351–360 of 572 posts
In that the luddities were either extinct or had merged with the labor movement?
Since that is what most people would in practice object to, a no safety net or regulation for the protection of their jobs.
Counterpoint to fears of losing the drudgery we're entitled to: once the value of labor has evaporated, and we still have the masses controlling the ballot box, we may finally achieve Fully Automated Luxury Communism[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communi...
And regardless, if the masses would try to use the ballot box to make moves to something like FALC, it would be taken away, by force if necessary. This has been seen countless times.
Looking at how wealth, capital and power are concentrating, we are well on our way to some sort of new feudal system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To sell to who? If no one has income, who buys the things?
New businesses will form. Why wouldn't they? We have a ton of businesses that even 50 years ago no one would imagine. We can continue up the pyramid to more and more things that wouldn’t be possible or practical today. Your mistake is you’re looking at a future world in todays state.
> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I always thought of the movement as a kind of working-class heroes trying to navigate an uncertain future where rich people made them obsolete.
It's not pejorative for you if you are a liberal, for me it is pejorative, I see Luddites as people who damage important parts of production systems and threaten people's lives. I understand your point of view if you're from a first-world country and you never experienced the terror of having people interfering with the means of production.
Do you mean a strike? A very common event in many first-world countries like the US or France ?
from a maximization point of view, it's clear that there is some kind of maximum point in human welfare graph. It doesnt go up and up and up forever. At some point, we'll reach (reached?) the maximum and furyher progress will lower rather than increase the human experience. It's no surprise. But I think it's ultimately just local maxima. I dont see how this tech wont benefit us in the grand scheme of things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't the only one. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Compensation doesn't fix the problem. As more and more jobs get replaced with AI or robots, the number of ways of earning a living shrinks and people have no money to buy the products and services offered by the AI-poweered industrial complex. It's a problem that the…
>the number of ways of earning a living shrinks Is this true? it seems there are new ways cropping up all the time
Being opposed to technology is something I don't understand. I'm a software engineer; and if some day AI can fully replace me, that is a "me" problem. I should be able to bring value, I should be able to adapt. When horses where THE way of transportation, there were hundreds of jobs, and thousands of workers supporting the horse industry. creating stables, blacksmiths, vets, etc. but in a matter of couple of decades,…
TFA article is about how Luddites were not opposed to technology per se.
> Today, the word “Luddite” is used as an insult to anyone resistant to technological innovation Interesting, I never thought of the term as pejorative. I always thought of the movement as a kind of working-class heroes trying to navigate an uncertain future where rich people made them obsolete.
It's not pejorative for you if you are a liberal, for me it is pejorative, I see Luddites as people who damage important parts of production systems and threaten people's lives. I understand your point of view if you're from a first-world country and you never experienced the terror of having people interfering with the means of production.
Which is fair and proportional if people doing it got their own livelihood threatened by introduction of said systems. Especially in 19th century when not having a work to do meant not having food.