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

Why You Should Be a Luddite

currentaffairs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#31

Post by arp242 »

bloppe wrote: post #16
ambientenv wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's all about, and only about, you. Yes?

Despite sounding like it's zero-sum, fighting for the consumer is actually the only way to lift everybody up. Fighting for workers specifically is playing favorites. Fighting for the ownership class is also playing favorites. Focusing on consumers makes everybody a winner over time.

"Fighting for workers" means "don't have child labour", and "don't have machines that regularly amputate people's limbs", and those types of things.

And "fighting for the consumer" is how we ended up with low-wage countries with little safety regulations making our stuff, and occasionally dying for it. This is also how we ended up with all sorts of other negative externalities ranging from worker exploitation to environmental impact.

You can't capture reality in simplistic one-liners.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#32

Post by namaria »

bloody-crow wrote: post #22
xref wrote: post #10

Should probably paste the second paragraph here for everyone who doesn’t wanna read TFA. Most people’s understanding of the Luddites seems about on par with their knowledge of the “idiot McDonalds coffee lady” > The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their…

> The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their skills useless. The Luddites rejected technology when it was used to enrich capitalists at the expense of laborers. I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor.…

Trying to make a point about a supposed Historical fact (Luddites were anti technology?) without any historical context is disingenuous.

Do you know about actual Luddite activity and what sources do you have and how do you interpret them? Or are you just making a point in a vacuum about your opinion on semantics?

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#33

Post by cupcakecommons »

paxys wrote: post #14
xref wrote: post #10

Should probably paste the second paragraph here for everyone who doesn’t wanna read TFA. Most people’s understanding of the Luddites seems about on par with their knowledge of the “idiot McDonalds coffee lady” > The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their…

It's a bullshit argument either way. Say it's 1800 and you need 100 workers to make a new suit, which costs as much as one's annual rent (yes, really). Suddenly machines show up and can make the same suit with 10 workers and at 1/10 the cost. The other 90 workers are outraged, break machines and cry about "enriching capitalists at the expense of laborers". What is the solution exactly? Should the average household co…

Concise yet complete. Well done.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#34

Post by bloody-crow »

namaria wrote: post #32
bloody-crow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their skills useless. The Luddites rejected technology when it was used to enrich capitalists at the expense of laborers. I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor.…

Trying to make a point about a supposed Historical fact (Luddites were anti technology?) without any historical context is disingenuous. Do you know about actual Luddite activity and what sources do you have and how do you interpret them? Or are you just making a point in a vacuum about your opinion on semantics?

> Do you know about actual Luddite activity and what sources do you have and how do you interpret them? Or are you just making a point in a vacuum about your opinion on semantics?

The latter obviously. I'm not arguing with Luddite philosophy, but more with the author of the article making a claim that they were not anti-technology and then proceeding to explain how they absolutely were.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#35

Post by bloody-crow »

hnfong wrote: post #23
bloody-crow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Luddites, Brian shows, weren’t anti-technology. In fact, they embraced new machines that helped them do their jobs better. They were against machines that destroyed workers’ livelihoods and rendered their skills useless. The Luddites rejected technology when it was used to enrich capitalists at the expense of laborers. I find this argument stupid and disingenuous. Technology exists to reduce or eliminate labor.…

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't anti-technology per your definition. Are you sure you're not an AI advocating for a world ruled by AI capitalists where us primitive humans have no role whatsoever? :P

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance.

My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my employer would be responsible for solving it for me.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#36

Post by supertimor »

bloody-crow wrote: post #35
hnfong wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't anti-technology per your definition. Are you sure you're not an AI advocating for a world ruled by AI capitalists where us primitive humans have no role whatsoever? :P

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance. My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my…

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#37

Post by bloody-crow »

supertimor wrote: post #36
bloody-crow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance. My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my…

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

Right, but I don't feel like it's the employers responsibility to be my economic safety net. There's a million ways to approach this problem without having workers keep pretending they're still relevant and collecting a paycheck for something technology can do better.

At some 90% of human labor would become obsolete and we as a society should spend some time planning how to handle this situation. UBI is one such solution.

I think that continue paying people doing meaningless work just to preserve their dignity is stupid and counterproductive.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#38

Post by hnfong »

bloody-crow wrote: post #37
supertimor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

Right, but I don't feel like it's the employers responsibility to be my economic safety net. There's a million ways to approach this problem without having workers keep pretending they're still relevant and collecting a paycheck for something technology can do better. At some 90% of human labor would become obsolete and we as a society should spend some time planning how to handle this situation. UBI is one such solu…

I don't think the Luddite position is that the employer has a moral responsibility to keep their employees employed.

As you said, it's "we as a society" needs to figure out a solution. If society ignores this problem, then I think the anti-technology aspect of Luddism is at least understandable IMHO.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#39

Post by AstralStorm »

supertimor wrote: post #36
bloody-crow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance. My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my…

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

Standard equilibrium analysis proves that the efficiency gain is supposed to cut the prices to material cost, including cutting the material cost.

Of course actual capital fights tooth and nail to prevent this, even if this means literally getting people to starve and unable to earn with a job, even agricultural.

There are known fixes, starting from making basic services and items free (eating the material cost which is pennies actually), employing more people running these as they're currently all understaffed.

Abundance is the expected outcome of the technology. Including abundance of leisure time. Capitalism however requires scarcity for profit and oppression to keep the rich special.

We have an abundance of housing, so why are some unhoused? We have an overabundance of food but some people are hungry and malnourished. Things might get more dicey with water soon.

Re: Why You Should Be a Luddite

#40

Post by AstralStorm »

barrysteve wrote: post #21

The article waffles on without providing any real insight or solutions. The key solution is technology that empowers men. - Self-driving cars should be an option for drivers to flick on and off at will. - Mechanized looms should be custom built to enhance the craft. - Computers should submit to their user's will and design. None of that is guarenteed to continue. Corporatized technology devours resources, and subvert…

Production line (which is not synonymous with automation) is suspected to be the transitional stage until we can make everything customized for cheap. (See developments such as in 3D printing, of so many things. We cannot 3d print microchip fabs or high vacuum tech... yet.) Then it's the design where a bit more time is required. Given sufficient development artisanship and variety in design would be the actual rule.

I raise you decentralized/federated democratic resource control.

A bunch of items can be also made from interesting abundant materials, ultimately making them available is the challenge. (Gimme that glass and carbon nanotube 3D printer. And a home EUV lithography machine. We can already make a sputtering chamber almost on the cheap...)

Anything else you want to add before you prematurely condemn technology?

Post reply on HN