A few weeks ago I was asked to write an explainer on Luddites and Neo Luddites for The Conversation. That article has just been published, and as always when working with a great editor, the final version is much tighter than the original. That said, I’m always intrigued by the path between final draft and published article, and so on the assumption there are probably a couple of other people who are similarly intrigued, here’s the piece as it was delivered to my editor — admittedly more meandering, but I still like it:
You write... "Yet often the actions leading to the epithet are less a rejection of the technology than a rejection of underlying values associated with today’s technologically-dependent society"
There's another angle to explore along these lines.
The science community are overwhelmingly people of good intentions, so it's not their moral values which typically are in need of challenge. The problem is instead that the science community (along with most other cultural elites) are stubbornly clinging to a simplistic and outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge left over from the past.
This "more is better" knowledge philosophy was entirely rational in the long era of knowledge scarcity. Today we no longer live in the old knowledge scarcity era, but in a completely different new era characterized by knowledge exploding in every direction at an accelerating rate. The old "more is better" relationship with knowledge is not being updated to meet the demands of this new environment. We're failing to adapt to changing conditions. We're clinging to the past. We are, if you will, philosophical Luddites.
The old knowledge scarcity era ended at 8:16am on August 6, 1945 over Hiroshima Japan. That is the moment EIGHTY YEARS AGO when it should have become clear that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is not sustainable, for the simple reason that human beings do not possess an unlimited ability to successfully manage power.
The change that is needed today can be easily seen in our relationship with food. For endless centuries humanity lived near the edge of starvation, so in that food scarcity environment a "more is better" relationship with food made sense. But in today's developed world at least, far more people die of obesity than starvation. So our relationship with food has had to evolve past the simplistic "more is better" paradigm. Today we have to make more complex decisions about what we consume, which inevitably involves saying no to some consumption.
The very same dynamic exists in our relationship with knowledge.
If we can accept that there is some limit to human ability, that we are not gods, then it should become clear that any process which delivers ever more, ever greater powers, at an ever accelerating rate will sooner or later exceed those limitations.
It's those who either can't or won't accept the reality of human limitations who are the real Luddites.
Excellent topic, thank you so much.
You write... "Yet often the actions leading to the epithet are less a rejection of the technology than a rejection of underlying values associated with today’s technologically-dependent society"
There's another angle to explore along these lines.
The science community are overwhelmingly people of good intentions, so it's not their moral values which typically are in need of challenge. The problem is instead that the science community (along with most other cultural elites) are stubbornly clinging to a simplistic and outdated "more is better" relationship with knowledge left over from the past.
This "more is better" knowledge philosophy was entirely rational in the long era of knowledge scarcity. Today we no longer live in the old knowledge scarcity era, but in a completely different new era characterized by knowledge exploding in every direction at an accelerating rate. The old "more is better" relationship with knowledge is not being updated to meet the demands of this new environment. We're failing to adapt to changing conditions. We're clinging to the past. We are, if you will, philosophical Luddites.
The old knowledge scarcity era ended at 8:16am on August 6, 1945 over Hiroshima Japan. That is the moment EIGHTY YEARS AGO when it should have become clear that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is not sustainable, for the simple reason that human beings do not possess an unlimited ability to successfully manage power.
The change that is needed today can be easily seen in our relationship with food. For endless centuries humanity lived near the edge of starvation, so in that food scarcity environment a "more is better" relationship with food made sense. But in today's developed world at least, far more people die of obesity than starvation. So our relationship with food has had to evolve past the simplistic "more is better" paradigm. Today we have to make more complex decisions about what we consume, which inevitably involves saying no to some consumption.
The very same dynamic exists in our relationship with knowledge.
If we can accept that there is some limit to human ability, that we are not gods, then it should become clear that any process which delivers ever more, ever greater powers, at an ever accelerating rate will sooner or later exceed those limitations.
It's those who either can't or won't accept the reality of human limitations who are the real Luddites.