The original Luddite movement was literally a worker's rights movement, and the "irrationally afraid of technology" characterization was manufactured by the ruling class, so yes. The Luddites were right then and they're right now too.
The only problem the Luddites had is they went and busted the machines instead of the rich owners' kneecaps.
If you say, "they did that too!" Well, NOT ENOUGH!!
instead
I'd rather they do both.
There was an episode of Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff that covered the luddites, I had no idea beforehand what they actually stood for, fascinating stuff
As someone who regularly saves time by automating, I can’t get on board for a movement which directly opposes process improvement by improving efficiency.
They're not, they're opposing a process that leads to garbage output and horrible systemic efficiency.
Luddites objected primarily to the rising popularity of automated textile equipment, threatening the jobs and livelihoods of skilled workers as this technology allowed them to be replaced by cheaper and less skilled workers.
I’ve also read a book on the subject of Luddites and it was clear to me that it was a response to higher efficiency machinery replacing the need for a good portion of their jobs.
This led to mass starvation as the workers no longer could feed themselves and no industry replaced the lost work. The textiles produced were of lower quality too, and sold for less which harmed the local economy leading to a rise in food prices along with the lower wages. Since the vast majority of arable land was used for cotton too no local food could lower the prices. Many people died as the luddites predicted.
There was mass starvation
They were right. This is not "anti-automation" this is against lower wages, mass unemployment, and an economic decrease. The automation was the cause of this, yes, but the concept of automation was not the issue. The issue was it's use here.
If the workers were provided an alternative job, if there was some plan to avoid starvation, and if the textiles were of a reasonable quality then there would be no issue.
History proved the luddites correct
The Luddites lost, but you should read the rest of this wiki article to learn how that happened, and consider again which side you're on.
But the lump of labour fallacy is wrong - in the end automation makes us all wealthier as goods become cheaper, and people can do more productive work (and be better educated for it too).
This is how it should be, but it isn't the present day reality. Productivity goes up, wages go down, and the rich get richer. We're headed straight for technofeudalism buddy...
The original Luddite movement was literally a worker's rights movement, and the "irrationally afraid of technology" characterization was manufactured by the ruling class, so yes. The Luddites were right then and they're right now too.
The only problem the Luddites had is they went and busted the machines instead of the rich owners' kneecaps.
If you say, "they did that too!" Well, NOT ENOUGH!!
I'd rather they do both.
There was an episode of Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff that covered the luddites, I had no idea beforehand what they actually stood for, fascinating stuff
Amen, https://thenib.com/im-a-luddite/
As someone who regularly saves time by automating, I can’t get on board for a movement which directly opposes process improvement by improving efficiency.
They're not, they're opposing a process that leads to garbage output and horrible systemic efficiency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
I’ve also read a book on the subject of Luddites and it was clear to me that it was a response to higher efficiency machinery replacing the need for a good portion of their jobs.
This led to mass starvation as the workers no longer could feed themselves and no industry replaced the lost work. The textiles produced were of lower quality too, and sold for less which harmed the local economy leading to a rise in food prices along with the lower wages. Since the vast majority of arable land was used for cotton too no local food could lower the prices. Many people died as the luddites predicted.
There was mass starvation
They were right. This is not "anti-automation" this is against lower wages, mass unemployment, and an economic decrease. The automation was the cause of this, yes, but the concept of automation was not the issue. The issue was it's use here.
If the workers were provided an alternative job, if there was some plan to avoid starvation, and if the textiles were of a reasonable quality then there would be no issue.
History proved the luddites correct
The Luddites lost, but you should read the rest of this wiki article to learn how that happened, and consider again which side you're on.
But the lump of labour fallacy is wrong - in the end automation makes us all wealthier as goods become cheaper, and people can do more productive work (and be better educated for it too).
This is how it should be, but it isn't the present day reality. Productivity goes up, wages go down, and the rich get richer. We're headed straight for technofeudalism buddy...