10 ms·
What is your understanding of the luddite movement? I ask because I don't believe many are aware that luddites were not anti-technology. It was a labor movement
by devin 7mo ago
What is your understanding of the luddite movement? I ask because I don't believe many are aware that luddites were not anti-technology. It was a labor movement which was targeted at exploitation by factory owners. Their issue was with factories forcing the use of machines to produce inferior products so owners could use cheaper, low skill labor.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/luddites-definition-wrong-labor-technophobe/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/luddites-definition-wrong-la...
- CamperBob2 7mo ago[flagged]
- hatsix 7mo agoI'd have been ok if things fell more in their direction... I'm not saying "clear win", but a middle ground that had the machines do the things they're best at while letting humans do the quality work.
- defrost 7mo ago> but a middle ground that had the machines do the things they're best at while letting humans do the quality work. By arguing for letting humans work, particularly quality work, you're not especially finding a middle ground, more adopting the 1811 position of the OG Luddites who were opposed to being put out of work.
- gzread 7mo agoThe OG Luddites were correct.
- idiotsecant 7mo agoYeah, that's a fine sentiment in the general, but let's hear some specifics.
- y0eswddl 7mo agoOnce again showing how little you actual understand about the movement you decry.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- smcin 7mo agoSpecifically what is the user's misunderstanding? Be constructive.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- taneq 7mo agoI think two sane things. 1) It’s good in the long run that they didn’t prevail at that time. 2) They did actually, in fact, have a point.
- sebzim4500 7mo agoI mean obviously they had a point? No one wants to lose their job.
- CamperBob2 7mo agoEverybody wants to lose their jobs. Almost by definition your job is something you do not because you want to, but because you need to earn a living. Even if your job coincides with your hobby, you would prefer not to have your economic welfare tied to it in a way that drives how you engage with it. We are on the verge of making this possible, if a bunch of myopic morons -- people who have never been right about a single long-term trend in history -- can be convinced not to screw it up.
- the_af 7mo agoYou're using a very loose definition of "losing your job". Not everybody agrees with your definition of what a job means (some people are very passionate about their jobs; not me but I understand their point of view), and regardless, "losing your job" is a thing that is forced upon you and is a source of distress for most people, not something people "want". Many people throughout history, after losing their jobs, never recover (either psychologically, or in terms of the economy not giving them a place to recover). To be clear, I don't subscribe to the following view at all, but a lot of people derive their self-worth from their occupation. Don't you remember, a few years back, an infamous comment made by someone on HN stating that "if you're fired from your job, you've failed as a person"? It was thankfully downvoted to hell, but it goes to show you your perception of jobs and job loss is not at all widely shared. Even if nobody wanted to live without a job, until we reach some sort of post-scarcity utopia, the current AI trend is a threat.
- 7mo ago
- devin 7mo agohaha, if you knew me you would realize that I am exactly the wrong person to be asking that specific question.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]