They tried to halt progress because they thought progress was taking their jobs and making their lives worse.
And if we gave in to that sort of extremely short-sighted and regressive view then we'd be no better off today than we were 200 years ago.
And if we gave in to that sort of extremely short-sighted and regressive view then we'd be no better off today than we were 200 years ago.
And then within a generation or so this was pretty much swept away and the average man went from being his own boss living by his own skill, to being an employee working long hours (12-14hrs a day), for low wages (operating the machines was unskilled work), in horrible conditions (no health and safety laws), with the constant threat of unemployment if the factory owner decided he wasn't making enough profit (leaving the very real threat of starvation for you and your family).
So progress was taking their jobs and making their lives worse, and while from the 21st century point of view we can see it as inevitable economic change, and the march of progress as predicted by economic theory (and hey on the grand scale you're right), they were more interested in feeding their children.
Or to put it another way "short-sighted" depends on your point of view...
They didn't just "thought it". The experienced it objectively. They were out of a job.
>And if we gave in to that sort of extremely short-sighted and regressive view then we'd be no better off today than we were 200 years ago.
It depends. The unemployed guy fired because of automation would be better off.