Live data from Hacker News

Why the Luddites Matter

librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#51
> you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity

This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mother's phone as well), I am unplugging microphones and webcams when not using them, I refuse to buy washing machines and any kind of kitchen tech with touch screens (they are awfully non-durable, big surprise right?) and prefer tech with real, physical buttons.

I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV. I am even considering making my home WiFi network hidden (not advertised). If you manually specify SSID and password you will connect alright but you can never see the SSID. I feel this might be a necessary default before too long. We'll see.

I did give WiFi access to my printer because accessing it through the router's USB port turned into a nightmare of problems and inconsistency. I disallowed it to make outgoing connections (through the router) anywhere but in the local network however -- I don't want it going to the internet.

Point is, new tech is marketed as "progress" for mercantile reasons by the big corps and me and many others aren't just taking their word for it when they say it's for the best of all of us.

My rather depressing observation has been that historically, ever since the 90s, technology and especially computers / phones aren't used to improve people's lives; they only complicate them and increase people's time, energy and money expenses. To actually improve your life with tech you have to go a lot of extra miles.

The marketed "progress" technologies don't deserve the benefit of the doubt lately. It's all but a historical fact that most "progress" is mostly "guys, here's a new market we just invented, please buy because we want the money".

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#52
post #21
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The captialists had a very rational (if self-interested) reason to dislike the luddites. They just viewed straw men as an effective tactic.

>> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.

Why are those superior attributes to rationality?

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#53
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> rational when it's about people, "rational" is the last thing we need. Empathy, sympathy, compassion is what you need.

Why are those superior attributes to rationality?

because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food

but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are those superior attributes to rationality?

because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine

There isn't a moment in recorded history where one human acting alone has outperformed a group of humans working in tandem. It just doesn't happen.

You sometimes get scenarios where one human has disproportionate social control over a group, but even then experiments with democracy have shown it overwhelmingly outperforms the competition. So far on both an absolute and a per capita basis. Many (most?) of our morals also happen to be game-theory optimums that you would raitionally see value in even as a true sociopath.

What you describe isn't rational, it is some combination of desperation and short term thinking. The rational approach has always been to organise and cooperate. If you actually tried to behave that way you would discover that what you call 'behaving rationally' will involve you having no material goods, comfort or prospect for obtaining them.

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#55

The problem I have with the Luddites was their assumption that they were entitled to their way of life. It’s a similar refrain heard today... coal miners want more protection so they can continue to live and work in cole mining towns. They just want to feed their children... something we can all related to. But if times change, then you have to change with then. You don’t get to hold the rest of society hostage... ei…

To some extent the miner is the vanguard of your ability to discuss this on the internet. We can't run the grid on lumber or "energy crops," and all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy. There's an advanced energy ecosystem that keeps a lot of really subtle and important things running as the human ecosystem evolves. Maybe at some…

...all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy.

You're going to have to back up that claim with some very strong evidence.

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#56

> you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mo…

> I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV.

I had XBMC hooked up to my TV with samba share years before smart TVs were really popular.

I really liked wifi tv then, and I really like it now. Improved my life.

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#57

> you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity This was the article's highlight for me. As a senior programmer I found myself saying "no" to more and more tech nowadays -- smart speakers are and will always be not welcome in my house, I carefully study mobile app permissions and deny everything but the absolutely necessary minimum (on my mo…

> I am never gonna give WiFi access to my TV. I had XBMC hooked up to my TV with samba share years before smart TVs were really popular. I really liked wifi tv then, and I really like it now. Improved my life.

That's a much more legit use case. I plan on buying the latest RPi and install KODI on it, and hook it to my TV. Complemented with my router using Pi-Hole (RPi-based DNS server that filters out ads and tracking) I am pretty certain that it's gonna be pretty seamless and much better experience than the "smart TV software".

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#58

Try explaining to people that you’re a programmer who doesn’t own a cell phone, and count the seconds till this term gets raised. It’s disheartening to watch our society practically force others through attempted shaming to follow the acceptable path. I admit feebly that I bought a cell phone because the infotainment system in my car is garbage, and that seems to silence the worst of it, but I feel it’s going against…

Like no cell phone at all? So did you just use a landline? Or did you tell people to email you instead of calling or texting?

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are those superior attributes to rationality?

because "rationally" i should kill you and take your money and food but "empathetically" i don't want the same thing to happen to me, so i tolerate your existence in hopes that you tolerate mine

Rationally, you're better off helping (or at least not actively harming) your fellow humans as part of a social covenant where they also help (or at least not actively harm) you.

Empathy is a mechanism for implementing morality, and all morality is enlightened self-interest.

Re: Why the Luddites Matter

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent the miner is the vanguard of your ability to discuss this on the internet. We can't run the grid on lumber or "energy crops," and all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy. There's an advanced energy ecosystem that keeps a lot of really subtle and important things running as the human ecosystem evolves. Maybe at some…

...all the other options (solar, wind, fracking, hydroelectric, geothermal) have very similar environmental impacts to coal energy. You're going to have to back up that claim with some very strong evidence.

Follow the process chains for manufacturing all of these technologies from their constituent ores, transporting them to a suitable location, and constructing the end product of a power plant connected to a durable energy infrastructure. It cannot be done without ore tailings, a preexisting grid (which will decay and will need periodic regeneration), though maybe it can be done without fossil fuels. I still think the coal phase-out is going to take another 50 years. I'd be surprised if burning stopped completely in my lifetime.

Generally speaking, we eat stuff to gain energy and stay alive, and process it into byproducts. Since we need heat and cooking and transit, we end up eating uranium and coal as much as food.

As far as the environmental impacts of the energy economy are concerned, I'd like to think that the worst of it was noticed and mitigated when the EPA was formed. Lots of the numbers about one form of energy versus another and the cost-benefit analyses are (as my argument was for you) way too much conjecture than I can be comfortable with.

Post reply on HN