Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdkl95 | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that Luddites were against technology. That's incorrect: they were skilled textile workers that used technology similar to any other skilled profession. From the first paragraph of the wiki page:

> The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices.

There is a lot of similarity with modern tech companies (Uber is the canonical example) working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth. As an early form of labor fighting back against capital abusing the amplifying effect of technology, I agree with the Luddites. Learn from them, or - as described in this article - we will see their violent methods again.

View on HN

From the primary source referenced by Wikipedia:

“They just wanted machines that made high-quality goods,” says Binfield, “and they wanted these machines to be run by workers who had gone through an apprenticeship and got paid decent wages. Those were their only concerns.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-rea...

They were against anyone using technology to replace them by removing the education required to produce textiles.

Fundamentally, they were pissed off at how their years spent gaining education in an industry was made obsolete.

You know, sort of like how the coal miners went on strike because the UK was shutting down the mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners%27_strike_(1984%E2%8...

It's not a misconception. I know a lot of authors have argued, correctly, that there was some nuance to the Luddites arguments, but the fact remains that they did in fact behave exactly as was described: there was a technology that they comitted acts of terrorism against because they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress. People are now throwing in these corrections every time someone mentions luddites even though nothing they said was wrong, simply non-sympathetic. Those aren't the same things. Not agreeing that they should be as iconically maligned as they are isn't the same thing as a common misconception. None of the core fact are in dispute, you just want to defend them while ignoring the central point of it's futility.

> they comitted acts of terrorism

I never said they didn't.

> they prefered the old ways and attempted to slow that progress.

Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?

Because they were against technology.

No, they were against this particular technology because its introduction meant they could no longer earn a living and feed their families.

Technology that benefits the few at the expense of the many is going to destroy us.

The only way around it is UBI in some form or another.

But we're in all cases talking about technology that benefits most people at the expense of a few.

Are there really more professional drivers who will be harmed by self driving cars than passengers who will benefit?

Perhaps? Depending on what "benefits" I actually accrue. Autonomous cars could very well just be a race to the bottom type experience.

Truck driver is one of the most common jobs in the US and the initial beneficiaries of self-driving cars and trucks—financially and practically—will be those in the upper income brackets, so it’s likely that there will be a perception of inequality about the technology until there is some kind of correcting force.

Macroeconomic forces are complex. Technology has wiped out entire types of work many times over the years, and the workers usually, though not always, make out all right. The problem is not any particular technological advance IMO, but overloading the economic mechanisms that allow people to find new careers. Too much technological advance too fast plus too many industries shipped overseas where labor is cheaper in an environment without enough new job development equals a permanent underclass, with all of the economic tensions that come along with it.

Meanwhile, UBI has many serious problems and we don't have anywhere near the level of job disruption to make it a workable solution.

Your entire viewpoint is based on the idea that there will always be jobs no matter how advanced ai and automation becomes. This is the idea that needs to be addressed, not the shrubbery surrounding it. It’s meaningless to say that new jobs have always been found and that rapid advancement in technology has not seemed to doom us so far. That’s like saying we haven’t run out of oil yet so why would we ever run out. The number of tasks that a human can do is finite. When machines saturate that set of tasks, something really bad will happen. But even long before, there will be massive problems as we approach it.

I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.

Can you please not cross into incivility in HN comments? It leads to flamewars and we're trying for better than that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The workers in aggregate make out all right. Which doesn't help Bill, who is now homeless. (What would you do if your job became obsolete next year?)

In that case why did they single out automated looms (which directly affected them) and why didn't they attack other factories too?

What you're arguing about (and what I'm arguing about) is not what their actual motivations were, it's about language.

If you're happy with technological change -- except for technology you don't like -- are you for or against technology?

If you're happy with free speech -- except for speech you want to ban -- are you for or against free speech?

> I never said they didn't.

I never said you said they didn't.

> Yes, that's correct. Why did they "prefer the old ways"?

This is precisely what I was critizing. The statement isn't wrong, you just want to justify it. You're not correcting anything, you're defending it. You're tacking a why question onto it when all anyone said was what. They were against the new technological improvements characeristic of that time and place. That's not a common misconception simply because they had rational arguments to justify themselves.

And yet they did lose their ways, so they were justified in being angry.

Not all changes are for the greater good, even if we can’t imagine life otherwise now. Just as your local union rep... which doesn’t exist anymore.

Does it qualify as justified when it amounts to essentially stealing from everyone else in increased costs at decreased productivity enforced via violence and the threat of it?

I mean the South attacked Fort Sumter because they might eventually have slavery phased out. Just because they were accustomed to it doesn't mean they are justified to it forever.

You are confusing yourself. Zoom all the way out. Look at automation in its ultimate, final and inevitable form: machinery that can do anything a human can. If you don’t think AGI is possible then the discussion ends here. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether or not humans can live well in the presence of that technology. Economically, what would the effect be? When the internet came, phone books disappeared. This was predicted. It’s economics, not a question of technology. So what are your predictions for when humans are no longer the exclusive source of intelligent signal processing, which we have been for all of history? If you look at this question honestly and carefully then the answer you find will not make you an advocate for ai and automation. Not unless you hate yourself and mankind.

It's beyond "misconception", as "luddite" now means someone who dislikes new technology. The word has been redefined.

Like many words, it can be important to know its history.

Sure, but it's not a misconception to call someone who doesn't like new technology a luddite. The word has been simplified, even if it used to be more complex.

Applying labels is a poor way to understand someone's position.

Pretending like words don't mean what they actually mean is an even worse way, though.

> working around labor in a way that concentrates wealth

Labor used to wash our clothes. Then washing machines came along and now there are technicians of washing machines. The technicians are much fewer than the amount required to wash clothes by hand and they likely get paid a lot more. So washing machines usurp labor and concentrate wealth.

Are you against washing machines as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com