Tell me about Luddism Jow Forums, are all Luddites against all tech? This seems pretty relevant in today's world with a...

Tell me about Luddism Jow Forums, are all Luddites against all tech? This seems pretty relevant in today's world with a.i developing at an incredibly fast rate.

> pic related , It's supposed to be Nedd Ludd.

Attached: images.jpg (326x155, 10K)

>muh enclosure
>fuck you poorfags, just go to the city and find a job there
>muh mechanization
>fuck you poorfags, just git good
No wonder they chimped out

Read the books "Technological Slavery" (2010) and "Anti-Tech Revolution" (2016) Then get back to us and ask more specific questions.

Best of luck!

Attached: Kaczynski.jpg (306x423, 42K)

Idk, I think they definitely have their points, however, I do believe they are pointing the finger in the wrong direction, they should be pointing their finger at the robber baron oligarchs not nesecerilly the Technology they use to control the masses, as tech is really just a subjective tool, which can be used for both good or bad, which is also subjective.

Luddism was a proto-socialist movement in which workers secretly sabotaged machines that drove factories. It was the only form of protest they had against their employers as strikes were illegal and violently suppressed.

The owners of factories spun it as hatred of technology to prevent them from gaining the sympathy of larger public and the media (mostly owned by the same class of people) went with the spin. In reality, it was one of the first organised worker's rights movements.

Dude, we can argue all we want about this until we're red in the face, but unless there is a halt to the power of the technologies that the "robber baron oligarchs" use there won't be a world left. So let's agree to disagree and halt the ever increasing power of the tools that can be used by the bad people (your ideology) and then lets argue why I think you're wrong.

I just don't see how Tech itself is nesecerilly wrong, I don't want to argue, I'm just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

"robber baron oligarchs" have been around for more than 10,000 years without threatening planetary survival or human genetics. Modern technology threatens all the most fundamental aspects of the fate of the entire world for now and forever, just in a matter of a few centuries.

So let's worry about the technology first, then we'll talk.

Oh. Sorry. I don't mean to come across as a dick. You obviously seem genuine and intellectually curious.

I'm far from being an expert but Luddism seems to be more a reaction movement than an actual ideology. Maybe neo-luddism would be more interesting to study in that aspect.

> "robber baron oligarchs" have been around for more than 10,000 years without threatening planetary survival or human genetics.

Yeah, they've been around for thousands of years but they've been doing shit like this for thousands of years, without tech, all oppression is equally shitty.

not all oppression is imposed equally
:^)

The central argument in the anti-tech position, is the "autonomy of technology" This is the principal that in the long term, rational control of the development of human society is impossible. This follows from a number of reasons relating to complexity, chaos theory, conflict among wills, logical paradoxes, etc.

By extension, the rational control over the development of technology is not subject to rational control. Rather, it is subject to processes of natural selection like biological organisms in nature.

This is of course a simplification, but it's supported overwhelmingly by evidence, and many theorists have noticed the same thing over the centuries.

was this shit ever even more popular than people who were against slavery or (((immigration)))?

apparently mostly jews were behind the slave trade, and white people were against black slaves being brought here because it devalued their labor

as if almost nothing has really changed after all these centuries

>deknoloji.... bad

Attached: 1525947738344.png (485x443, 38K)

Typo: "the rational control over the development of technology is not possible"

You have ignored the central point of my post: That now the most fundamental aspects of the fate of the whole world are in jeopardy--not because of 'robber baron oligarchs" but because of the scale and intensity allowed by modern technology.

My whole point was simply swept under the carpet... (?)

A crucial concept is SCALE, or DEGREE of damage allowed by negative social arrangements.

You can say that all humans have damaged their environments. You could say, for example, that Native Americans burned their forests to clear them for cultivation. Therefore, it is assumed, there is nothing different about todays environmental degradation.

But this is a logical fallacy. It's a colossal non-sequitor because primitive man never did--because they never could--affect their environment nearly to the same DEGREE.

dude who stole the APC was interested in this
wonder what his plan was

Totally agree.

> ree--- recycle!

recycling does more harm then good.

Attached: 1468783064424.jpg.jpg (446x357, 29K)

Oh my mistake, I didn't mean to sweep it under the rug, and I don't intend on having a vicious argument, and yes I would agree that tech has a death grip and far too large of a scale on our lives.

> nail in the club.

You kinda need technology to make your average roofing nail, or really any tech you need to melt iron or more likely steal to make such a nail, your image is flawed.