Hacker News Reader

Comment by c3534l | Hacker News Reader

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. They don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant. Maybe the Luddites had a point, but they were certainly afraid of what automation might do, and I see no problem after reading that entire article calling Ted Kaczynski or the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a Luddite, or calling the 1800s Luddites on the wrong side of history.

View on HN

I think the point was that they were completely right to be afraid of the impact of technology (not the technology itself), and it is in fact exactly what happened. These families saw multi generational economic damage. This is an early chapter in the ongoing friction between capital and labor.

The thing is, it's possible for the equivalent-of-the-Luddites to be right about the impact on their prospects and way of life, and for it still to be the right thing to do in a global sense.

If an economic shift is going to significantly negatively impact the opportunities your children will have, you are on pretty solid ground getting pissed about it, particularly if it is being driven by people who stand to benefit from your losses. It still might be the right thing to do as a matter of, say, national policy. The real differentiation is what do we collectively do for those impacted - as a culture/government do we try an ease the transition, or take a "sucks to be you" stance. Just because something is/was a net benefit doesn't mean it can't also be horrific cf much of the early industrial revolution.

Overall I think the phrase "Luddite" is commonly used these days to characterize someone who is afraid of technology because they don't understand it. More fairly, it would be used to describe people who are afraid of the impact of technology because they do understand it, possible better than most of their contemporaries.

I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either.

They might be right to fear it, but that doesn't mean they understand it.

They might be right in proclaiming that they don't deserve to be left behind as a result, but that still doesn't mean they understand it.

At least, that's what I mean when I talk about Luddites not understanding technology.

> I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either.

Well that's totally unreasonable. Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, it's just that the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer. Look at how well gatekeeping works in drug production. Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Certainly this may not hold forever, and sure some things slip through. But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.

When one society stops its technological process, it gets pwned by other societies which do not - and then it still needs to catch up to survive, except now all that tech progression is crammed into a much shorter period of time, and disrupts society even more than regular progression. Japan is a textbook example of that.

The "benefit your children" analysis also doesn't account for longer-term beneficial effects of technology, such as cheaper goods.

> Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer

Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

> Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business.

Complicated taxes is much more of a political problem than it is a pure efficiency problem that technology can adequately tackle. If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation.

> Certainly this may not hold forever (...) But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.

Yeah sure you can, there are lucky and savvy survivors in every situation. But I think it's more likely that you not only lose, you worsen your and your children's life by having wasted time fighting when you could have been pursuing more effective ways of surviving by adapting to technology.

> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

By exploiting the poorer party in the previous round of this game. Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating - the more you have, the easier it is for you to get even more.

And technology accelerates that process.

> Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating

No it isn't, it just gives you an advantage. The idea that money makes money implicitly makes the assumption that you're investing in modern technology that drives growth. You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.

> You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.

Competitors, who are part of the rich group, not the poor group.

Technology enriches any group that uses it, it doesn't only enrich already-rich groups.

> If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation.

There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.

https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre...

There's no technology-in-general that "the Luddites" fight againtst, nor are there Luddites-in-general. It's risk-benefit calculation in every case, with different parties and different interests. You don't need luck to profit off lobbying against the development of your undoers, this is the norm, not the exception.

> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

What is an "efficient technology" and what is an "unapproved and criminal enterprise" can be decided by lobbying. Luddite is the one who loses, because he gets labeled Luddite by the victor; the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.

> There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.

"Free tax filing" is not a technology, try again.

> the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.

And you didn't even make a point. Lobbying requires power, and efficient technology gives you that power. It's no accident that those who embrace technology always have more power than those who don't.

Technology might have had a negative impact on their families but I believe that the alternative would be even worse for them. Without technology they would probably be conquered in war and speaking German now.

The issue is not that the technology existed, it is that it was deployed in a way, sponsored by explicit government policy[1], that enriched one class at deliberate expense of another. The technology could have been deployed in a way that benefitted all.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Why would that have necessarily been worse them?

>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.

> Technological products are not gods or inevitable forces

Can you give one example of a technological development that was successfully suppressed in a sustainable way?

(Your example with nukes isn't it, because, while we reduce stockpiles, the nukes are still around, as is the know-how on how to make them.)

You're thinking about it the wrong way.

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.

I agree: it's better for the supermarket, it's not better for me.

Like the luddites, I really couldn't give a toss it costs much less resources for them while achieving the same crude goal.

The treaty in place banning laser- based blinding weapons is working well so far.

Think laser pointer attached to an eye-seeking aimbot. Scary stuff.

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, the knowledge of how to make nukes keeps spreading, despite the best attempts of many powers to stop it.

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.

>What does it change?

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]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre#Massacre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#2012...

>Can you give one example of a technological development that was successfully suppressed in a sustainable way?

Lisp and Smalltalk.

> they destroyed technology because they were afraid of what it might bring.

They destroyed technology because they were going to lose their jobs and thus be left destitute. This has more to do with our economic system than the technology itself.

The historical context was completely different though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_labour_law_in_the_U...

The article describes the phrase "luddite" not as people afraid of technology but rather poor exploited people that were shot to death by the government.

By using Luddites as an argument in favor of technological progress you're simply advocating to kill people who step out of line.

1 million truck drivers become jobless all at once? It wouldn't surprise me if 10k or even 100k of those are killed by the government during protests.

Just to be clear, when you use the phrase, "afraid of what technology might bring," you are referring to these people no longer having jobs or being able to take care of their families.

...except the technology came anyway, and that didn't happen.

How do you know that? Just because you think we are fine in general, doesn't mean it worked out fine for those people who were protesting.

The real problem with shifts like this is the transition period.

I agree that that, considering every luddite separately, that each did have valid concerns. Every person cares forst on foremost about themselves and/or their immediate family.

And when new things make old things redundant, of course it negatively affects the person whose job revolved around the old thing. And this in turn negatively affects their families.

So, they are srewed. But the new thing is staying and from that point on, every "new" adult that looks for a job in that area will know nothing but the new thing. Will operate this new thing and will make a nice life for himself.

In the end it will be viewed that the new thing is so much better and maybe society is actually better of having the new thing instead of how things would be if the old thing was still used, but the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement.

The people didn't get screwed by the technological advancement. They were forsaken by society. The technological advancement will happen either way. The problem that can be avoided is letting people starve on the streets but as history has shown we prefer to silence them with bullets rather than help them.

The "Luddite" argument is about what happens to the "useless" people. So far everyone just says "It's gonna be fine. Everyone else will be better off." which is equivalent to "fuck you I've got mine".

the persons who were the last to rely on the old thing of jobs and thus prosperity will always be the ones who were screwd by this new technological advancement.

That's not a law of nature; society could bail them out, much like we've done for arguably much less deserving classes.

> , and that didn't happen.

...except it did happen on a massive scale and led to violent unrest across Europe.

How many people do you know who work full time as professional weavers?

For humanity in general? Sure. For those specific people? I don't think we know.

> They don't strike me as being any different than the people constantly writing articles about how AI is going to leave everyone penniless and redundant.

Stephen Hawking for example expressed concern about the combination of automation and our current trends, AI or not, as well. Would you call him, and other people like Joseph Weizenbaum, luddites, too?

> I see no problem after reading that entire article calling [..] the author of the next AI scare-mongering article a Luddite

So you already made your mind up about the author of an article they didn't even write, and you haven't read. Or might I say, you destroy it pre-emptively for fear of what it might bring. Isn't sophistry wonderful?

You smear wholesale anyone raising any $placeholder concerns about technology or AI going forward, even bundle them together with a terrorist -- but would not mention names exhaustively, even if you could, because it would include a lot of people you might pay lip service or real admiration to. So the people that are uncomfortable because they are veritable titans of science and intelligence, and social and historical awareness and responsibility, I might add, they simply get ignored, because you can't easily smear them (yet). Then we take any random article that and that serves as example for all of it, case closed. Yeah, no.

"It sounds like", they "strike you" [as no different from a whole category of people many of which who are vastly different from each other, no less], and they "maybe had a point", but you're not saying what, and at the end of the day, you'll still lump it all together, with your vantage point from the right side of history. This isn't even nothing. This is just embarrasing.

I find this generally very fascinating, arguments that a kid could poke holes into. Like this recently:

> User-facing software is about politics the same way architecture (like for buildings) is political: sure there is a lot that software and buildings can do to make people do one thing instead of another, but they don't change the fundamental things that drive us.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675577

Not even political parties "change the fundamental things that drive us", yet they're clearly super political. But it doesn't matter what any of it actually means, only the displayed orthodoxy of unthink and obedience does, that's sealed with approval no matter how inane. Actually, being more inane shows more loyalty, so in a sense that's encouraged. Which absolutely is a form of politics by the way, a rather sinister one as well, especially when it comes in the guise of being unbiased and unpolitical.

How would one call a person afraid of thought? You know, the branch technology is sitting on? "Noophobia" from passing glance seems like it could have been claimed by esoteric peeps, but other than that, it's a good word. If the glove fits, you must not allow a goosestep gap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com