Everything about Neo-luddism totally explained
The term
Luddite is a political/historical term relating to a
political movement during the
Industrial Revolution; it's primarily used to describe those perceived as being uncompromisingly or unnecessarily opposed to technological or scientific innovations.
Neo-Luddism is a modern movement of opposition to specific or general technological development. Few people describe themselves as neo-Luddites (though it's common, certainly in the UK, for people to
self-deprecatingly describe themselves as
Luddites if they dislike or have difficulty using modern technology); the term "neo-Luddite" is most often deployed by advocates of technology to describe persons or organizations that resist technological advances.
Views
Unlike
anarcho-primitivists, someone labelled a neo-Luddite might not consider technology itself to be
evil, though they may believe that many technologies influence
human nature in a way that degrades the overall quality of human existence. However, most commonly neo-Luddites oppose the rapid adoption of technology by society on the grounds that such development's negative effects on individuals, society or the planet outweigh its benefits.
Neo-Luddite thinkers usually reject the popular claim that technology is essentially "value free" or "amoral", that it's merely a set of tools which can be used for either good or evil. Instead, they argue that certain technologies have an inherent tendency to reinforce or undermine particular values. In particular, they argue that some technologies foster social/class alienation, environmental degradation, and spiritual dissipation, though they're always marketed as uniformly positive by the companies that make them. Neo-Luddites claim that technology is a force that may do any or all of the following: dehumanise and
alienate people; destroy traditional cultures, societies, and family structure;
pollute languages; reduce the need for person-to-person contact; alter the very definition of what it means to be
human; or damage the
evolved life-support systems of the Earth's entire
biosphere so gravely as to cause
human extinction.
Reasoning
People described as "neo-Luddite" come from a variety of political backgrounds,
anarchist and
conservative, and the arguments used to obtain anti-technology conclusions similarly run across the political spectrum.
Accusations of "neo-Luddism" on the left are usually directed at those who oppose technology on the grounds that may contribute to any or all of the following: loss of
personal privacy,
environmental degradation (including
human extinction),
consumerism, and
authoritarianism,
cruelty to animals,
social decay, the collapse of tribal and nature-based ways of life, or the separation of the worker from the means of production.
Those on the right who are "neo-Luddites" generally oppose technology on the grounds that it may contribute to any or all of the following:
decay of social mores,
dehumanization, a
snowball effect towards a "
Brave New World", the collapse of
traditional ways of life,
consumerism, or the
decay of religion and
atheistic nihilism.
Whether the arguments come from the right or the left may not affect the general conclusions reached by those who are likely to be labelled as neo-Luddites. These conclusions may include claims that some or all of the following are needed: increased governmental control over technological development; increased consumer responsibility; increased corporate responsibility; and ethical inquiries into the ramifications that certain technologies have and will have on society and/or the environment. Some more radical thinkers call for the dismantling of the current technical superstructures of our civilization altogether, rather than merely trying to make human societies less dependent on technology.
Some of those who don't fit neatly into either group, or who fit into both to some degree, oppose technology on essentially
anarchist grounds. In their view, the unhindered growth of technology in
liberal societies tends to increase governmental and corporate control over individual lives, and lead to increased
inequality.
Labels
Those labelled "neo-Luddites" may also be labelled
anarcho-primitivist. The term "bio-Luddite" is frequently applied to individuals who specifically oppose the development of certain forms of biotechnology. Like "neo-Luddite" itself, these various labels are usually applied by their detractors. However,
Kalle Lasn is a self-described neo-Luddite social activist.
Some "neo-Luddites", mostly of the
anarcho-primitivist or
green anarchist persuasion, don't consider "Luddite" to be pejorative and advance explicitly anti-technology arguments, viewing technology as a fundamental form of oppression and alienation. Notable thinkers and writers in this vein include
John Zerzan,
Derrick Jensen,
Jacques Ellul, and
Chellis Glendinning; the actions and words of
Theodore Kaczynski and groups like the
Earth Liberation Front may also be seen as a militant articulation of Luddism. The historical
Luddite movement of the early
19th century is often referenced positively in this milieu in spite of its violence.
"Neo-Luddites" and politics
As noted earlier, people categorized as "neo-Luddite" usually are so due to their apparent cohesiveness on the political front. This is due to the fact that when a policy that restricts one form of technological innovation or another is before a legislative body, it can be expected that anti-technology advocates on the right and left will support it, despite different or sometimes conflicting motivations. Most neo-luddites in popular culture(see 'popular culture' section for examples), have not publicly supported or condoned violent beliefs or practices, however some people do use the philosophy as a justification for violence.
Because some neo-Luddites are not opposed to using violent means, and because of the violent actions of some well known neo-Luddites (e.g
Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber") and neo-luddite groups (e.g
E.L.F.) the
FBI has stated it considers
green anarchists to be the "leading domestic
terror threat". This has led to an ongoing crackdown on the radical ecological movement, known as the
Green Scare; most of those arrested stand accused of
sabotage actions reminiscent of the original
Luddites' tactics. However, these people only comprise a fraction of and not the entirety of neo-luddites.
Stem cells
On
August 9,
2001, a few months after taking office, U.S. President
George W. Bush enacted a ban on the expenditure of public funds on
stem cell research on
embryonic stem cells other than those from cell lines developed by the date of his declaration. This policy was proposed by
Leon Kass and
Francis Fukuyama in their work on
The President's Council on Bioethics.
While the support for the ban as delineated in the works of Kass and the Council isn't blatantly "neo-Luddite" or anti-technology, any restriction on technology is usually criticized by pro-technology advocates. Moreover, Kass' extensive body of writing in the field of
bioethics does express concerted and principled opposition to many forms of
biotechnology, providing the basis for opponents to accuse him of being, more specifically, a leading right-wing "bio-Luddite".
It should be noted, however, that no prohibition on privately funded stem cell research was either proposed or instituted.
The production of human embryonic stem cells is prohibited in the Federal Republic of Germany by the Embryo Protection Law.
GMO
A number of countries, as well as the
EU, have adopted the
Precautionary Principle as law, statute, or regulation, especially with respect to Genetically Modified Organisms. Effectively this bans GMOs from Europe, a fact which has rankled, for example, American corn farmers.
The adoption of the ban places the burden of proof on the producers of GMOs to prove that their products are not harmful. This is noteworthy, since in most other cases the burden of proof lies on governments to prove that a product
is harmful.
Part of the reason EU governments adopted these policies is due to large-scale popular campaigns which started before GMOs became established in the European economy, and which included the suitably classic
Luddite tactic of night-time sabotage, this time against genetic research and development.
Opposition
Opposition to neo-Luddites consists largely of those who believe that technology is beneficial or, at worst, neutral. This opposition has sometimes been hindered by a focus on specific issues, and on occasion by a belief that the benefits of certain new technologies are obvious when in fact many people don't understand the technology in question.
A main concern of technological proponents is to question whether it's always worth saving those things that neo-Luddites seek to protect. The actions of the Luddites are perceived to be emotion-driven and therefore irrational. One form of this objection begins by noting their defense of traditional cultures, and then pointing out culture as a static force enslaves people to its strictures, and is counterproductive to adaptation resulting in cultural if not ethnic extinction. Further arguments would state that elements (real or imagined) of certain traditional cultures that modern societies find abhorrent, such as cannibalism and slavery. Another form is to note some problem that most people would like to minimize or eliminate - such as cancer (which many people agree can eventually be reliably treated or cured), or the sometimes crippling effects of advanced age (see
Geriatrics) - and argue that the main effect of neo-Luddism would be to delay or prevent solutions to these problems.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Neo-luddism'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://neo-luddism.totallyexplained.com">Neo-Luddism Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
