22 ms·

I feel like you are unintentionally making the very point of this article: the Luddites weren't simply "entitled" to their craft, they were entitled to their ab

by oliv__ 8y ago

I feel like you are unintentionally making the very point of this article: the Luddites weren't simply "entitled" to their craft, they were entitled to their ability to feed their children and exist in their society. Which I think every human being is very much entitled to. Furthermore, the article specifically insists that they weren't against all technology but instead this particular technology and its use and impact on their society (lower wages etc...). When you say "You don’t get to hold the rest of society hostage...", this just sounds like another way of calling anyone who disagrees with your thesis a Luddite, and to end the conversation. Who said the "rest of society" agrees with you in the first place?

crazydoggers 8y ago
Your entitled to feed your children... but your not entitled to force the rest of us to support your way of life to do so. The rest of us need to respond to the times and adapt. No one gets to say my job should always exist. Unless ever person can have the same guarantee, then crafts people and coal miners need to adapt like the rest of us.
- mistermann 8y ago
  I'm forced to pay taxes to support things I don't necessarily like, which I'm ok with provided there is some compromise and discussion, and it serves the greater good. But I'm really starting to notice a lot of things happening that maybe aren't serving the greater good, and I particularly don't care for this authoritative culture developing, mainly among young progressives, that seems to not welcome dissenting opinions.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  What about your responsibility to care for me and my children after, through no fault of my own, you completely destroyed my sources of income? Did all my work, now obsoleted, not contribute to society's wealth and progress? I have a similar view here to what Scott Alexander explained in[0]. Humans were here first, society came later. To quote, "Society got where it is by systematically destroying everything that could have supported him and replacing it with things that required skills he didn’t have. Of course it owes him when he suddenly can’t support himself. Think of it as the ultimate use of eminent domain; a power beyond your control has seized everything in the world, it had some good economic reasons for doing so, but it at least owes you compensation!" I'm very much a fan of progress of technology. But I want this progress to be for the good of all of us. Part of that is considering how that progress is affecting people and mitigating the negatives. Anything less is IMO complete lack of empathy. -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ - trigger warning: mentions of mental health and suicide. But the conclusion is 100% transplantable to this topic, and the author acknowledged that in the text too.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    > complete lack of empathy. For all I know, empathy might well be a disability that holds each of us back from doing his/her best. Why do you think it is so essential? (EDIT: changed diction; changes are marked in italics)
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      My definition of "doing our best" involves empathy as one of its core components.
      - mmirate 8y ago
        I apologize for my imprecise diction. I should have said, "disability that holds each of us back from doing his/her best". I have edited my previous comment accordingly.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I still believe that empathy isn't holding us back. As long as you're dealing with other people, everyone having empathy is better than everyone not having it. With empathy, you might "not do your best" by helping someone in their need, but then someone else will help you in your need, and the sum of such interactions gives better payoff to everyone individually than if everyone went completely alone. On the other hand, without widespread empathy, you'd live in constant fear, as any stranger out there - even those you don't know exist - could, at any time, decide to abuse you for their own gain.
mmirate 8y ago
> exist in their society. Which I think every human being is very much entitled to. What? No! Maintaining the very existence of each human, requires resources and labor. Obtaining others' resources and labor means you are either purchasing it or stealing it, and if the latter was ethical then we'd have a society full of thieves and bereft of anyone doing any honest productive work. So while you are entitled to exchange some of your valuable things or labor for the valuable things+labor that help you stay alive ... you are most certainly not entitled to simply have them "automatically". There's no such thing as a "free lunch".

by oliv__ 8y ago

crazydoggers 8y ago

Your entitled to feed your children... but your not entitled to force the rest of us to support your way of life to do so. The rest of us need to respond to the times and adapt. No one gets to say my job should always exist. Unless ever person can have the same guarantee, then crafts people and coal miners need to adapt like the rest of us.

mistermann 8y ago
I'm forced to pay taxes to support things I don't necessarily like, which I'm ok with provided there is some compromise and discussion, and it serves the greater good. But I'm really starting to notice a lot of things happening that maybe aren't serving the greater good, and I particularly don't care for this authoritative culture developing, mainly among young progressives, that seems to not welcome dissenting opinions.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
What about your responsibility to care for me and my children after, through no fault of my own, you completely destroyed my sources of income? Did all my work, now obsoleted, not contribute to society's wealth and progress? I have a similar view here to what Scott Alexander explained in[0]. Humans were here first, society came later. To quote, "Society got where it is by systematically destroying everything that could have supported him and replacing it with things that required skills he didn’t have. Of course it owes him when he suddenly can’t support himself. Think of it as the ultimate use of eminent domain; a power beyond your control has seized everything in the world, it had some good economic reasons for doing so, but it at least owes you compensation!" I'm very much a fan of progress of technology. But I want this progress to be for the good of all of us. Part of that is considering how that progress is affecting people and mitigating the negatives. Anything less is IMO complete lack of empathy. -- [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/16/burdens/ - trigger warning: mentions of mental health and suicide. But the conclusion is 100% transplantable to this topic, and the author acknowledged that in the text too.
- mmirate 8y ago
  > complete lack of empathy. For all I know, empathy might well be a disability that holds each of us back from doing his/her best. Why do you think it is so essential? (EDIT: changed diction; changes are marked in italics)
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    My definition of "doing our best" involves empathy as one of its core components.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      I apologize for my imprecise diction. I should have said, "disability that holds each of us back from doing his/her best". I have edited my previous comment accordingly.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I still believe that empathy isn't holding us back. As long as you're dealing with other people, everyone having empathy is better than everyone not having it. With empathy, you might "not do your best" by helping someone in their need, but then someone else will help you in your need, and the sum of such interactions gives better payoff to everyone individually than if everyone went completely alone. On the other hand, without widespread empathy, you'd live in constant fear, as any stranger out there - even those you don't know exist - could, at any time, decide to abuse you for their own gain.

mmirate 8y ago

> exist in their society. Which I think every human being is very much entitled to. What? No! Maintaining the very existence of each human, requires resources and labor. Obtaining others' resources and labor means you are either purchasing it or stealing it, and if the latter was ethical then we'd have a society full of thieves and bereft of anyone doing any honest productive work. So while you are entitled to exchange some of your valuable things or labor for the valuable things+labor that help you stay alive ... you are most certainly not entitled to simply have them "automatically". There's no such thing as a "free lunch".