Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses IT

'I'm a Luddite - and Why You Should Be One Too' (stltoday.com) 211

Posted by EditorDavid from the war-of-1811 dept.
Los Angeles Times technology columnist Brian Merchant has written a book about the 1811 Luddite rebellion against industrial technology, decrying "entrepreneurs and industrialists pushing for new, dubiously legal, highly automated and labor-saving modes of production."

In a new piece he applauds the spirit of the Luddites. "The kind of visionaries we need now are those who see precisely how certain technologies are causing harm and who resist them when necessary." The parallels to the modern day are everywhere. In the 1800s, entrepreneurs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: the factory system. In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce. In the 1800s, hosiers and factory owners used automation less to overtly replace workers than to deskill them and drive down their wages. Digital media bosses, call center operators and studio executives are using AI in much the same way. Then, as now, the titans used technology both as a new mode of production and as an idea that allowed them to ignore long-standing laws and regulations. In the 1800s, this might have been a factory boss arguing that his mill exempted him from a statute governing apprentice labor. Today, it's a ride-hailing app that claims to be a software company so it doesn't have to play by the rules of a cab firm.

Then, as now, leaders dazzled by unregulated technologies ignored their potential downsides. Then, it might have been state-of-the-art water frames that could produce an incredible volume of yarn — but needed hundreds of vulnerable child laborers to operate. Today, it's a cellphone or a same-day delivery, made possible by thousands of human laborers toiling in often punishing conditions.

Then, as now, workers and critics sounded the alarm...

Resistance is gathering again, too. Amazon workers are joining union drives despite intense opposition. Actors and screenwriters are striking and artists and illustrators have called for a ban of generative AI in editorial outlets. Organizing, illegal in the Luddites' time, has historically proved the best bulwark against automation. But governments must also step up. They must offer robust protections and social services for those in precarious positions. They must enforce antitrust laws. Crucially, they must develop regulations to rein in the antidemocratic model of technological development wherein a handful of billionaires and venture capital firms determine the shape of the future — and who wins and loses in it.

The clothworkers of the 1800s had the right idea: They believed everyone should share in the bounty of the amazing technologies their work makes possible.

That's why I'm a Luddite — and why you should be one, too.
So whatever happened to the Luddites? The article reminds readers that the factory system "took root," and "brought prosperity for some, but it created an immiserated working class.

"The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation — but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'I'm a Luddite - and Why You Should Be One Too' More

'I'm a Luddite - and Why You Should Be One Too'

Comments Filter:

  • Technology advances will make some jobs and even castes obsolete.

    Before the printing press, people relied on monks to copy the written word. The biggest libraries in the world had less than a hundred books.

    I won't even mention how people just died of benign illnesses or accidents before modern medicine.

    Are you sure you want to go back to those times?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Technology advances will make some jobs and even castes obsolete.

      Before the printing press, people relied on monks to copy the written word. The biggest libraries in the world had less than a hundred books.

      I won't even mention how people just died of benign illnesses or accidents before modern medicine.

      Are you sure you want to go back to those times?

      If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times. Instead, they are concerned that there's been "much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared.'

      • If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times.

        Isn’t not reading the summary is just what they would do if they wanted to go back to those times?

        • If you'd read even just the summary, you would know that they don't want to go back to those times.

          Isn't not reading the summary is just what they would do if they wanted to go back to those times?

          More specifically, I imagine you mean "not able to read" (or not allowed to read) which, judging from the state of things, is where we seem to be heading anyway.

      • No one needs to read the summary or article. It's a waste of time. It's amazing given the gift of hindsight and how utterly wrong the luddites were that someone would try to identify with them now. The term luddite now just means being a scared loser with no foresight. The world has enough of those.

      • Re:Go join the copyists monks (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @06:25PM (#63910725) Homepage

        If you don't think life has gotten better for the poor thanks to technology, I suggest you read more about life in pre-Industrial England.

        When to get even basic clothes you have to pay a person for days of their time to weave them, and likewise pay humans for huge amounts of labour per calorie of food produced, miserable levels of poverty for the poor are guaranteed. It's not a structural issue, it's an issue of "things are just expensive because our rate of production per person-hour are so low."

        If you want to go back to that, leave me out. I support the advancement of technology to make production more efficient.

    • and war brought on by mass unemployment following the industrial revolutions.

      70% of middle-class jobs have been taken by automation since 1980. Google it.

      That's created an oversupply of Labor that we've been hiding with the gig economy. As a result make houses affordable in America you'd have to raise wages 55%

      The gig economy is almost entirely baby boomers blowing through their retirement. The combination of their medical expenses and their extravagant spending and retirement means they're not

    • No, that's exactly the reason why we should fight it.

      Never, in the history of mankind, has progress been driven forward when labor was easy to get, plentiful and cheap. Every single society that depended heavily on widespread slavery (or slavery-like employment systems) suffered from stagnation. Because why should you invent new and more efficient ways to get work done when you can sufficiently rely on slave labor?

    • "Computer" use to be an actual job position...often occupied by women.

      • And far beyond number crunching of yore, they automate a lot of stuff that we do in our daily lives that we used to rely on assistants for when we could afford them, who were also often women. Luddites hate automation only when they aren't using it. Otherwise they'd throw out their smartphones, laptops, etc. And for fine art entertainment they'd go to concerts, plays, etc. You know, shit that most people can't afford to do all the time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      I think the premise is not the "advancement of technology" but the replacement of "handicraft" with "good enough"

      200+ years ago, if you wanted a portrait of yourself or your family, you had to find someone who could do an oil painting, and it would cost the equivilent of a years salary, pretty much because that would be the work that artist works on, all year once they get the drawing down.

      Fast forward today, when you can do the same thing in 10 seconds with your smartphone. Good enough, but your average sm

      • IDK, have you seen the some of these Marvel movies they are putting out? Our standards are not really that high for movie entertainment.

    • I'm for carefully considered progress, ideally with sone public discussion. Rather than allowing anyone with enough power and sway to decide for the rest of us when new technology is used and in what manner it is used. Because generally the manner is whatever brings the decider the most profit.

  • The LA Times says we should be like the Luddites, and oppose the new waves of technology that are sweeping over the world. The Luddites did this with force and violence. Is that what is being proposed? So how did that work out?

    History tells us that factory owners and law enforcement fiercely defended the right of factories to exist. Luddites were suppressed, factories became the new way to build things.

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

    Whatever you think of the march of technology--love it or hate it--it's a

    • History also tells us that this led to widespread impoverishment of the middle and lower classes.

      I think we should try to avoid repeating history.

      • I agree, we should try to avoid repeating history. The author of the book and article appears to be advocating *for* repeating history.

        • By warning us of the impending impoverishment of the lower and middle classes?

          • So we warn everybody. Then what?

            And I don't agree that this impoverishment is a foregone conclusion. The one major depression in the 1800s was caused by the US switch to the gold standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], not the mechanization of labor. In any case, that depression lasted a few years, but soon gave way to a long period of economic expansion, leading up to the "Roaring 20's". And then the Great Depression began, again not due to the invention of the assembly line or other inventions, but du

            • Ah yes, as long as the investors make great profit, who gives a fuck about the working population? There's plenty of them, just throw a few more cogs into the machine should they break...

              Has it ever occurred to you that the economy doesn't even remotely represent how the average person is doing?

              • You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs." To see it that way is to deny reality. If all those "evil rich investors" stood down and decided not to pursue new technology, *new* inventors would rise up and take their places.

                And I never said I don't care. I'm talking about recognizing reality. Guess what, life isn't fair. Some people have athletic skill, some have brains, some have beauty, some have wealth, some have healt

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by tragedy ( 27079 )

                  You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs

                  I would like to believe that, but I've seen too many examples of evil rich investors who resemble cartoon supervillains. Take Elon Musk insisting that employees should sleep in the office. It's so incredibly twisted and yet people act like it's normal.

                  Anyway, my take is that we should definitely not try to stop the march of technology. Technology improving productivity and resource usage is something we vitally need. What we do need to do is make sure that the march of technology doesn't leave people behind

                • Re:So whatever happened to the Luddites? (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday October 09, 2023 @08:26AM (#63911679) Homepage Journal

                  You're making this "us against them." That's not how it is at all. It's not the "evil rich investors" against the "working stiffs."

                  What? Yes, it is. It absolutely is. If it was not then investors would be held accountable for the actions of the companies they invest in, instead of the opposite world we actually live in where corporations are first and foremost legal fictions created for the explicit purpose of separating investors from responsibility for their actions.

                  If I knowingly fund someone's bank robbery with the expectation that I will share in the take, I'm partially responsible for their actions, and I can be imprisoned along with them. If I knowingly fund PGE's willful negligence e.g. a 99 year old hook wears through and causes a short which is not interrupted by any of the equipment PGE could have bought and installed but chose not to because it would reduce profits and causes a fire which burns down a shitload of homes and kills 85 people [abc10.com] then I just get to share in the profits they made with their willful negligence.

                  Corporations exist specifically to permit terrible people to do terrible things that they know are terrible and profit from them. Everyone who invests in PGE is a killer for profit, by proxy and the system is designed to permit them to profit from these killings.

                  The march of technology has advanced for centuries, and it's moving faster than ever. You and I aren't going to stop it. Why make more pain for ourselves than we're already going to have to face?

                  The technology isn't the problem. The legal structures that permit people to profit from its abuse are.

  • Smashing stuff pisses people off (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday October 08, 2023 @03:27PM (#63910419) Homepage Journal

    It feels good, it might even be an effective way to punish guilty parties, but smashing stuff also makes other affected people mad at whoever smashed it, not necessarily at whoever is turning the screws and ultimately keeping them oppressed.

    That doesn't mean it should never be done, but if it's not part of some bigger and yet still feasible plan for improving workers' situations or achieving some other immediate and concrete goal, it's probably doing more damage than good.

  • Did their violence and resistance achieve their goals? They had some good goals, like preserving human dignity. Did their tactics accomplish that, or *anything* useful? The march of the machines continued, and the Luddites disappeared. Why would we want to copy their utter failure?

    Even if we were successful in slowing down the march of technology in our own country, other countries will fully adopt the new technologies we are trying to slow down. We will only put our own countries at a disadvantage in our i

    • A huge part of why world War I and world War II happened is that automation was devouring jobs and there was a large amount of unemployment. Eventually those unemployed or given a gun and a cause by some strong man and they go off and blow up enough cities and kill enough working aged adults that we get back to a labor shortage.

      Now might be a good time to learn some history and try not to repeat it. Especially because we've got a whole bunch of firecrackers sitting in silos that if they go off literally

      • If we don't want to repeat history (and I agree with you on that point!) we probably shouldn't aim to repeat it, as the author of the book and article appears to be suggesting.

      • Totally. When Automation Princip shot Archduke Steve Jobs in Sarajevo, we all knew war was inevitable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        No, a big part of why those 2 wars happened is because the population outstripped Germany's and other central European countries ability to feed their populations. And the solution to those problems were chemistry and fertilizers or losing a bunch of the population. First the tried the latter, decided they didn't like it then they tried the former and Europe can not only feed itself but uses less farmland to do it while having a larger population. And there was a labor shortage, not an oversupply during

      • A huge part of why world War I and world War II happened is that automation was devouring jobs and there was a large amount of unemployment. Eventually those unemployed or given a gun and a cause by some strong man and they go off and blow up enough cities and kill enough working aged adults that we get back to a labor shortage.

        That isn't even remotely true. World War I was basically a feud between nobility, primarily over who gets the right to colonize Africa and other regions. If anything, Germany was more democratic than France and England at the time, with France even de-facto enslaving their colonies. The outcome of that war was that France and England split up and then colonized the former Ottoman Empire and took over a lot of former colonies that belonged to the central powers. Basically a continuation of the same shit that

        • Bleh, editing mistake, since at least the end of the medieval period, longer if you count what the Romans did.

        • If you're dinging the WWI British and French democracies for their treatment of colonies, you should apply the same to German treatment of colonies. The only reason Britain and France had more colonies is that they were much more maritime nations than Prussia was, and got a big head start. If Germany had had the same chances, they would have done the same thing. As far as I can tell, Britain and France were significantly more democratic than Germany.

          For WWII, as democratic capitalists we saw the fasci

    • They had some good goals, like preserving human dignity.

      They say that, but not really. Luddites were actually relatively wealthy. But their trade depended on a constant supply of thread and other material. No Luddite ever bothers to ask where those came from. Nor did they ever ask who could afford their services to begin with.

    • The Luddites achieved basically nothing because their demands were unreasonable (stop all technology) and their tactics (violence) were utterly unacceptable. However, their kids achieved a lot - they started the first labour unions which, unlike today's often corrupt imitations, were actually interested in helping workers more than the union leaders. They focussed not on stopping technology but on ensuring that the benefits of technology were more evenly shared and they used strikes, not violence, to achiev

      • Well said. And we do see some new union movements today, some of which aren't well organized (Walgreen's & CVS) but are true movements of people tired of putting up with private equity nonsense.

  • "In the 2000s, CEOs used technology to justify imposing a new mode of work: algorithmically organized gig labor, in which pay is lower and protections scarce."

    Please demonstrate how CEOs used technology to justify anything. Cost savings and increased profits are what CEOs use to justify almost everything. "Technology" and "gig labor" (and the latter is certainly enabled by the former) are just the mechanisms used to increase those corporate profits.

    One can certainly argue, though, about the societal cost ve

    • Came here to say something similar. Yeah, we have political economic/ownership/labour systems that basically produce the "Matthew effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] AKA the rich get richer & the poor get poorer. If we look at how most tax & banking systems work, workers pay proportionately more tax, a higher percentage of income, than owners (property, capital gains, offshore trusts, etc.).

      I think the way to reform this is to democratise the workplace. We already have successful models suc

  • Amish people have the right idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by battingly ( 5065477 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @03:40PM (#63910439)
    The Amish aren't necessarily anti-technology, they're just circumspect about which technologies are worth employing when you consider all the factors. Our society could probably benefit from a bit more of that kind of analysis of technological advancements.
    • The Amish insist on maintaining a certain social structure that is long since outlived is usefulness and they ban certain technologies in order to enforce that social structure in the face of tech that would otherwise disrupt it. They also have a huge amount of problems nobody talks about because they make a bunch of money off of tourism. But just like the Mormons the Amish have their Lost boys.

      Instead of bending technology to society so that a handful of men can retain the power given to them by their

    • they're just circumspect about which technologies are worth employing when you consider all the factors

      I've heard the Amish described in many ways, but never heard it justified in this way. The Amish most definitely are anti-technology. That is immediately obvious in the fact that when they consider the factors they universally reject it, and as a result they live a very frugal lifestyle compared to the rest of society which makes you really wonder if they actually considered the factors correctly at all.

      • I've heard the Amish described in many ways, but never heard it justified in this way.

        It is correct. The Amish will use some technology, but it's at arm's length. For example, you will see some Amish wth cell phones. In some cases it might be a requirement for whom they work, other times it's strictly for a business they run, but only limited use. However, that phone may or may not enter their house. I have heard in some cases there is a small location just outside the door where the phone is kept turne

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by chihowa ( 366380 )

          The traditional motivation of the Amish is to retain independence from the English (non-Amish society) and thus they are supposed to reject anything, like certain technology, that makes them dependent on non-Amish society. If they could build their own engines and produce their own fuel, they'd be free to use the technology. Of course, practicality and pragmatism lead to exceptions...

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

          Amish are not monolithic. There are several "tiers" of separation from the world (it's not rejection of tech, rather of being tied to "the world" by tech, itself a very broad category), and they don't agree on where that line should be. Schwartentruber Amish live in ill-maintained shacks straight out of 1830, don't even use buttons as being too modern, and won't even put a slow-moving vehicle triangle on their buggies. Beachy Amish live in lovely modern houses where the only difference between those and oth

    • Really? Then why did Amish get in trouble for having cell phones? Apparently many were outed last week when the emergency broadcast went out.

    • You may be thinking of the Mennonites, not the Amish. Mennonites are far more open to the use of technology as tools. The Amish are more staunchly traditional.

  • It's complicated (Score:4, Informative)

    by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @03:51PM (#63910455) Journal

    Communism often talk about fair share for everyone, while Democracy speaks for the individuals right to soar and have a chance of making it big.

    The thing is, whatever you believe in, there will always be a bigger fish that eats the smaller ones, there will always be someone smarter that games the system and climbs the ranks while the masses obey the powers that be, whatever power that may be at any given time in history.

    Humans in general are creatures of habit, they tend to settle into a pattern that seems comfortable and "functioning" to them, for as long as it does, until it doesn't, but then they are often too weak to fight back, it's kind of being tricked into a condition that seems fine, but gets slowly worse over time, usually due to greed and power.

    I've seen it all, I'm old, so I kind of get it because I've been in both camps, seeing it from all sides, my strenghts and my weaknesses are the same as everyone else.

    What do I mean by that? Well imagine this, you're an aspiring student, you don't really know what you want yet, everything you see around you inspire you in one way or the other, whether you hate the current status quo or love it. At some point you either find out what you're good at, or at least what you're interested in. In most cases you have to put in a lot of effort in it because your'e essentially competing with millions out there with the same vision as you, so it all depends on how much work you put in whatever you want to achieve, and that sets you appart from the rest that would rather be comfortable than fight.

    Then you have the settlers, they will usually be content with growing a family, as long as theres enough to eat, a roof over their head, they're generally satisfied and don't mind a repetitive job, they often complain about it, and endure worse and worse working conditions. Eventually that model comes crashing down sooner or later when everyone had enough, but they're too weak to fight, they're happily taking the scraps they are being thrown, just to avoid confrontation and to cling on to whatever dream they had initially.

    Today social media have changed the way we look at work, I have been a school teacher for some time as well, and during that time I observed (and asked) the kids what they wanted the most. An astonishing amount of them aspired to become youtube stars, sports stars or anything that doesn't require hard work or study, well sport does - and so does becoming a really good youtuber, but - they see only the glory part, not the millions that fail and never become anything.

    We are constantly bombarded with videos about those that made it big, and on former facebook we only see likes, a place where everyone competes for looking their best, convincing everyone else they're miserable in comparison to them, it's all about the shallow lifestyle, my kingdom for your clicks and likes. It's a model doomed to fail.

    And then we have the growing unrest, the increased distrust in media, the increased distrust in politicans. We simply experience our votes don't count anymore, because those in power don't care for which side you're on, as long as you vote - and they get their cushy lives with salaries most of us could only dream of, often with severance packages that will last their lifetime and their families too, while advocating for the small man on the street, it's all good - as long as they stay in power. You're the one that drew the short stick, and all the sticks where short.

    Global warming, electricity prices soaring, gasoline prices soaring, food prices through the roof, extreme personal debt - everything making it harder and harder to chose the life that you want. Makes you ripe for the picking of anyone that offers you a lifeline, even under the worst of conditions, and you made that choice yourself.

    Remember the animated movie "Antz" or "A bugs life"? Together we're strong, but individually we're weak. See? The thing is, as long as you're thinking that you can't do anything about it. As long as you're not listenin

    • I have been a school teacher for some time as well, and during that time I observed (and asked) the kids what they wanted the most. An astonishing amount of them aspired to become youtube stars, sports stars or anything that doesn't require hard work or study, well sport does - and so does becoming a really good youtuber, but - they see only the glory part, not the millions that fail and never become anything.

      Trust me, this existed long before YouTube/Social Media. I know plenty of people who moved to New York or Hollywood to become famous--not necessarily to become actors or dancers or whatever. That's what they wanted to be--famous. Acting and performing were the means to an end.

  • Per se. They're against new technology being used as a tool of exploitation by capitalist factory owners against the 'common man'. Whether manufacturing physical goods for sale back in the day (when some of them went John Brown [wikipedia.org] on the machines) or your personal information today.
  • What, besides sanitation, clothing so cheap everyone in the world has enough, cheap food, the products we're all using to interact together, medicine, transportation, infrastructure, electricity; I mean besides all that, what has the industrial revolution ever done for us!

  • The problem is not technology. The problem is how it gets restricted, locked into Digital Restriction Management, monopolized by large companies, used to spy on people and manipulate them, and creates some super-rich people that did nothing except being lucky. That is all bad, no exception. But the problem is not the technology. The problem is with society and how it has failed and failed again to get the assholes in it under control. The Googles and Microsofts of the world would just be as bad without tech

  • Most people want the cheapest goods not the responsibly sourced fair wage goods. Until that paradigm changes, resistance will be scarce

    • Most people have no idea what product is long lasting and responsibly sources, most people can see if its if its cheap, and if its shiny.

      Sure you may get some saying they they are those things to me that's more of a function of their marketing budget as opposed to their adherence to those principal.

  • Most people are discontented by nature. Achieve your goals, and eventually you'll get bored and look for something 'better'. So many people are always looking for that new idea or loophole that will elevate them to the next strata of wealth and power.

    Most people give zero thought to how our massively cooperative and interconnected social and economic systems enable modern prosperity - and how by extension everyone who does anything at all is part of that system and deserves a share of the common bounty.

    So

  • Sells their labor for a living. There might be a handful of retirees and a handful of people who are independently wealthy and own things for a living instead of working, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the people around here still need to work.

    My question for you is does supply and demand apply to the value of your labor?

    Because realistically even if your job isn't directly threatened do you really think all the people who are about to lose their jobs to various automate

    • Well, I guess I'm the odd man out here since I highly doubt any young person would want to compete for my job. Mainframes, which is a big part of my job, will be replaced within 10 years with something else - and have been 10 years away from retirement and replacement at least since the 1990s. Nobody under 40 even wants to deal with that crap, so I guess my retirement is secure.

      Aside of that snide side remark, you're right. The problem we're facing this time around is that the displaced workers will not be

      • You are right. I took my COBOL class and then never wanted to be anywhere near a mainframe. My Linux professor at the time regaled us with his tale of lasting 72 hours working on mainframes before moving on.

        • Mainframes, i.e. z/OS and its various service programs and tools are stuff you either love or hate. There isn't any room for "ok, if you pay me to do it...", because if you could do it, you could also easily do something else to get paid about as much. It's something you have to want.

          I admit, I love the simplicity of mainframes. They're about as "old school" as computing can get, and at the same time they're the bleeding edge of computing. Yes, you have to specify a lot that people expect "the computer" to

      • That's saying "my job is going away" as a defense against the comment that young people will be gunning for your job is probably not the flex you think it is.

        Ignoring the fact that I've been hearing that mainframe is going away for 30 years yes young people will gun for your job. We have young people gunning to be coal miners for fuck sakes. People without any legitimate opportunities will jump at all sorts of things.

        At 10 years will you probably make it to retirement? Yeah probably. But you never k
    • You missed the part about new types jobs being in demand and people upgrading to get those jobs not take someone else's.
      • It's just it guys like you can never tell me what those new jobs are going to be. I keep asking and every time I do I get some form of misdirection. Usually they just tell me that the jobs are going to be so futuristic that my time you mind can't comprehend them. I'm old and I was told that when I was a kid and it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

        Oh, and biotech. Because we were all somehow supposed to be geniuses that could get Masters and doctorates. Or at least we were supposed to be dumb enou
  • We all just curl up in filthy hobbles occasionally dying of starvation in the elements? I'm just throwing out suggestions here...

    Oh and don't forget if you tax Bill Gates is enormous wealth the next step is to come and take your house and give it to somebody else. Especially whoever you dislike the most. Picture the person you hate the most and that's who the government is going to give your house to if you raise Bill gates's taxes and if you go after all the wealth and money he's got hidden away. Don'

  • I'm turning into a Luddite (Score:4, Funny)

    by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) * on Sunday October 08, 2023 @04:19PM (#63910525) Homepage Journal
    No electric car; no digital currency; no GPT usage.
  • One where all basic needs like housing, education, healthcare, food is provided, and only luxury hand made items are produced by people, and the rest is done by robots. Many economic theories have been tried and failed, but we should get to a point in society that no human should have to work as a slave anymore because robots can do the job much safer and more reliably. We can have a society of 8 billion people living in luxury beyond our wildest dreams if we use our advances in tech for good instead of usi

    • One where all basic needs like housing, education, healthcare, food is provided, and only luxury hand made items are produced by people, and the rest is done by robots.

      That sounds fantastic. But we're not close to being there yet. We're at least another 50 years away from having the actual ability to do this. Maybe 100. But you are right, when we do achieve that level of tech, our overlords (politicians, mostly Republican) will work hard to keep you working.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bob_jenkins ( 144606 )

        COVID was a dry run. The US gave $3200 to each person over the course of two years and encourged them not to work. The result was the supply chains upended and significant (but not ridiculous) inflation. The economy did not handle it in stride. For everyone to get a minimal living stipend in the US, that's what $20000 per person per year? So you're right, we'll probably get there eventually, and you're also right we're not close to being there yet. Need about 20x more cash to hand out and much less de

    • here's a big problem with that ... more kids = more$ from the gubmint. just seems to always lead there... I'm saying the very unpopular thing: you can't get a handout that is NOT tied to birth control, otherwise making babies becomes a popular business model.. uggh

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sfcat ( 872532 )

      Many economic theories have been tried and failed

      Sure, like communism. But that's not going to stop people from trying again, is it. The cure is teaching people macro-econ. If you understand that, you won't fall for tankie propaganda anymore.

      • Sure, like communism. But that's not going to stop people from trying again, is it. The cure is teaching people macro-econ. If you understand that, you won't fall for tankie propaganda anymore.

        The problem of Marxism isn't about macro-economy. It is about humanity. Monopoly or Oligarchy by the riches is of course bad. But replacing them by the more centralized and monopolized "government" will only be worse. Psychopaths won't gain sympathy to the poor just because they switch their names, hats and chairs.

  • WTF DID I JUST READ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @04:30PM (#63910557) Homepage Journal

    This has to be the least well thought out pile of gibberish on Slashdot in 2023.

  • Technology does not serve the people using it anymore. That's in a nutshell the problem with modern technology. Until about the 2000s, a new development, a new tool, a new technology was met with excitement. Something new! Something better! Something that makes my life easier, more productive, more entertaining or just happier.

    That isn't really the case anymore, is it? More and more technology serves its maker rather than its user. TVs that spy on your viewing habits, cars that work according to their maker

    • Well, I want a self driving vehicle. I'm not opposed to driving but it would be cool to only drive recreationally.

  • Wary (Score:3)

    by Improv ( 2467 ) <pgunn01@gmail.com> on Sunday October 08, 2023 @05:27PM (#63910677) Homepage Journal

    I don't want CTOs designing social policy - when they try to write our laws or just ignore them, that's a big problem (Musk being an obvious example), but I likewise want there to be a really good reason whenever we're voting to decide what technology exists; it shouldn't be a normal thing.

  • The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation â" but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared.

    This is insanely incorrect. The 21st century was dominated by social innovation - first Nazism, then Communism. The total death toll being something like 100 million people.

  • capitalism is just one step up from slavery https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
  • Technology is not good nor evil. It is a tool. It simply accelerates everything else.

    The problem is that capitalism inherently distills wealth to the people who are most willing to exploit it.

    Technology is like steroids for capitalism.

    Capitalism rewards the people with the lowest moral fiber. Always remember that the giants of industry, the billionaires, the elite... they're the problem. They are the people with the lowest moral fiber. They are the people willing to exploit anyone or anything for
  • There's "labor saving" and then there's "labor devaluing." One makes people's lives easier, and the other lets employers cut payrolls. Contrary to popular belief, the two are not the same.

  • "Technology Nimbys"

  • ... that newfangled music is the devil's handiwork and our teenagers are all going to hell.

  • Quite the statement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @10:14PM (#63911065)

    The 200 years since have seen breathtaking technological innovation — but much less social innovation in how the benefits are shared.

    That's quite the statement. During the time of the Luddites there were almost no labour laws, certainly nothing against child labour, no kind of minimum wage, working conditions, etc. Anything like a union was illegal, and breaking the law could get you sent to a work camp in Australia. Or executed. That's what happened to a lot of the Luddites, at least the ones that weren't just shot. Slavery in England itself had been abolished for a whole couple of years and was still perfectly normal most other places.

    Now England has progressive taxation, healthcare for everyone, free primary and secondary education and heavily subsidized universities, a national pension plan and various other components of a modern social safety net.

    Oh yeah, and more than 5% of men are entitled to vote. They even decided to let the women vote!

    • Instead the slavery and child labor got outsourced to poorer countries with no workers rights. Now instead of having poor english children make your knick knacks, you instead have poor Congolese child miners and overworked Vietnamese sweatshop workers doing it.

      As for the healthcare and safety nets, we will see if England can afford to keep paying for those benefits. With the way population demographics are going, there may well have to be some belt tightening unfortunately. What France was doing with raisin

  • While it varies between individuals, the general feeling I have been getting is that people are more concerned that those in power will just leverage tech to further exploit the underclass and hoard more wealth. And looking back at what the outsourcing craze of the 90s-00s did to the Midwest, or the Industrial Revolution prior to the workplace reforms, this is not a wholly unjustified concern. Job losses, growing wealth disparity and wage stagnation, ecological/environmental destruction, unfair business pra

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close