The "Luddites" are misrepresented in the popular culture as "anti-technology". No. They were simply pointing to some of the deleterious knock-on human impacts (e.g. unemployment) that always accompany even "beneficial" innovations. Very relevant to your excellent discussion of the current tech landscape.
"Luddites" were craft workers in still predominantly rural areas where industrial organization was not yet well developed, and who lacked other means of taking collective industrial actions to protect themselves from ruthless capitalist predators, so they resorted to straightforward sabotage instead. Bourgeois propagandists then created an absurd, distorted image of them as some kind of strange cult of primitivists opposed in principle to any technological innovation whatsoever. (Cf: EP Thompson, "The Making of the English Working Class")
Actually, Swiss scientist Conrad Gessner was the first to warn about information overload and distractions—yet he had never used a computer or the Internet. Despite this, he believed the malicious “hand-held media device” would harm the mind and demanded strict regulation. How could someone ignorant of modern tech issue such warnings? The answer: he lived in the early 16th century and was referring to the printing press and books.
Every new technology, from Ancient Greece to today, has sparked identical fears. While our brains struggle with handling too much information, much of the alarm today is driven by fear and misconceptions. The Internet hasn’t led to apathy but to a global political awakening—humanity is more politically aware and engaged than ever before. New technologies bring new problems, but the real issue isn’t the technology itself—it’s what it reveals about human nature. Our core problem lies in human drives, not technological software.
That said, I look forward to listening to the clip.
A brilliant and important conversation which I really enjoyed, thank you. I think postman was right about Huxley's vision. It touched on many of my own insights and concerns as a non technologist. Sometimes it seems that ALL we are dealing with, in every aspect of our lives and society, is 'unintended consequences' . (The money system and capitalism in particular is a case in point.) All of these consequences seem to stem from the manipulation of truth for the benefit of the few.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, it has often made me wonder if they really are unintended. Jordan Peterson (who I rarely agree with), once said 'intent can be inferred from outcome' which has always rang true to me.
Technology corporations supply what they want us to have, convince us we need or want it, and then remove our choices. We are forced into a way of life none of us thoughtfully consented to, and I personally don't want, but we are left with little option.
Elons Neurolink is a case in point. The FDA approved something that really required a global debate about our collective desire for the future of humanity. Instead it was a largely commercial decision.
Social media hijacks our dopamine reward pathway for example, we are all unwittingly addicted to something with negative health consequences. Sometimes it feels like a bunch of people got together to deconstruct the human psyche and our biology to find ways to hijack it and us without us realising or being able to protect ourselves. And it's money (which equals ultimate power in this world) that makes all of this hijacking possible.
![[ Center for Humane Technology ]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!uhgK!,w_80,h_80,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5f9f5ef8-865a-4eb3-b23e-c8dfdc8401d2_518x518.png)
The "Luddites" are misrepresented in the popular culture as "anti-technology". No. They were simply pointing to some of the deleterious knock-on human impacts (e.g. unemployment) that always accompany even "beneficial" innovations. Very relevant to your excellent discussion of the current tech landscape.
"Luddites" were craft workers in still predominantly rural areas where industrial organization was not yet well developed, and who lacked other means of taking collective industrial actions to protect themselves from ruthless capitalist predators, so they resorted to straightforward sabotage instead. Bourgeois propagandists then created an absurd, distorted image of them as some kind of strange cult of primitivists opposed in principle to any technological innovation whatsoever. (Cf: EP Thompson, "The Making of the English Working Class")
I think you are touching on the work of Paul Virilio here. He proposed that when we invent a technology we also invent its in-built disaster.
Thanks for providing that reference Jez! I'll check him out.
Actually, Swiss scientist Conrad Gessner was the first to warn about information overload and distractions—yet he had never used a computer or the Internet. Despite this, he believed the malicious “hand-held media device” would harm the mind and demanded strict regulation. How could someone ignorant of modern tech issue such warnings? The answer: he lived in the early 16th century and was referring to the printing press and books.
Every new technology, from Ancient Greece to today, has sparked identical fears. While our brains struggle with handling too much information, much of the alarm today is driven by fear and misconceptions. The Internet hasn’t led to apathy but to a global political awakening—humanity is more politically aware and engaged than ever before. New technologies bring new problems, but the real issue isn’t the technology itself—it’s what it reveals about human nature. Our core problem lies in human drives, not technological software.
That said, I look forward to listening to the clip.
A brilliant and important conversation which I really enjoyed, thank you. I think postman was right about Huxley's vision. It touched on many of my own insights and concerns as a non technologist. Sometimes it seems that ALL we are dealing with, in every aspect of our lives and society, is 'unintended consequences' . (The money system and capitalism in particular is a case in point.) All of these consequences seem to stem from the manipulation of truth for the benefit of the few.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, it has often made me wonder if they really are unintended. Jordan Peterson (who I rarely agree with), once said 'intent can be inferred from outcome' which has always rang true to me.
Technology corporations supply what they want us to have, convince us we need or want it, and then remove our choices. We are forced into a way of life none of us thoughtfully consented to, and I personally don't want, but we are left with little option.
Elons Neurolink is a case in point. The FDA approved something that really required a global debate about our collective desire for the future of humanity. Instead it was a largely commercial decision.
Social media hijacks our dopamine reward pathway for example, we are all unwittingly addicted to something with negative health consequences. Sometimes it feels like a bunch of people got together to deconstruct the human psyche and our biology to find ways to hijack it and us without us realising or being able to protect ourselves. And it's money (which equals ultimate power in this world) that makes all of this hijacking possible.
Excellent discussion.