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.
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.
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.
> 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.
When one society stops its technological process, it gets pwned by other societies which do not - and then it still needs to catch up to survive, except now all that tech progression is crammed into a much shorter period of time, and disrupts society even more than regular progression. Japan is a textbook example of that.
The "benefit your children" analysis also doesn't account for longer-term beneficial effects of technology, such as cheaper goods.
> 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.
> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.
By exploiting the poorer party in the previous round of this game. Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating - the more you have, the easier it is for you to get even more.
No it isn't, it just gives you an advantage. The idea that money makes money implicitly makes the assumption that you're investing in modern technology that drives growth. You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.
There's no technology-in-general that "the Luddites" fight againtst, nor are there Luddites-in-general. It's risk-benefit calculation in every case, with different parties and different interests. You don't need luck to profit off lobbying against the development of your undoers, this is the norm, not the exception.
> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.
What is an "efficient technology" and what is an "unapproved and criminal enterprise" can be decided by lobbying. Luddite is the one who loses, because he gets labeled Luddite by the victor; the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.
> There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.
"Free tax filing" is not a technology, try again.
> the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.
And you didn't even make a point. Lobbying requires power, and efficient technology gives you that power. It's no accident that those who embrace technology always have more power than those who don't.
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.
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.
>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.
For example, one 'technological product' I cannot abide by, and for which I routinely consider reaching our for a sledgehammer, is the automated supermarket check-out. Its intelligence and UX is abysmal. It's slow, unresponsive, pedantic, intolerant, and cannot rely on itself without continual help from a bored mind-numbed shop assistant.
What is missing is a technology that is fast, responsive, tolerant, intelligent and autonomous. You might ask well how would that be possible. That's the point. We or the people that build it, don't have the know-how or wherewithal to do so.
It is clear the technology we do have is not the best that we can possibly develop; and for many reasons, there is not an interest or desire to do so.
I'm not sure you're thinking about it the right way. The "inteligence and UX" of a technology isn't what makes it better, it's the overall efficiency. Automated supermarket checkout is winning because it costs much less resources while mostly achieving the same goal (the UX is bad enough to make people stop buying goods), making it more efficient. Just not more efficient for you specifically.
How do we know that it's actually working? It's easy to refrain from using such weapons in extremely one-sided conflicts. It's another matter if it's a major war between roughly matched powers; and we haven't seen that yet.
Still, though, the technology evidently exists (and we still make lasers that are plenty powerful to do this). The ban is on its use for this purpose, not the tech itself.
Moreover one of the 3 countries that had nukes and voluntarly gave them up in exchange for security guarantees (Ukraine) was subsequently invaded by one of the 3 security guarantors (Russia), while the other 2 security guarantors (USA, UK) look the other way.
Ukraine had 3rd largest world nuclear arsenal before they gave them up.
It's hard not to conclude - never give up nukes if you have them.
>Ukraine had 3rd largest world nuclear arsenal before they gave them up.
Only because it was one part of the USSR though.
Besides, where were those people crying for Ukraine when the democratically elected government of the country was overthrown by the riots of a rag-tag coalition that included bona-fide neo-nazis (with swastikas et all)?
> Only because it was one part of the USSR though.
What does it change?
> democratically elected government of the country was overthrown by the riots
After shooting at protesters and killing over 100 of them you lose all the legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected as far as I am concerned.
> included bona-fide neo-nazis
Among hundreds of thousands of people someone had nazi flags. It's OK to shoot at that crowd, obviously.
It's sad how Russians lost all hope of a modern, civilized and free country and accepted Putin autocracy. I pity you. Nothing will change there as long as Putin rules. Whole country stopped in time.
That is was perhaps Russia itself (the main entity in USSR) that designed, built, and put those weapons there.
>After shooting at protesters and killing over 100 of them you lose all the legitimacy that comes from being democratically elected as far as I am concerned.
So, if the Weimar Republic shot down the Nazis at Krystalnatch they'd lose their legitimacy?
Not to mention that this wasn't some "peaceful" conflict. 18 policemen where shot dead as well. If an armed revolt like that happened against the governments in many other places there would be much more than 1 to 5 ratio of police vs protesters deaths.
In the events of Mexico in 1968 for example, there were 300+ shot [1]. That government not only didn't lose its legitimacy, but enjoyed hosting the Olympics with all western nations participating. And those people were killed without such provocation (killing policemen) or toppling the government or anything, just for protesting. How's that for hypocrisy?
>Among hundreds of thousands of people someone had nazi flags.
"Someone"? 18 of the shot protestors (and thousands more in the protests) were members of neo-nazi parties and groups (e.g. Svodoba). Wikipedia: "Eighteen Svoboda members were killed in the Euromaidan protests and the 2014 Ukrainian revolution". They also got 3 ministers in the post-events government. [2]
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
> 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.
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.
Some rigour is expected when discussing history. This article does not apply this rigour to recent events in its introduction to what we are supposed to believe the Luddites were protesting against.
In the introduction we have it implied that 'Modern Luddites' invent malware to 'disrupt the technologies that trouble them' with the nuclear power plant in Iran being cited as an example. Wasn't Stuxnet one of the NSA's Tailored Access Operations (TAO)? Are the NSA considered 'Modern Luddites', up there with the Unabomber?
Furthermore, students of history know of the Magna Carta and the right to a fair trial. So then we have 'the cave-dwelling terrorist sometimes derided as Osama bin Luddite'. It may not be fashionable to dare to say it but the idea that this cave-dwelling 'Luddite' was the one that 'hijacked aviation technology to bring down skyscrapers' has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Asserting this to be the case to then write some drivel about the original Luddites is extremely lazy for a historian. It might be okay for journalists and politicians to do this however less controversial examples could have been found to introduce this story.
Incidentally the Unabomber did get a fair trial with the FBI doing their job properly. This was in the days before the 'post truth' world we live in now where something repeated often enough becomes truthy enough to be passed off as fact in lazy articles.
Thomas Pynchon's essay does a good job, I think, of explaining what the Luddites really fought against, and he does not, as this article seems to suggest, say a Luddite is "someone who opposes technological progress".
> But it's important to remember that the target even of the original assault of 1779, like many machines of the Industrial Revolution, was not a new piece of technology. The stocking-frame had been around since 1589 .... Now, given that kind of time span, it's just not easy to think of Ned Lud as a technophobic crazy.
The Luddites were pre-union organised labour and were feared precisely because they represented the threat to the aristocracy, land-owning, and factory owning classes. They were repressed not because they cross dressed, but because they represented existential threat. The laws against 'combination' were then subsequently applied to emerging Unions, the Chartists, and any number of other working class initiatives over successive waves of reaction to modernisation.
Australia in part is populated by the descendants of people who were shipped overseas for having the temerity to think about their right to representation, and organization.
Isn't it a bit pointless to discuss Luddism in a context of popular, mainstream technologies like computers? If people didn't won't some technology, that technology never got popular. That's how things get regulated in a democracy. Many techs got slowed down that way, like GMO for instance, or fracking industries. People just didn't like it (with a reason or not, that's the other story completely), so the laws were made to put it under the control. But Luddites who fight the mainstream technology are completely different kind, they're basically saying that they know better than others, and it's no different than any other minor political option that believes that everyone should think the way they do. And because obviously it will not work, then they resolve to violence, trying to force others into it. And it almost never worked in a long run.
> There is a widespread belief in contemporary computer dominated societies, that regular people are not allowed any say in the discussions around the types of technologies that radically reshape their lives. And the way that the term Luddite is commonly used functions to reify this belief by making people believe that they cannot push back against technology. Of course, as the above history demonstrated, the irony is that what the Luddites prove is that you actually can push back, you can build up a mass movement around it, and you can in fact be so successful that the government is forced to deploy soldiers and pass harsh legislation in order to squash you.
> Need a more recent example? How about Google Glass. When Google unveiled that wearable high-tech headset it was framed as “inevitable,” those who raised worries were dismissed as “Luddites,” and Google seemed hellbent on pushing forward regardless. Google Glass was going to be the next thing, not because regular people wanted it to be, but because Google insisted that it would be. But a funny thing happened: people said no, and Google’s “world changing” product was shelved. There’s certainly a difference between the public rejecting a piece of consumer technology and workers pushing back against mechanization – but the common thread that connects them is that you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity. And what’s more you don’t have to accept a false dichotomy wherein saying no to one kind of technology means that you are rejecting all technology.
Google glass was shelved because of consumer resistance?
I was under the impression the project was still under development.
I think there are significantly less parallels between the two examples than that article seems to imply. I think Google Glass is a rather isolated example that is far from the biggest threat to current labor markets.
>Google glass was shelved because of consumer resistance?
This might not be the only reason for shelving Google Glass as a consumer product, but there was indeed a heavy consumer resistance the sort that could absolutely destroy the potential of a technology to become a consumer product : through multiple assaults, public insults and so on on whoever dared to walk in public with those.
"The aforementioned colleague and I were on our way to the 16th Street BART station — I'll note that I wasn't using any device at the time — when a person put their hand on my face and yelled, "Glass!"
In an instant the person was sprinting away, Google Glass in hand.
I ran after, through traffic, to the corner of the opposite block. The person pivoted, shifting their weight to put all of their momentum into an overhand swing. The Google Glass smashed into the ground, and they ran in another direction."
"fellow train passengers seem visibly distressed by what, to them at least, seemed like something that could invade their privacy – a head-mounted camera that could be recording them without their knowledge. A few even asked me to take them off despite my insistence that their fears were unwarranted – constantly recording video and snapping photos would destroy the battery in a matter of minutes."
If the company has to issue social advice on how to not stick out like a sore thumb in a crowd that wants nothing but to rip your glasses and smash them, the product is obviously not going to be successful :
"Google has given some official advice on what to do and perhaps more importantly, what not to do, while wearing the company’s Google Glass smartglasses to avoid being a “glasshole”.
Early adopters of Glass, derogatorily called “glassholes”, have come under fire for using it in socially unacceptable conditions where mobile phones aren’t allowed, for being creepy filming people without their permission and for being rude, staring off into the distance for long periods of time."
"In April, a techie war erupted when East Village restaurant Feast kicked out Glass-user Katy Kasmai after she refused to remove her device. Kasmai vented online, and hundreds of Glass groupies rallied against Feast on Google, accusing the eatery of discriminating “against people who are into new technology.”
Feast co-owner Brian Ghaw is unapologetic. He says Feast’s no-Glass policy is for guests’ peace of mind. “They just felt uncomfortable about having somebody who could potentially videotape them,” explains Ghaw. “If someone were sitting at a table with their smartphone constantly pointing in a certain direction and you didn’t know what they were doing with it, you’d feel pretty uncomfortable as well.”"
Similar events happened to someone who wore home made glasses that are similar to Google Glasses :
"Dr. Steve Mann, human cyborg, says he was assaulted by staff at a Paris McDonald's who ripped off his attached device. McDonald's has denied the claim, and Mann has released a new photo as further evidence."
Do you truly believe that consumer backlash had nothing to do with Google Glasses essentially disappearing from media and refocusing on professional use?
Google Glasses was originally marketed as something you'd wear all day like a smart watch and occupying much of the same functions (check your notifications, email, weather prediction, record voice memos.. the only major difference being the ability to record video and photos), if you can't wear it in public without being constantly bullied into removing them, what's the point?
>I was under the impression the project was still under development.
