6 ms·

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 happe

by 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
themacguffinman 8y ago
I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either. They might be right to fear it, but that doesn't mean they understand it. They might be right in proclaiming that they don't deserve to be left behind as a result, but that still doesn't mean they understand it. At least, that's what I mean when I talk about Luddites not understanding technology.
- textor 8y ago
  > I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either. Well that's totally unreasonable. Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, it's just that the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer. Look at how well gatekeeping works in drug production. Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Certainly this may not hold forever, and sure some things slip through. But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.
  - themacguffinman 8y ago
    > Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies. > Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Complicated taxes is much more of a political problem than it is a pure efficiency problem that technology can adequately tackle. If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation. > Certainly this may not hold forever (...) But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you. Yeah sure you can, there are lucky and savvy survivors in every situation. But I think it's more likely that you not only lose, you worsen your and your children's life by having wasted time fighting when you could have been pursuing more effective ways of surviving by adapting to technology.

by ska 8y ago

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

themacguffinman 8y ago

I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either. They might be right to fear it, but that doesn't mean they understand it. They might be right in proclaiming that they don't deserve to be left behind as a result, but that still doesn't mean they understand it. At least, that's what I mean when I talk about Luddites not understanding technology.

textor 8y ago
> I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either. Well that's totally unreasonable. Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, it's just that the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer. Look at how well gatekeeping works in drug production. Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Certainly this may not hold forever, and sure some things slip through. But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.
- themacguffinman 8y ago
  > Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies. > Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Complicated taxes is much more of a political problem than it is a pure efficiency problem that technology can adequately tackle. If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation. > Certainly this may not hold forever (...) But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you. Yeah sure you can, there are lucky and savvy survivors in every situation. But I think it's more likely that you not only lose, you worsen your and your children's life by having wasted time fighting when you could have been pursuing more effective ways of surviving by adapting to technology.