Attack of the Clones meets the Lord of the Luddites.

The American Prospect ^ | 5/16/02 | Chris Mooney

[Cvengr]

Thanks for the allegorical reference. I hadn't considered it. Very astute.

[Cvengr]

I'm curious also about the etymology and current meaning of 'Luddite'.

I understand it goes back to the French Revolution, when an anti-science or anti-technology theme accompanied the fervor of the day, slaughtering the good ol' beaugoursoise (sp?) aong with the nobles.

I guess if till this very day I swear not to use the computer and refuse to type on one, I'd be considered a Luddite,...then again it might be difficult to glean a representative meaning from Luddites in this forum.

[JenB]

I have been told that Luddite is for a man named Ned Ludd, who led some of the workers' protests against the machines that were going to "take away their jobs", back during the Industrial Revolution.

[boris]

Ned Ludd was a 'retarded' person--a simpleton. He accidentally broke a machine and became the figurehead "leader" of the gangs of laborers who felt threatened by industrial machines, and who led mobs into factories to destroy the evil mechanisms.

This is per my (creaking and leaky) memory.

[Restorer]

I understand it goes back to the French Revolution, when an anti-science or anti-technology theme accompanied the fervor of the day, slaughtering the good ol' beaugoursoise (sp?) aong with the nobles.

Here's an interesting link about the origin of the term Luddite: http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_whats.htm

The Luddites were English weavers who objected to the introduction of power-driven looms, which made products far cheaper than they could.

I think there is a basic flaw in this whole argument. The pro-technology group, as in the author of this article, assume that if those who opposed the introduction of past technology have been proven wrong, any possible future technology will also be beneficial in its long-term effects.

This is so obviously wrong that I'm not sure its necessary to point out the logical flaw. But here goes, anyway.

A power-driven loom (or a computer) is not remotely comparable in the scope of its effects to genetic engineering. This is without doubt the potentially most powerful technology ever to come along. As with any other source of power, it can be used wisely or unwisely. Some of those who oppose random implementation of this technology are not opposed to technology, they are opposed to its unwise use.

The Law of Unintended Consequences can be expected to apply to biotech in a really big way.

I'm not sure I want to be around to see the aftermath of a biotech "Ooops."

[Cvengr]

Thanks for the link.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

"There is only one bright spot ... and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations ... But it won't do any good, if it is not universal."

I have not read many of Tolkien's letters, but it seems to me that he had a way of making hyperbolic statements as a way of humorously showing that he didn't take himself too seriously. If any of you who have read more extensively think that Tolkien was seriously proposing that factories and power-stations should all be dynamited, I would be both astonished and interested.

[Sam Cree]

I know this thread is dormant, however I just discoverd it.

I agree that the article was annoying, and snotty.

To tell you the truth, I usually have mixed feelings toward "progress." Still, (unlike Tolkien [and also Thor Heyerdahl]) I really love machinery, but on the other hand also really love nature, I spend an awful lot of time either in the woods or on the ocean, I find a connection with something very strong in these places. I'm sorry I missed the conversation, it raises some interesting paradoxes. See you guys on the other side.