They might be right to fear it, but that doesn't mean they understand it.
They might be right in proclaiming that they don't deserve to be left behind as a result, but that still doesn't mean they understand it.
At least, that's what I mean when I talk about Luddites not understanding technology.
Well that's totally unreasonable. Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, it's just that the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer. Look at how well gatekeeping works in drug production. Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Certainly this may not hold forever, and sure some things slip through. But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.
The "benefit your children" analysis also doesn't account for longer-term beneficial effects of technology, such as cheaper goods.
Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.
> Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business.
Complicated taxes is much more of a political problem than it is a pure efficiency problem that technology can adequately tackle. If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation.
> Certainly this may not hold forever (...) But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.
Yeah sure you can, there are lucky and savvy survivors in every situation. But I think it's more likely that you not only lose, you worsen your and your children's life by having wasted time fighting when you could have been pursuing more effective ways of surviving by adapting to technology.
By exploiting the poorer party in the previous round of this game. Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating - the more you have, the easier it is for you to get even more.
No it isn't, it just gives you an advantage. The idea that money makes money implicitly makes the assumption that you're investing in modern technology that drives growth. You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.
Competitors, who are part of the rich group, not the poor group.
There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.
https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre...
There's no technology-in-general that "the Luddites" fight againtst, nor are there Luddites-in-general. It's risk-benefit calculation in every case, with different parties and different interests. You don't need luck to profit off lobbying against the development of your undoers, this is the norm, not the exception.
> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.
What is an "efficient technology" and what is an "unapproved and criminal enterprise" can be decided by lobbying. Luddite is the one who loses, because he gets labeled Luddite by the victor; the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.
"Free tax filing" is not a technology, try again.
> the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.
And you didn't even make a point. Lobbying requires power, and efficient technology gives you that power. It's no accident that those who embrace technology always have more power than those who don't.
The thing is, it's possible for the equivalent-of-the-Luddites to be right about the impact on their prospects and way of life, and for it still to be the right thing to do in a global sense.
If an economic shift is going to significantly negatively impact the opportunities your children will have, you are on pretty solid ground getting pissed about it, particularly if it is being driven by people who stand to benefit from your losses. It still might be the right thing to do as a matter of, say, national policy. The real differentiation is what do we collectively do for those impacted - as a culture/government do we try an ease the transition, or take a "sucks to be you" stance. Just because something is/was a net benefit doesn't mean it can't also be horrific cf much of the early industrial revolution.
Overall I think the phrase "Luddite" is commonly used these days to characterize someone who is afraid of technology because they don't understand it. More fairly, it would be used to describe people who are afraid of the impact of technology because they do understand it, possible better than most of their contemporaries.