>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]
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.