3 ms·
> Workers were not “terrified of mechanical looms,” but outraged that they were used to reduce pay and working conditions, instead of improve them. This is con
by semiquaver 3y ago
> Workers were not “terrified of mechanical looms,” but outraged that they were used to reduce pay and working conditions, instead of improve them.
This is consistent with what I wrote. They were terrified of their jobs vanishing and sought to stop this. Ultimately it’s not realistic to prohibit useful new technology, even if it has harmful effects on some groups.
I’m sympathetic to people that are fearful of new technology that will obviously have a major impact on our society but there’s a reason Luddite is a shorthand for futile technological obstructionism.
It’s not a matter of pro vs anti AI and I wouldn’t put myself in either camp, it’s a matter of naïveté vs realism about how the world works.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bugglebeetle 3y agoThe ignorance of history continues. The Luddites were not naive, but less successful in labor organizing than, say, their French counterparts, who quite successfully resisted downward pressure on wages and working conditions, allowing a more gradual transition to the new technologies. As a result, they likewise did not suffer much of the injury, cruelty, and dispossession that was inflicted on their counterparts in their English working class. The Luddite movement is more popularly know for precisely this reason: it was crushed and humiliated by the ruling class, and thus became useful for those interests to cite as an example of what happens when you oppose them vs. those who practiced solidarity, overcame them, and preserved more of their dignity and quality of life. Letting the wealthy and powerful inflict whatever they want on you is not realism. It’s cowardice.