoggers 8y ago
  Yes... I’m sure they can. It’s primarily a choice. And let’s not pretend that we’re talking about the underprivileged. Coal miners often make more than college graduates. Often those fighting the hardest are doing so because they have a sweet deal. The people who are actually poor are more flexible... already working several jobs, or taking night classes to do better. In the end it’s entightlement plain and simple.
  - dbasedweeb 8y ago
    Yes... I’m sure they can. It’s primarily a choice. And let’s not pretend that we’re talking about the underprivileged. Coal miners often make more than college graduates. Working harder too, and in a single very specialized field. So you take that away, what skills do they have? What choices are they free to make? Often those fighting the hardest are doing so because they have a sweet deal. The sweet deal of working deep underground on a coal face, in dirty, dangerous conditions? Uh huh. Besides you’re proving their point, when people out there just shrug and say “fuck ‘em, not my problem,” who wouldn’t fight? They don’t owe you anything either. Not to mention that your “average salary” bit is deceptive. The average salary for a coal miner is around $65,000, while the average salary for a recent college grad with a bachelor’s is $50,000. Obviously that includes everything from engineering to expressive dance, and there is no definite ceiling. A coal miner is stuck on the low end, period, and painting them as privelaged... on HN... is pathetic.

truculation 8y ago

>Of course, we know that today the Luddites are not viewed particularly kindly On the contrary, it is technology and progress that are viewed with scepticism -- watch almost any recent sci-fi movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX-K63pVPTM

pdimitar 8y ago

> you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mother's phone as well), I am unplugging microphones and webcams when not using them, I refuse to buy washing machines and any kind of kitchen tech with touch screens (they are awfully non-durable, big surprise right?) and prefer tech with real, physical buttons. I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV. I am even considering making my home WiFi network hidden (not advertised). If you manually specify SSID and password you will connect alright but you can never see the SSID. I feel this might be a necessary default before too long. We'll see. I did give WiFi access to my printer because accessing it through the router's USB port turned into a nightmare of problems and inconsistency. I disallowed it to make outgoing connections (through the router) anywhere but in the local network however -- I don't want it going to the internet. Point is, new tech is marketed as "progress" for mercantile reasons by the big corps and me and many others aren't just taking their word for it when they say it's for the best of all of us. My rather depressing observation has been that historically, ever since the 90s, technology and especially computers / phones aren't used to improve people's lives; they only complicate them and increase people's time, energy and money expenses. To actually improve your life with tech you have to go a lot of extra miles. The marketed "progress" technologies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt lately. It's all but a historical fact that most "progress" is mostly "guys, here's a new market we just invented, please buy because we want the money".

lmns 8y ago
If your access point doesn't advertise your SSID, your clients will. It's a bit counterintuitive, but in practice hiding your SSID does the opposite of what it says.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  Could you please expand on that with an example? I am yet to read anything on hidden SSIDs, I'll appreciate the human explanation.

FrozenVoid 8y ago

Luddites are just people disempowered by automation and capitalism: if its cheaper to use machines than people, automation makes people effectively jobless - and if automation touches multiple sectors of economy it multiplies the effect by squeezing out people from multiple sides, reducing the labor demand significantly. If there are no alternative sources of income(welfare, UBI) that correct this, expect many more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation. Its not that these people would be "against progress", they would be against more concrete things(such as the article describes) like automated trucks/delivery and start attacking/robbing/sabotaging the machines to discourage their use instead of people. Just like some abuse automated cashiers(cash registers) to steal products and earlier trends of vending machine abuse: it doesn't register to people they are criminals because the target of crime isn't human, therefore justifying their impulse and intention. That means NeoLuddites don't lose their own 'moral high ground' and will be able to easily spread their ideologies as automation carries bigger and bigger chunk of the economy.

gaius 8y ago
more "Neo-Luddites" to emerge; specifically in areas targeted for automation The difference being that the automation you want to smash is actually thousands of miles away in China; there are no local factories anymore for the neo-Luddites to target.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  The automated trucks and cash registers his post refers to cannot be "thousands of miles away in China" and serve their intended purpose.
Spooky23 8y ago
I think this is where the moral issue pops up. Is handing out bread and circus a meaningful response to taking away people’s agency?
- mmirate 8y ago
  It is, if the goal is to be the next Roman Empire. That goal, of course, is quite dubious, since it involves illiberality, authoritarianism, etc.

knorker 8y ago

The term is overused, yes. But sometimes it's correct. The taxi industry (especially black cabs in London) fits everything in this article, in my opinion. People who "just want to feed their children" trying to force democracy and capitalism to purchase a product (their skill, called "the knowledge") that has become obsolete, a product nobody needs anymore. You have a skill. I'm sorry, that skill is no longer required in the world of 2018 for many years. Your job can now actually be done by anyone, and that is why you're getting competition. It's as if everyone with a liberal art's degree would demand to become a famous artist. (a difference being of course that London black cabs are hugely corrupt, as seen by blatant disregard for payment rules, tax law, traffic rules and the fact that they fairly successfully make TFL act against the interests of everyone-who-is-not-a-black-cab-driver, which is most people) rant over

indogooner 8y ago

My takeaway : "You probably want to be able to feed your children (if you have any), you probably don’t want to be driven into poverty, and you probably feel that your economic security is at least as important as your boss’s ability to buy a new vacation home"

darepublic 8y ago

I think a google glass type product will be back eventually

bleachedsleet 8y ago

The author's premise is that Luddites are a misunderstood group with a misunderstood agenda but then goes on to immediately say: "The historic Luddites were skilled craft workers laboring in England in the early 19th century, and they were amongst the first groups to see their jobs and lifestyles fall victim to mechanization; their opposition to 'obnoxious' machinery was in keeping with their view that the imposition of these machines would bring 'a sad end to an honourable craft.'" ...which is exactly why myself and others generally ignore ludditism. To me this seems perfectly in line with the general understanding of the term: people that are being displaced by progress and become generally opposed to said progress as a result, often violently so. I'm sorry if new technologies are hurting your lifestyle, but if the only way to become heard is to literally destroy that tech, then perhaps no one wants to listen. Adapt or die. This is the way of evolution.

cjarrett 8y ago
To give an older, 30 year long rejoinder by a famous, well regarded major American author: the question to ask is, is it OK to be a luddite? https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...
Izkata 8y ago
Yeah, this article actually confused me a bit, too. I always thought the common understanding of Luddite was "doesn't understand / doesn't care about" technology. Did nothing to dissuade that notion, either.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jefurii 8y ago

The Amish are another group whose name is synonymous with rejecting all technology, but whose story is much more nuanced. They carefully consider each technology and try it out on selected individuals to see what effect it has on them, their family, and their community. They're not afraid to reject a technology or to set limits on its use; they're also not afraid to adopt a technology if it's useful to them. Howard Rheingold's 1999 article (https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/amish/) is a classic. Kevin Kelly has also written a lot about the Amish and their relation to technology.