6 ms·

I have to say, despite the article trying to put the most favorable light on the Luddites as the author could, the really do sound exactly like how the phrase i

by c3534l 8y ago

I have to say, despite the article trying to put the most favorable light on the Luddites as the author could, the really do sound exactly like how the phrase is normally used. You can put as much nuance as you can on it, they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring. They don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant. Maybe the Luddites had a point, but they were certainly afraid of what automation might do, and I see no problem after reading that entire article calling Ted Kaczynski or the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a Luddite, or calling the 1800s Luddites on the wrong side of history.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Just to be clear, when you use the phrase, "afraid of what technology might bring," you are referring to these people no longer having jobs or being able to take care of their families.
- pluto9 8y ago
  ...except the technology came anyway, and that didn't happen.
  - mehwoot 8y ago
    How do you know that? Just because you think we are fine in general, doesn't mean it worked out fine for those people who were protesting.
    - yaegers 8y ago
      The real problem with shifts like this is the transition period. I agree that that, considering every luddite separately, that each did have valid concerns. Every person cares forst on foremost about themselves and/or their immediate family. And when new things make old things redundant, of course it negatively affects the person whose job revolved around the old thing. And this in turn negatively affects their families. So, they are srewed. But the new thing is staying and from that point on, every "new" adult that looks for a job in that area will know nothing but the new thing. Will operate this new thing and will make a nice life for himself. In the end it will be viewed that the new thing is so much better and maybe society is actually better of having the new thing instead of how things would be if the old thing was still used, but the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement. That's not a law of nature; society could bail them out, much like we've done for arguably much less deserving classes.
      - protestersdie 8y ago
        The people didn't get screwed by the technological advancement. They were forsaken by society. The technological advancement will happen either way. The problem that can be avoided is letting people starve on the streets but as history has shown we prefer to silence them with bullets rather than help them. The "Luddite" argument is about what happens to the "useless" people. So far everyone just says "It's gonna be fine. Everyone else will be better off." which is equivalent to "fuck you I've got mine".
  - taneq 8y ago
    How many people do you know who work full time as professional weavers?
  - skgoa 8y ago
    > , and that didn't happen. ...except it did happen on a massive scale and led to violent unrest across Europe.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    For humanity in general? Sure. For those specific people? I don't think we know.
pera 8y ago
The historical context was completely different though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#Early_19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_U...
ska 8y ago
I think the point was that they were completely right to be afraid of the impact of technology (not the technology itself), and it is in fact exactly what happened. These families saw multi generational economic damage. This is an early chapter in the ongoing friction between capital and labor. The thing is, it's possible for the equivalent-of-the-Luddites to be right about the impact on their prospects and way of life, and for it still to be the right thing to do in a global sense. If an economic shift is going to significantly negatively impact the opportunities your children will have, you are on pretty solid ground getting pissed about it, particularly if it is being driven by people who stand to benefit from your losses. It still might be the right thing to do as a matter of, say, national policy. The real differentiation is what do we collectively do for those impacted - as a culture/government do we try an ease the transition, or take a "sucks to be you" stance. Just because something is/was a net benefit doesn't mean it can't also be horrific cf much of the early industrial revolution. Overall I think the phrase "Luddite" is commonly used these days to characterize someone who is afraid of technology because they don't understand it. More fairly, it would be used to describe people who are afraid of the impact of technology because they do understand it, possible better than most of their contemporaries.
- Scea91 8y ago
  Technology might have had a negative impact on their families but I believe that the alternative would be even worse for them. Without technology they would probably be conquered in war and speaking German now.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Why would that have necessarily been worse them?
  - larsiusprime 8y ago
    The issue is not that the technology existed, it is that it was deployed in a way, sponsored by explicit government policy[1], that enriched one class at deliberate expense of another. The technology could have been deployed in a way that benefitted all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
coldtea 8y ago
>I have to say, despite the article trying to put the most favorable light on the Luddites as the author could, the really do sound exactly like how the phrase is normally used. You can put as much nuance as you can on it, they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring That's a very valid reason to destroy technology, and the very logic behind e.g. nuclear disarmament agreements. Technological products are not gods or inevitable forces -- it's just stuff we make, and that we should be totally free to break or stop making if we don't like the effect they have on our lives. It should be us and our desires and needs that shape our societies -- and technology should just be a secondary concern that provides the tools to help us do what we want, not an end goal in itself to force us to accept consequences or ways of living we don't appreciate. Besides, the Luddites weren't merely "afraid of what it might bring". They were actively disenfranchised and left to starve but what it brought to their communities. It's easy for privileged $100K/year SV devs to talk about people re-inventing themselves and investing in new skills, and so on. But whether its hand-to-mouth paid workers with few other options in the 18th century, or the people in dying ex-factory towns and communities, it's usually others that benefit from any "new development", and they just get the short end of the stick: unemployment, starvation, fall from middle/working class (and things that come with those: broken marriages, alcoholism, etc). >calling the 1800s Luddites on the wrong side of history. It's easy to gloat and be "on the right side of history" when you're benefitting from a change. Less so when you're destroyed by it.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > Technological products are not gods or inevitable forces Can you give one example of a technological development that was successfully suppressed in a sustainable way? (Your example with nukes isn't it, because, while we reduce stockpiles, the nukes are still around, as is the know-how on how to make them.)
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Moreover, the knowledge of how to make nukes keeps spreading, despite the best attempts of many powers to stop it.
JDiculous 8y ago
> they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring. They destroyed technology because they were going to lose their jobs and thus be left destitute. This has more to do with our economic system than the technology itself.
protestersdie 8y ago
The article describes the phrase "luddite" not as people afraid of technology but rather poor exploited people that were shot to death by the government. By using Luddites as an argument in favor of technological progress you're simply advocating to kill people who step out of line. 1 million truck drivers become jobless all at once? It wouldn't surprise me if 10k or even 100k of those are killed by the government during protests.
yeahnope 8y ago
> They don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant. Stephen Hawking for example expressed concern about the combination of automation and our current trends, AI or not, as well. Would you call him, and other people like Joseph Weizenbaum, luddites, too? > I see no problem after reading that entire article calling [..] the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a Luddite So you already made your mind up about the author of an article they didn't even write, and you haven't read. Or might I say, you destroy it pre-emptively for fear of what it might bring. Isn't sophistry wonderful? You smear wholesale anyone raising any $placeholder concerns about technology or AI going forward, even bundle them together with a terrorist -- but would not mention names exhaustively, even if you could, because it would include a lot of people you might pay lip service or real admiration to. So the people that are uncomfortable because they are veritable titans of science and intelligence, and social and historical awareness and responsibility, I might add, they simply get ignored, because you can't easily smear them (yet). Then we take any random article that and that serves as example for all of it, case closed. Yeah, no. "It sounds like", they "strike you" [as no different from a whole category of people many of which who are vastly different from each other, no less], and they "maybe had a point", but you're not saying what, and at the end of the day, you'll still lump it all together, with your vantage point from the right side of history. This isn't even nothing. This is just embarrasing. I find this generally very fascinating, arguments that a kid could poke holes into. Like this recently: > User-facing software is about politics the same way architecture (like for buildings) is political: sure there is a lot that software and buildings can do to make people do one thing instead of another, but they don't change the fundamental things that drive us. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675577 Not even political parties "change the fundamental things that drive us", yet they're clearly super political. But it doesn't matter what any of it actually means, only the displayed orthodoxy of unthink and obedience does, that's sealed with approval no matter how inane. Actually, being more inane shows more loyalty, so in a sense that's encouraged. Which absolutely is a form of politics by the way, a rather sinister one as well, especially when it comes in the guise of being unbiased and unpolitical. How would one call a person afraid of thought? You know, the branch technology is sitting on? "Noophobia" from passing glance seems like it could have been claimed by esoteric peeps, but other than that, it's a good word. If the glove fits, you must not allow a goosestep gap.

by c3534l 8y ago

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Just to be clear, when you use the phrase, "afraid of what technology might bring," you are referring to these people no longer having jobs or being able to take care of their families.

pluto9 8y ago
...except the technology came anyway, and that didn't happen.
- mehwoot 8y ago
  How do you know that? Just because you think we are fine in general, doesn't mean it worked out fine for those people who were protesting.
  - yaegers 8y ago
    The real problem with shifts like this is the transition period. I agree that that, considering every luddite separately, that each did have valid concerns. Every person cares forst on foremost about themselves and/or their immediate family. And when new things make old things redundant, of course it negatively affects the person whose job revolved around the old thing. And this in turn negatively affects their families. So, they are srewed. But the new thing is staying and from that point on, every "new" adult that looks for a job in that area will know nothing but the new thing. Will operate this new thing and will make a nice life for himself. In the end it will be viewed that the new thing is so much better and maybe society is actually better of having the new thing instead of how things would be if the old thing was still used, but the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement. That's not a law of nature; society could bail them out, much like we've done for arguably much less deserving classes.
    - protestersdie 8y ago
      The people didn't get screwed by the technological advancement. They were forsaken by society. The technological advancement will happen either way. The problem that can be avoided is letting people starve on the streets but as history has shown we prefer to silence them with bullets rather than help them. The "Luddite" argument is about what happens to the "useless" people. So far everyone just says "It's gonna be fine. Everyone else will be better off." which is equivalent to "fuck you I've got mine".
- taneq 8y ago
  How many people do you know who work full time as professional weavers?
- skgoa 8y ago
  > , and that didn't happen. ...except it did happen on a massive scale and led to violent unrest across Europe.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  For humanity in general? Sure. For those specific people? I don't think we know.

pera 8y ago

The historical context was completely different though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_United_Kingdom#Early_19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_U...

ska 8y ago

I think the point was that they were completely right to be afraid of the impact of technology (not the technology itself), and it is in fact exactly what happened. These families saw multi generational economic damage. This is an early chapter in the ongoing friction between capital and labor. The thing is, it's possible for the equivalent-of-the-Luddites to be right about the impact on their prospects and way of life, and for it still to be the right thing to do in a global sense. If an economic shift is going to significantly negatively impact the opportunities your children will have, you are on pretty solid ground getting pissed about it, particularly if it is being driven by people who stand to benefit from your losses. It still might be the right thing to do as a matter of, say, national policy. The real differentiation is what do we collectively do for those impacted - as a culture/government do we try an ease the transition, or take a "sucks to be you" stance. Just because something is/was a net benefit doesn't mean it can't also be horrific cf much of the early industrial revolution. Overall I think the phrase "Luddite" is commonly used these days to characterize someone who is afraid of technology because they don't understand it. More fairly, it would be used to describe people who are afraid of the impact of technology because they do understand it, possible better than most of their contemporaries.

Scea91 8y ago
Technology might have had a negative impact on their families but I believe that the alternative would be even worse for them. Without technology they would probably be conquered in war and speaking German now.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Why would that have necessarily been worse them?
- larsiusprime 8y ago
  The issue is not that the technology existed, it is that it was deployed in a way, sponsored by explicit government policy[1], that enriched one class at deliberate expense of another. The technology could have been deployed in a way that benefitted all. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

coldtea 8y ago

>I have to say, despite the article trying to put the most favorable light on the Luddites as the author could, the really do sound exactly like how the phrase is normally used. You can put as much nuance as you can on it, they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring That's a very valid reason to destroy technology, and the very logic behind e.g. nuclear disarmament agreements. Technological products are not gods or inevitable forces -- it's just stuff we make, and that we should be totally free to break or stop making if we don't like the effect they have on our lives. It should be us and our desires and needs that shape our societies -- and technology should just be a secondary concern that provides the tools to help us do what we want, not an end goal in itself to force us to accept consequences or ways of living we don't appreciate. Besides, the Luddites weren't merely "afraid of what it might bring". They were actively disenfranchised and left to starve but what it brought to their communities. It's easy for privileged $100K/year SV devs to talk about people re-inventing themselves and investing in new skills, and so on. But whether its hand-to-mouth paid workers with few other options in the 18th century, or the people in dying ex-factory towns and communities, it's usually others that benefit from any "new development", and they just get the short end of the stick: unemployment, starvation, fall from middle/working class (and things that come with those: broken marriages, alcoholism, etc). >calling the 1800s Luddites on the wrong side of history. It's easy to gloat and be "on the right side of history" when you're benefitting from a change. Less so when you're destroyed by it.

int_19h 8y ago
> Technological products are not gods or inevitable forces Can you give one example of a technological development that was successfully suppressed in a sustainable way? (Your example with nukes isn't it, because, while we reduce stockpiles, the nukes are still around, as is the know-how on how to make them.)
- Kalium 8y ago
  Moreover, the knowledge of how to make nukes keeps spreading, despite the best attempts of many powers to stop it.

JDiculous 8y ago

> they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring. They destroyed technology because they were going to lose their jobs and thus be left destitute. This has more to do with our economic system than the technology itself.

protestersdie 8y ago

The article describes the phrase "luddite" not as people afraid of technology but rather poor exploited people that were shot to death by the government. By using Luddites as an argument in favor of technological progress you're simply advocating to kill people who step out of line. 1 million truck drivers become jobless all at once? It wouldn't surprise me if 10k or even 100k of those are killed by the government during protests.

yeahnope 8y ago

> They don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant. Stephen Hawking for example expressed concern about the combination of automation and our current trends, AI or not, as well. Would you call him, and other people like Joseph Weizenbaum, luddites, too? > I see no problem after reading that entire article calling [..] the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a Luddite So you already made your mind up about the author of an article they didn't even write, and you haven't read. Or might I say, you destroy it pre-emptively for fear of what it might bring. Isn't sophistry wonderful? You smear wholesale anyone raising any $placeholder concerns about technology or AI going forward, even bundle them together with a terrorist -- but would not mention names exhaustively, even if you could, because it would include a lot of people you might pay lip service or real admiration to. So the people that are uncomfortable because they are veritable titans of science and intelligence, and social and historical awareness and responsibility, I might add, they simply get ignored, because you can't easily smear them (yet). Then we take any random article that and that serves as example for all of it, case closed. Yeah, no. "It sounds like", they "strike you" [as no different from a whole category of people many of which who are vastly different from each other, no less], and they "maybe had a point", but you're not saying what, and at the end of the day, you'll still lump it all together, with your vantage point from the right side of history. This isn't even nothing. This is just embarrasing. I find this generally very fascinating, arguments that a kid could poke holes into. Like this recently: > User-facing software is about politics the same way architecture (like for buildings) is political: sure there is a lot that software and buildings can do to make people do one thing instead of another, but they don't change the fundamental things that drive us. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675577 Not even political parties "change the fundamental things that drive us", yet they're clearly super political. But it doesn't matter what any of it actually means, only the displayed orthodoxy of unthink and obedience does, that's sealed with approval no matter how inane. Actually, being more inane shows more loyalty, so in a sense that's encouraged. Which absolutely is a form of politics by the way, a rather sinister one as well, especially when it comes in the guise of being unbiased and unpolitical. How would one call a person afraid of thought? You know, the branch technology is sitting on? "Noophobia" from passing glance seems like it could have been claimed by esoteric peeps, but other than that, it's a good word. If the glove fits, you must not allow a goosestep gap.