Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the Luddites

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 572 posts

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#71

Post by arp242 »

zlg_codes wrote: post #55
lolinder wrote: post #6

This version of the Luddites is the one I was taught in my history classes—in both HS and college my teachers were careful to emphasize that the colloquial usage and the actual movement are only loosely related, and we discussed how the Luddites weren't rejecting technology per se so much as they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life. This is certainly something worth learning from today, and a…

There are many things twisted like this in our living memory and it irritates the hell out of me. How do we deal with it aside from endlessly correcting people? Indeed, Luddites weren't against technology. The McDonald's hot coffee lady case wasn't frivolous. "The customer is always right..."? Yeah, "... in matters of taste." It means you don't sell a customer who wants a green car a red one. The "welfare queen" stor…

For better or worse, in modern parlance "luddite" is the same as "vandal" or "barbarian": actual Vandals weren't really vandalistic, and Barbarians weren't all that barbaric.

If the term wasn't "luddite", "vandal", or "barbarian" then it would be something else to describe the same thing. That is: these terms aren't really a source of any sentiment, and merely used to describe it.

This is different from e.g. the McDonald's coffee lady, where people draw real conclusions about modern society from the case (usually with very limited knowledge of the facts) and is the source of a sentiment.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#72

Post by czl »

zlg_codes wrote: post #56
czl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were acting out of desperation to preserve their way of life Should I have the right to preserve my way of life when it imposes costs on others?

How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Also, costs? We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.

> How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life?

Me and my pals have some skill that you can now buy a machine and replace so me my pals put on masks and come visit you to smash those machines. Me and my pals want to keep getting paid for the work the machine can do nearly free now. Are me and my pals not imposing costs on others?

> We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.

What would you say to slave owners struggling to preserve their culture and way of life when slavery was being outlawed? Would you support them? Because to preserve their culture and way of life which imposes costs on others is ok?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#73

Post by zlg_codes »

ta8645 wrote: post #70
zlg_codes wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For all its failings, capitalism has done more to improve the lives of every human on this planet more than any other system before. I'd like to see some real numbers for this. Capitalism creates inequality which even the feudal eras of various countries couldn't match. Serfs enjoyed more spare time in their day than the modern full-time worker. Granted, they had their own problems to deal with, but to pretend that…

> Without capitalism, I could have control over my life. Says who? You think people in China and Russia have more control over their life than those in the west? You've still not offered anything other than wishful thinking. You've not proposed any system to replace capitalism. Ultimately you're just offering destruction, with no vision for rebuilding other than, "I hope it gives me an easier life".

Do you think China and Russia aren't capitalistic in nature? They structure their markets very much like the West, because they end up having to do business with the West at some points.

Do you really think there isn't a better system than accepting that some other human out there is going to get more out of your work than you?

In nations with extreme abundance, it should be trivial to solve problems of homelessness and hunger. We have the means, but capitalism says "no, people must not be allowed to survive without working for others".

Why are we the only animal on Earth that pays others of its kind to survive and exist?

If capitalism cannot bring people up then its cancerous nature will naturally give way to unrest and change. Expecting me to know what that change would be, and what conditions would settle, is unreasonable.

Labor should be a choice, and you should get the vast majority of the benefit for it. Capitalism cannot offer such things. It has nothing to offer except exploitation. It rewards preying on your fellow person and justifies everything with profits. Cancer incarnate.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#74

Post by [deleted] »

hef19898 wrote: post #15
NoThankYouTho wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are definitely correct, but there is a popular perception that Luddites are just reactionarily "opposing progress" because it hurts their own personal interests.

And the advoctaes for this kind of change are only pushing it, against all resistence and withbany means, because it serves their personal interest. Difference being, the Ludditea had their livelihoods and health to loose. The other just a bunch of even more money earned on the backs of an exploited and abused workforce.

[deleted]

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#75

Post by zlg_codes »

czl wrote: post #72
zlg_codes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Also, costs? We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and culture? By that measure, the only cultures we should have around are the ones that cost the least.

> How were the Luddites harming others by preserving their way of life? Me and my pals have some skill that you can now buy a machine and replace so me my pals put on masks and come visit you to smash those machines. Me and my pals want to keep getting paid for the work the machine can do nearly free now. Are me and my pals not imposing costs on others? > We're caring about money in a discussion about technology and…

The Luddites were free people who knew a trade that machines were threatening to make obsolete. The slavery situation is nowhere near comparable. Slave owners didn't care one iota about their livestock, they were a means to an end. Did the Luddites capture or enslave anyone? I think this comparison was made solely to raise the temperature of the conversation.

Vandalism or destruction of property is nowhere near as insidious as the erasure of an entire culture and squeezing money out of them for literally generations.

I'm not convinced you have a clear view of who the Luddites were. We should look back at that situation as a hint as to how we should move forward with technology in society, if we make that choice. Choosing to leave certain people behind and not offer retraining or some other opportunity is exactly what creates the malice that would motivate a tradesman to destroy machinery. People know when they're being screwed or left out. So, maybe we shouldn't screw people over whose skills become obsolete by technologies. We should be forward-thinking and responsible in the effects our innovations have on our social systems.

Or we can blame individuals and call them names. Good enough I guess?

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#76

Post by TotalCrackpot »

ta8645 wrote: post #36
username135 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's essentially capitalism. Profit > everything else

That's human nature. You won't get a better deal in Russia, China or any theoretical utopian civilization you dream up either. I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell isn't blaming everything on capitalism.

Do you know that slavery too was justified to be just human nature and now it's fairly niche in richer parts of the world? Your argument is essentialist, so I find it weak. And both Russia and China are capitalist countries actually.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#77

Post by pydry »

mulmen wrote: post #24
w_for_wumbo wrote: post #3

There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans. By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. We have a mandate for us…

This is a nice sentiment but labor doesn’t create value in a world of robots. We need a radically different system of wealth allocation.

1) We need a radically different one now - one that shifts the burden *off" labor and back on to asset owners - especially land owners (there is literally only an economic upside to taxing them more).

2) somebody still has to fix those robots.

3) if control over the economy were wrested from oligarchs and were put under democratic control, the economy wouldnt be geared towards frittering away billions on trying to deskill, dehumanize and eliminate labor.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#78

Post by JohnFen »

w_for_wumbo wrote: post #3

There's plenty of rhetoric about whether technology advancements will be a good thing or not. But I think that distracts from the core message, that the most important matter is not whether we use technology, but how we treat our fellow humans. By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. We have a mandate for us…

> By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring.

Companies already send that clear message even without AI. That's why there's fear here: we expect companies to behave as they always have, and that is with a level of contempt for human workers.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#79

Post by JohnFen »

Ensorceled wrote: post #26
its_ethan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'd find that, on average, "as poorly as they can get away with" actually does mean that they treat people quite well. I'm not sure what hierarchies you've been a part of where people actively trying to treat people poorly leads to their success - I'd wager those are few in far between in reality, and over represented in media. Maybe you're cynical about a few high profile companies or how U.S. politics app…

Google "wage theft US" ... I think some people treat people well, but I've met too many small business owners who bristle at paying minimum wage.

Big businesses, too.

Re: Rethinking the Luddites

#80

Post by noduerme »

peteradio wrote: post #63
rossriley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People bring the value that they generate for an economy. Once they can be replaced with AI/Robots then that labour can be reallocated further up the value chain which in turn makes our economies and culture richer and more productive. Imagine if we were all working 18 hour subsistence farming jobs now just to survive, it's ridiculous to argue that eschewing automation for anything is detrimental, it only serves to e…

Bit of a rosy picture though. People aren't reallocated, instead they are fed opioids/various other drugs to death. There are very much winners and losers.

You can both be right. An obese, drug addled society is by definition a wealthy one (although it may not be for long).
Post reply on HN