Slashdot Mirror
The Return Of The Luddites
Members of a radical agrarian movement in early l9th-century England, the Luddites surfaced in Robin Hood country -- Sherwood Forest, near Nottinghamshire -- and for 15 bloody months took on the Industrial Revolution's first factories and entrepreneurs, until the British army suppressed them for good. The term has come to mean something else, though -- an attitude of fear and resentment toward technology. The Luddites never really left us completely, but the rise of the Net, the Web and the screen-driven culture they're helping to push along are bringing Luddites, or at least modern pretenders, back in force.
The historical Luddites drew their ranks from farmers and artisans whose families had lived for centuries in small villages, using simple machines that could be operated by individuals or small groups. The big mills and factories of the Industrial Revolution meant an end to social customs and community, to personal status and individual freedom. Having worked independently on their own farms, they grasped that they would be forced to use complex, dangerous machines in noisy, smelly factories, enduring long hours for slave wages, and that the trade was not in their favor.
Contemporary Luddites are fighting technology to keep power rather than livelihood, though they have as much chance of succeeding as their predecessors did.
These self-appointed watchmen are opportunists and cultural reactionaries led by people like Joseph Lieberman, former Education Secretary William Bennett, (one of Washington's leading moral gasbags, and one of Lieberman's closest friends), and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, who bemoan the lack of "morality" in popular culture, entertainment, and of course, most of all, the Mother of All Demons, the Net.
In fact, plenty of people call themselves Luddites today; they're popping up all over in media and Academe. The writer and social critic Kirkpatrick Sale, best known for his prescient book on the rise of the Sunbelt and his portrayal of Christopher Columbus as a raving imperialist scumbag (he's most recently the author of Rebels Against the Future: the Luddites and Their War on The Industrial Revolution), routinely attracts college audiences who cheer while he figuratively or literally smashes computers and denounces technology for ruining the world.
Unlike the first time 'round, this time corporations have joined the Luddite movement with a fury, hiring platoons of lawyers and lobbyists to fence off the Net and beat back the menace of free information online. Congress has passed a number of anti-democratic and unconstitutional laws designed to curb the free speech spawned by new technologies. Every season brings more books, articles, news stories warning that technology is driving us crazy, making us stupid, turning out kids into murderers, endangering out families. And how many articles and TV news stories have you seen on dangerous "hackers," online predators, Net addicts?
The neo-Luddites have attacked on a broad range of fronts blaming technology for everything from copyright theft to addiction to the oft-invoked menace of hacking and cracking. But no assault has been more relentless than the idea that technology and culture endanger the moral and literal lives of children. For years Bennett and Lieberman have led a wildly successful campaign (now joined both by Al Gore and George W. Bush), thumping the entertainment industry for allegedly contributing to violent behavior. Columbine advanced the hysterical ideal that computer games were not only unhealthy, but mortally dangerous. This idea has become the central rallying cry of the neo-Luddites.
It's interesting how modern-day Luddites invoke morality as a shield to mask zealotry and ignorance. Basically, they're doing what fanatics have done for centuries: try to force everyone to accept their own personal ideas of right and wrong. We are constantly being told this cultural piety and conformity is really for our own good -- and that of our children. This despite evidence that young people are safer than they've ever been, according to every recent statistical survey, from the FBI Uniform Crime Report to the Center for Juvenile Justice in New York. There are virtually no credible connections between technology use, media and violence.
Author Richard Rhodes, a scholar both of technology and violence, pointed out in The New York Times last week that violent behavior isn't learned from mock struggles on a screen. Violence is learned in personal encounters, beginning with the epidemic brutalization of children by their parents and peers. "Violence is on the decline in America," wrote Rhodes, "but if we want to reduce it even further, protecting children from real violence in their real lives -- not the pale shadow of mock violence -- is the place to begin."
But that isn't likely to happen. Exploiting the idea that technology as a menace to children is a lot easier and cheaper than confronting more complex social problems like child abuse or guns. Rhodes and others have pointed out that as media use has increased in the western world, violence has generally declined. Private violence (as opposed to the military or nation-state kind) has been dropping in the West since the Middle Ages, when homicide rates are estimated to have been 10 times those of Western nations today. Historians attribute the drop to improved social controls -- police forces and common access to courts of law -- and to a shift away from brutal physical punishment in child-rearing, a practice that shows up again and again as a common factor in the background of violent criminals.
Yet most Americans believe violence among the young is skyrocketing, and more than 80% told the Gallup poll last year that they believe the Internet is at least partly responsible. that's how good a propaganda job the neo-Luddites and their media have done.
"This time around the technology is even more complex and extensive," warns Sale, "and its impact even more pervasive and dislocating, touching greater populations with greater speed and at greater scales." In a way, Sale has a point. The neo-Luddities do have a whole new crop of legitimate issues with which to rouse an already alarmed populace: nano-technology, artificial intelligence, the open source challenge to proprietary businesses, and the growing access to information by younger Americans who could previously be easily censored and influenced.
Little organized political or other opposition counters the neo-Luddites. Few people are using mainstream media to argue that digital technology actually is creating many new kinds of jobs, sparking new kinds of communities and liberating information for millions in ways never before possible. Some should. For all its many flaws, the digital culture fosters freedom and opportunity and information everywhere it goes. The irony is that the neo-Luddites, like their predecessors, are fighting forces beyond anybody's control. They can't win either. The only issue is how ugly the brawl will get.
What is the real enemy is the lack of technological power and the means to understand it.
Respond to s
you currently have a karma of -29. You're still heading in that direction.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Mod this up!!!
yeah
...the one which hates Javascript. Here's our homepage. Do the viewers of your webpages a favor, and don't use frivolous Javascript!
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
thanks
Still... it is easy to find examples of mental illness on the internet. The beautiful things seem to be kept away for fear of being ripped off.
How many open source art projects do we have out there? Especially vs. free exhibitions of the gruesome?
2 Katz articles in a row!!!
Imagine this: one day in the near future, Congress and the FBI finally get their way and install Carnivore boxes not only at the ISP level, but at your local computers also. If Richard Stallman urged a call to arms and geeks everywhere organized massive protests where they liberally shattered the Carnivore boxes into little bits, would you not join? You too, Mr Slashbot, are a Luddite, by that standard, make no mistake about it. When someone shatters your own world-view, it is your right and duty to shatter his means, at whatever cost and to whatever ends.
With this article and that super-confusing one 2 above, I'm wondering if it's Mondo 2000 day at Slashdot. Now all we need is another neo-hippie Timothy Leary article and we're set!
Katz dismisses out of hand people that complain about the lack of morality in the movies, tv and on the Internet. Yes, people in political positions that are attempting to use the "back to values" battle cry in their political campaigns are usually the least interested in a true check on our morality. However just because people have genuine beliefs about the moral decay of American civilization doesn't make them anti-technology. I think the proliferation of moral relativism is apalling. For those of you who many not be familiar with the term, moral relativism is the mode of thought that whatever anyone wants to do is fine becuase it's what they beleieve is right. This is going to cause the ultimate downfall of our society because eventually one of two things will happen: anarchy will come to pass or a zealot movement will get power and clamp down on all GENUINE freedoms. There HAS to be standards of conduct. Programmers follow standards in code. The Intnet is based on standards and those that don't follow the standards are shunned. Yet in our REAL lives there are NO standards of behavior? That's ludicrious.
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
#1: "The historical Luddites drew their ranks from farmers and artisans whose families had lived for centuries in small villages, using simple machines that could be operated by individuals or small groups."
I think that this shows a tendency of the masses (ie. plebians) vs. the aristocracy to try to rise above the place they are expected to sit complacently in the hierarchy. This is a borderline accusation of communism. These societies weren't as developed as ours. In a study by Fellane (1977), most pre-industrial socities have a lesser change of revolt against a commmon enemy, simply due to the fact that there are higher ratios of "artistic" individuals (ie. producers of art) to common workers. (farmers, blacksmiths)
#2: "Basically, they're doing what fanatics have done for centuries: try to force everyone to accept their own personal ideas of right and wrong."
Are you talking about them in a cultural sense, or in an individual sense? Such ideas cannot be imposed culturally, by some fraternal figure from above. This is the reponsibility of the cultured citizen to decide what is right, and also what is wrong. When you ursup this obligation away from the individual, you are stepping on their basic human rights.
But, all in all, another good thought-provoking idea. I'd like to see what your response is to my queries. Maybe a reply here is in order?
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Does anyone else think it's really silly to complain about luddites in a cyber-column?
Once again, JonKatz spouts off. Well, that's an editor's prerogative. And ours to flame :)
The original Luddites were afraid of change, and didn't like that their trade was being usurped by cheaper factory producers. They wanted things their way rather than change to own or build these new machines. Tough!
The current crop is no different. They are deathly afraid of change because they will lose the status and position they have built for themselves. Tough!
In every change there are winners and losers. The secret is to adapt so you are on the winning side. I have no sympathy for lazy whining losers. I do have some sympathy for those who try to change, but need help.
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
I think they were right. When new technology is introduced, it should be used to make life better for all of society, not to make the rich richer and eliminate the need for other economic classes. Mechanization and new technology have always promised that the work day would get shorter, safer, and easier. So why are so many people working 12 hour days at multiple jobs?
Most of us are lucky; we are the technological elite and we like our jobs. But too frequently, people (like us) have introduced new technologies without thinking about the social impact. In the case of the Luddites, clever engineers figured out how to make an electric loom. But noone figured out how the textile producing population of England was supposed to support itself. I think the whole point of being 'human' is in looking to higher goals than feeding yourself for one day. Introducing technology that is more efficient and makes you money and more secure is a good thing-- but if the cost is destroying the livelyhood of large parts of your society, it's time to figure out a plan for them to succeed as well.
Now, the modern "Luddites" tend to be the exact opposite of this. They are protecting large, abusive corporations from technologies that would liberate many people both intellectually and financially. I think it is insulting to the original Luddites to call these new folks "Luddites."
-m
Mainstream media hypes problems, such as isolated acts of school violence, to such an extent that people who point out crime is going down are given funny looks. 'Conventional' wisdom tells us we are living in horrible times with our children under fire at school, and under attack by Hollywood and the Net.
Conventional wisdom is dead wrong. For this, I blame the mainstream media. Now that we have access to news on the Net, from a wide variety of sources, I'm constantly amazed at the emptiness of the nightly newscasts. So many interesting stories are happening around the world, and they report instead on Al Gore sneezing in Michigan or something.
Just when the corporations got full control over the mainstream media and managed to eviscerate it, the Net came along and gave us access to more information. Now they are going after the Net. If they succeed, we will all be dumbed-down.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
And how many on "dotcompreneurs" who are growing filthy rich? Go on, count the times you've seen Bezos and his ilk gassing on TV about the e-information age...
As far as the violence goes, it is perception that counts. And that is something Katz has conveniently skipped in this ill though out piece of flamebait.
There is a saying "no news is good news". Ever wonder where that came from? Originally, in the formative days of the BBC, if there were no disasters or bad news to convey, all that would be broadcast would be "there is no news today".
But in this day and age of more and more saturated TV coverage, enabled by our better communications and logistics, could you imagine CNBC or the BBC broadcasting that?
When was the last time you saw a news programme where there were solely "good" events happening, instead of the quirky 20 second slot on some news shows? And why is that? Because it doesn't make for good viewing figures, and that is what the news agencies depend on for funding.
I have given up watching the news, reading papers for this exact purpose. My current affairs knowledge is now minimal, but I am happier. Because can I really make [insert tragedy here] not have happened? Can I un-drown all those people lost at sea off Greece? (I only know this because the guy who sits next to me at work is Greek, BTW)
And those that Katz derides as Luddites (BTW, Sherwood Forest is _in_ Nottinghamshire), maybe they're looking at the 80+ hour week pressure cookers some of us high tech workers are in... And want something different. However, they don;t seem to understand that we can walk away from these furnaces at any time. The Luddites were still in a feudal system; the Lord of the land basically owned you, you did his bidding. And that is why the Luddites didn't want the tech.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
And I say this, because I understand women better than most men.
My qualifications here are that I've had sex, which puts me head and shoulders above your average 15 year old virgin Slashdot reader (cf. Bruce Perens).
Note, for example, that Time has a story on the return of exorcism this week. Credulity and antirationalism are on the rise. I blame liberal-arts academics, who are jealous of the strides science and technology have made over the past hundred years while their disciplines -- philosophy, literature, political science, history -- have either been irrelevancies or the handmaidens of mass murder. This has percolated into the general culture somewhat, though the public at large is far more pro-science and pro-technology than the average journalist, pundit, or academic.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
I reported that one months ago.
The original luddites feared to lost their job's. The Industrial Revolution breaked the man and the identity with your own work and life means. The man was no more owner of your work (and life) and the product of your work was far away from your understand, since the industrial line production segregates the worker from the final product. The technology can give this back!
Spock, beam me up.
It is a mistake to regard technical progress as a tautology or beyond the control of social forces. The willful abandoning of a technical advance by a society is rare but not unheard of. Z.B.- 17th C. Japan giving up the gun.
This is something which should be given more consideration.
illegitimii non ingravare
The original Luddites were selfishly fighting to keep their unproductive jobs. This would have kept clothing expensive for everyone else. Instead, they lost out, and people got affordable woolens. And in a generation, the industry grew back to its former employment levels.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
As a minor point of interest...
1. Do those people run around naked or they make their own clothes out of natural products by hand?
2. Do they walk from one state to another?
3. How about TV? Surely their speeches go on the air. Being true to their values...shouldnt they abolish cameras and TV, and so not be able to get their word out?
If answer is Yes to all 3 points above, I'll believe they are true to their views. If not, they are full of shit.
Ryn.
Calling people gasbags then lumping guns and child abuse together makes it hard to take you seriously. I usually do not mind editorials but this is labeled as news. It would be a pretty good story if it was made a bit more objective.
While Internet and other modern technologies may be changing our society, I would suggest that television is still the biggest influence. People watch an enormous amount of television. Besides pushing products, television influences our beliefs about the "real world".
that the values espoused by the original luddites (commitment to culture, community, and independence) are so much more attainable in an interconnected world where information is free (as in thought, not beer). Knowledge really is power, and the less a community has to rely on industry or government for their information or approval, the closer we are to having true freedom to live a life our short little lives in a fashion that suits us.
Aren't you glad The Internet is in Al Gore's hands?
yeah.. OK big guy
Alright, Jon, I normally like/tolerate your stuff...but HOW do you get off saying that the current "Luddites" are (insert negatives here) while the "original Luddites" were the ones who were "heros" and "fighting to preserve a way of life" or somesuch?
The modern Luddites are trying to protect a way of life also...as they always have...they want to keep information that THEY don't like out of the hands of everyone. Whether it's sex ed/AIDS ed for kids, substance abuse information, etc etc etc...the modern Luddites are trying to force their view of the world on everyone NOT by proclaiming their own position but by censoring others'.
since I'm browsing Windows NT instead of Linux, I don't have an IP address, instead I have a NetBUIE address, so I'm not worried about this.
Thanks for the warning, though.
Everything changes eventually. We all realise the meaning of this, but we don't always understand how this relates to our own lives. The idea of ending up in the junkyard in a few years time is somewhat un-appealing.
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator
Workers were being offered heavy, regulated, industrial work in exchange to a farming lifestyle. But to characterise the exchange as uniformly bad is probably unfair.
Farming is hard. It involves long hours, in all weathers. The results are far less predictable than factory work - bad conditions can mean famine. Many farmers lived in poverty. The plight of the Irish was particularly desparate.
Some people were being offered worse jobs in exchange for better ones. But I think that many of the Luddites were, as commonly characterised, afraid of change.
<rant>
Something that almost everyone ignores is that technology can be made transparent. Technological advancement has its drawbacks, and often has to fight issues it brings along with itself, but eventually a point is reached where technology can be disguised or engineered to how ever the market wants. Take Chrysler for example. They build cars that look like how they want them to look, not specifically how they function. The PT Cruiser, Ram, Viper, and Prowler are all examples of this change. I hope other automakers and groups follow a similar example.
Specifically speaking of computers, I don't see a reason why we need to have really obvious computers anymore. My DVD player is an old P-233 pc, and I have it placed where it is unobtrusive. I have discretely placed IR and radio mouse receivers, so my keyboard and mouse can sit on my coffee table when I am using them, but be put away when they are not needed. The display itself is on the TV, not a computer screen, further disguising it. In the future, I hope to be able to forego the TV in place of a discretely placed projector anyway, and not have any of it visible. Ultimately I want to do this for all of my electronics, specifically downplaying their importance while increasing their usefulness behind the scenes. Technology then becomes integrated into my life without intruding.
Most of the consumer market seems to go in for the gaudy, colourful, 'fruity' look with equipment now. The Apple line right now is a perfect example of this, as is the knockoff PC cases that have followed. Peripherals sit all over the place when people have scanners, printers, mice, keyboards, diskette drives, CD-burners, etc, when designs more like the IBM PS/2 Model 50 (the all in one with some actual expansion bays and an unobtrusive colour) proved that lots of the crap like drives and such could be feasibly integrated. "Natural" coloured equipment is available on the market, but it doesn't appear to sell very well. Until the consumer is told that this is what they want, it won't happen.
Much of the technology that is commonplace can be made to look like whatever we want. We can put massive computing systems into furniture like the old General Electric stereo cabinet, and never have to look at the innards again. Fighting the advance is not going to work, but working to make it as transparent as possible could be done. All that we have to do is convince the market that this is where to go.
</rant>
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
This is ridiculous. If you don't like the article, don't comment. Keep it to yourself unless YOU have a better point to argue. As it stands, your post has a much higher garbage to intellectual ratio than Katz article. Most of us come to read facts and opinions, not flames. Don't waste our time. Thank you.
"The fact no one understands you doesn't make you an artist. But we love your new '99 models." -7Ball
Kids today have no respect This music kids listen to is inappropriate The way kids dress today is very inappropriate There is way too much violence today (not like when I was growing up) Said by your Grandma to your Mom. Said by your Mom to you. Said by you to your kids?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
At -50, the user explodes in a shower of grits.
....have several big name silicon valley companies donated close to 22 million this year alone to the 2 presidential candidates???
I think this Luddite movement is nothing new; in fact it's as old as civilization itself. As far as I can tell it's merely an expression of fear for people in power either politically, financially or morally, feeling their position threatened by something which they do not understand and that they feel is escaping from their grasps of comprehension and more importantly from their control.
Columbine advanced the hysterical ideal that computer games were not only unhealthy, but mortally dangerous.
First, I'm not sure if you meant mortally or morally, but I think morally is more appropriate. Second, as an avid video game player, and not (yet?) a parent, I think I should stress that the ideology that video games ARE morally healthy on their face value is incredibly misleading and is a position only held in opposition to attempts at censorship. Blowing off other people's heads is not morally acceptable in our present culture, and a simulation of such can easily be interpreted as not being either. The stress we should make in this situation isn't that the cause of such violence cannot come from these games/movies/media, but that it isn't the authors of these things that should be held responsible. Freedom of speech is still prevalent in this country (USA I mean) and the responsibility should be held with those responsible for the children's upbringing; Parents, not the public or the media.
"This is where god would go if he wanted to get off blow!"
Programmers don't follow standards. Programmers adhere to APIs when it suits their purposes.
There are plenty of standards of behavior in our real lives. Laws against libel, slander, assault, conspiracy, kiddie porn, adultery and all those nasty things apply just fine to the Internet.
What your average Slashdotter objects to is the needless passing of MORE laws to prevent the protection of speech that, as much as a majority of people may not like it, is a valid viewpoint and deserves to exist. Virtually every kind of technology potentially usable to "verify" internet identities or "filter" or "secure" does only one thing -- remove liberty from individuals.
I'll concede that they may not do so very much -- but that they invoke a slippery slope -- once we give up a little, we'll have to give up a lot. I assure you of that.
I had been one of the (few?) people on
This one, however, has made me join many of the other readers in filtering out Katz posts now. Katz has completely crossed the line of even editorializing here, and has wandered off the deep end into the realm of zealotry and conspiracy theory.
I don't come to
Great. And how do these articles, TV news stories, books, and news stories get published? Oh yes, the entire media system is part of the Neo-Luddite conspiracy, isn't it?
Great. So Al Gore and George W. Bush are both leading the Neo-Luddite campaign to our doorstep. Technology as we know it is doomed if we vote for either one of them. I'm surprised Katz doesn't present us with someone running for president to stop the Neo-Luddite menace. Any volunteers Katz?
And it's interesting how Katz invokes the same morality as a shield against his own zealotry. This article reads as little more than a long-winded governmental conspiracy theory against Neo-Luddites. Let me guess, Bill Gates is part of the Neo-Luddite conspiracy too, since he supports the highly restrictive and probably unconstitional DMCA? Please. There are plenty of reasons for politicians to vote for laws that restrict our rights and privledges. They don't need to be members of an anti-technology conspiracy to do it.
If you're going to construct conspiracy theories, I suggest you read the Illuminatus Triology. You'll learn a lesson or two in conspiracy theories as taught by the Grand Illuminated Masters themselves.
These are just few examples but here's the point. The fear is justified because people are rightfully discerning that technologies are being developed/used that directly (and increasingly adversely) impact their lives and this application of technology to (or against) their lives is out of their own personal control. People are beginning to feel victimized by technology, and not empowered by it. Victimization on a mass basis (and technology is giving us the ability to victimize people in numbers never seen before) is the stuff from which revolutions are wraught, even Luddite revolutions.
EMUSE.NET
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
It is impossible to deny that technologies and media have social and cultural effects. Let me be clear what I mean by that: any new technology or media as it is implemented and used in a society, transforms that society. First an example: back in '96 I went to the Marshall Islands to do some volunteer work. Although I do not know the exact dates, they had recently begun to receive television from the USA. The cultural impact was obvious and undeniable. Children and teens completely changed the way they dressed and played (this was the minor, most visible impact). Violent youth gangs formed (this was the really bad, less visible impact). There were many other changes. There is nothing in their previous culture which suggested that these people had a shred of violence in them. But within a few short years of media contact their culture radically changed.
I strongly encourage people to take the debate away from technology-freedom vs. non-technology-morals. This debate is a straw man. Every technology is different enough that it must be evaluated on its own, appart from an irrelevant larger debate which can't be resolved. The middle ground, the rational discussion that we need, can only be done by recognizing that every technology has a host of effects, and that we must try to see those effect clearly in order to make a rational choice about the adoption of the technology.
I am writing a paper about this topic. It is still in progress so if you take a peek, please excuse any stupid phrasings or unsupported claims... As well, I would like to point people to some books by Jerry Mander: Four Arguments for the Elmination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred and a book by Marshall McLuhan: Understanding Media. These books try to be fairly balanced. Jerry Mander does get a little wierd at times, but on the balance has good arguements for his points.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
Puh-leeze, Katz! Having done your own shrare of moral pontificating in this forum I'd hope you'd be able to refrain from calling the kettle black. While I rarely agree with Senators Lieberman and Bennett on most issues and matters of legislation, I do respect them, as I respect anyone who'll state thier convictions and stand by them.
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
You won't find many facts around here, sonny.
I think a lot of neo-Luddites are rather the same. They don't have any well thought out objections to technology per-se, they're just people who are losing out to the rapid pace of change in the world, driven by human nature as much as by computers, and they lash out at having to change or having their profit stream threatened.
Look at how hard the MPAA fought against VCRs. The movie industry isn't anti-technology, they're about as high-tech as you can get, innovating constantly throughout this entire century. They just had a good profit scheme going and they'd rather try to keep the status quo they've been winning at than work to sieze the new opportunities present.
Both the original Luddites and the current crop are driven by the same motiviation; fear and lack of understanding about technology (with a healthy dose of 'Let's preserve the status quo, shall we?').The only difference is that Katz allows the distance of time and the skewed perspective of history to color his own comments.
What matters isn't the tactics the Neo-Luddites employ, nor Katz's persistent whining about the unfairness of it all. It's the end result.
The original Luddites were wrong, despite Katz's romanticizing about their motivations. For example, would you trade your life expectancy (a direct result of advances in both industrial and medical technology) for that of one of the Luddite weavers? I think not, if you have brain one.
Struggle is inevitable, and I support anyone's right to use any reasonable means to express his or her point of view. I think the Neo-Luddite point of view is every bit as cockeyed as the originals, and that it needs to be countered by reason. Complaining, however, about the fact that they use effective methods is just whining.
This is pretty amazing to see. On the one hand Jon provides a pretty good modern description of luddite'ism. The fear of new technology and the desire to freeze technical progress or even regress.
But while he denounces one particular branch of luddites. The coporate and goverment interests that seek to restrain the growth, power, and inevitable social changes that computers and the Internet bring. He does not want condem the idea itself. Since he is himself a luddite.
Oh? You say. Jon Katz a luddite, no way! Well listen up buddy. Ask Jon about genetic engineering. Anytime someone speaks, in reference to a particular technology, and says "I think advancements in this field are outpacing man's [moral|ethical] abilities". What are they saying? Other than we are afraid of this New Thing.
Down with all luddites! Embrace change!
It really depends on how you define a Luddite. If a Luddite is a person who values his life, his culture, his identity over that of pop-mash-culture, over technology and gadgets and constraints, over someone else's fairy tales, then a cyber-column on the internet in a public forum is one of the better places to do this sort of discussion.
If you define a Luddite as a technology fearing/hating/avoiding individual, against change, against growth, against 'progress', then yes, you're quite funny.
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
I don't think is fair (as some posters suggest) that the original Luddites were entirely selfish. The move from an agrarian to an industrial economy caused an immense amount of social upheaval. Cities like Nottingham experienced huge population increases, but often without a corresponding increase in their boundaries or facilities, leading to terrible housing, poor health, food shortages, etc. In this sense the Luddites were justified in their actions. However, over time, industry has on balance improved things!
It is interesting to compare these changes to those occuring in England over the last 20 years, as we have moved from an industrial to a service economy. Whole industries (e.g. mining, textiles) have been wiped out in Nottinghamshire, with consequential poverty. Try talking to some of those people about the information revolution ...
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
I think that Slashdotters should invoke a new rule that the moment someone mentions Luddites in a comment they forum should be closed. They are being invoked as a catch all for any unpleasant group that has an objection to anything even tangentially related to technology in the same way that Nazis are invoked in politics.
Take the groups in Katz's column. Are they objecting to the existence of computers? No. Do they want to ban the Internet? No. They object to the content being distributed over the Internet and through computers. If Katz's neo-luddites are considered thus for arguing against violent video games then anti-porn crusaders must be against the printing press and opponents of instant replay in football want to wipe video cameras from the face of the Earth. They are not Luddites -- jerks, perhaps, but not Luddites.
The only real Luddites in Americal are living in shacks in Montana. If the intent is to complain about censorship -- complain about censorship! Don't construct flimsy arguments out of inapplicable cliches.
Here we have an opposite situation. The people in power are the supposed "Luddites."
Is calling Leiberman & Gore & Bennett Luddites really correct? Seems as though this might be closer to McCarthyism than Ludditism.
managers...why god invented purgatory
The problem JohnKatz with discrediting the analogy is that it is JohnKatz's analogy. It's no mean feat to claim a ridiculous fact and then disprove it.
The modern foes of Freedom in politics are just that, foes of Freedom, not technology. They have embraced technology that is changing the world, they encourage it and propogate it as much as possible. The problem, of course, is that they want to be in control.
Try to focus on real arguments instead of semantic tricks portraying your enemies as dishonest and hypocritical.
Hmmm, let me see, I'm Jon Katz, and I've been taking quite a beating on Slashdot. What do those bastard geeks like anyway? I've got it! Technology. So, they'll hate anyone who's anti-technology. Now, what don't I like: politicians, anti-hacker hysteria, moralizing right wing christians, censors, ... they're all Luddites! They're going to love me this time...
Most of the ppl Katz mentions aren't Luddite at all. Fundies against sex and violence at the movies aren't against movie technology - they'd be against sex and violence in puppet shows. (I could go for some sex and violence in puppet shows). Calling the MPAA a bunch of Luddites is rediculous. They LOVE technology. Technology lets them extend their control to grotesque places and wring every last dollar out of the punters.
There's a lot to be said for neo-Luddism. People have a right to be concerned that they have to spend 8-10 hours each day behind a CRT to make a living. They should worry about how the lack of face-to-face interactions is changing society. They may be entirely justified in becoming angry that increased computerization has eliminated a lot of jobs that traditionally go to lower income people, while at the same time creating an obscenely wealthy industry populated almost entirely by already well off, highly educated, white males.
People who think that these issues and others indicate a bad deal for the average person and society as a whole are Luddites. This blatant attempt to trivialize the issue by lumping Luddites in with Jack Valenti and Tipper Gore is pretty repugnant. And the fact that the motivation is simply to pander to a hostile (to Jon Katz) technophile audience is reprehensible. It sure as hell ain't responsible journalism.
Jon Katz, shame on you.
[GROSS] That was so bad, I could smell it! Watching a woman drink her own vomit is not what I consider 'a good time'. Clearly sir, you demonstration a lack of taste.
A curse:
"May you be banished to the backwaters of the Internet! Fie upon thee!"
Put that in your bowl and choke on it!
Compared to the current crop of moral poseurs and wannabe anti-technology intellectuals, the originals were genuine heroes. They were fighting for a way of life, not for moral control or cultural power.
Uh... Jon, what's the difference between a "way of life" and "cultural power and moral control"? If I'm not mistaken a way of life consists of culture and morals.
--Rob
Sure, that's why the Industrial Revolution led to the repeal of the anti-poor Corn Laws, the inclusion of non-landowners in the House of Lords, and the first time in history people could have some freedom over where they lived. What if the "social customs" entail burning the houses of Catholics or Jews? Before the IR, you couldn't move away -- you grin and bear it. And the idea that the IR killed individual freedom is ridiculous. The House of Commons gained its first real powers during the IR. Coincidence?
It's chic to bash the IR. But without it, >50% of jobs today would be agricultural (compared to around 2% now). On the other hand, Katz does seem to have a talent for laying down fertilizer, so perhaps that explains his enthusiasm.
Having worked independently on their own farms, they grasped that they would be forced to use complex, dangerous machines in noisy, smelly factories, enduring long hours for slave wages, and that the trade was not in their favor.
Oh PLEASE. "Their own farms", no doubt, were wondrously safe, quiet, fragrant places to work. If Katz seriously believes this then I don't think he has a clue what farming entails. And as for "the trade not being in their favor," yeah, it was undoubtedly much easier to deal with a landlord who took half your harvest but shouldered little of the risk -- and who dictated to you to whom and for how much you could sell your crops.
The fact of the matter is that the IR enormously improved the lives of almost everyone in Britain (and everywhere else it was adopted), and the Luddites were a middle class interest group who supported laws that kept the price of food and wool high (thus enriching themselves at the expense of people who had to buy those necessities). They also objected to the idea that one could become wealthy without owning land. They were not "heroes" in any sense of the word, unless one is a columnist who has built his reputation on bashing free enterprise, and who is willing to pay any price in bad arguments and inept rhetorical flourishes ("slave wages" is a contradiction) to further that end.
-BBB
If you would bother to actually listen to the politicians out there rather than just try to glean what you read off the sidestory article on CNN or hear in some IRC channel, you'd realize something.
Politicians understand the role of government. Lieberman in office doesn't mean that we all lose moral freedoms. Political office provides two things:
1) A role and governemnt
2) Celebrity
And what people like Lieberman or most other moral-right politicians do is use their newfound Celebrity status to voice their opinions. That's all well and good, really. When you see legislation mandating that companies or citizens do something unconstitutional successfully working it's way through the legislative process, maybe you have the right to complain.
But, if you really believe in freedom of speech as much as you claim to, you have to remember that politicions and Luddites and every other person you disagree with has that some right to freedom of Speech, and there is not reason that holding a government salary should prevent them from saying what they belive.
Or in the real world, an Oxymoron, a rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, more often than not for effect rather than by error...
And I bet you thought that was a spot cream for stupid people
This is right on the money.
--Rob
Kurzwiel uses an excellent quote from a well-known manifesto to illustrate his main point: that technology enthusiasts (like us) are Luddites as well. Being a Luddite is not about fearing technology - it's fearing the application of technology. I, then, am a Luddite, along with Bill Joy.
These other people are, as you said, opportunists, and those who fear any organization of people. They fear communication among people. They don't fear the application of technology.
Indeed, the Luddites are returning, but in the guise of you and me - those who love technology but fear what people will do with it. I, for one, hate most of the 'net. It's a stinking pile of capatalist dung. Does that make me a Luddite? Yes. Do the people you named like the 'net as a stkinking pile of capatalist dung? Yes. They hate the aspects of the 'net that I like. They hate communication. That's not being a Luddite - just a power-hungry politician.
Jon, do yourself a favor, and pick up a copy of Kurzwiel's Age of Spiritual Machines. You won't regret it. Maybe you might even change your message to be a bit more positive.
Two Jon Katz columns in a row! I think my head is going to explode!
-=God Hates Me=-
Speak for yourself, bucko.
Bruce
Bruce
You are the real Bruce Perens.
Ah, guns are not a social problems. They are a technology, like the computers you use daily.
Abusing a child, or an adult for that matter, is not good. A gun, knife, etc. is niether good or bad.... it all depends on how it's used.
The group of outwardly violent people who feel the need to kill, for pleasure or business, are a social problem.
Begin Personal Rant
Additionally guns, like computers, were origianlly designed to do work, and are now [constructively] used for work and play.
Are there folks using 'guns' for bad? -yes. Are there folks using computers for bad? -yes... Does that mean that they should be taken away from private law-abiding citizens? -no
And for all of those times when someone makes a stab at ESR, consider this:
you know when you hear about the 'supercomputer export restrictions' to black-labeled countries? --what does the average slashdotter think "...jeez all you need to do is buy a bunch of Intel hardware and set up a B'wolf cluster just like the 20 US universities who show you their projects online... they can build their own 'supercomputer'..."
Point is, if someone wants to get around it [partial disarmament], they will. New York City and Washington, DC have outlawed firearms/handguns for over a decade (15 years??) and GEE GUESS WHAT the bad guys still have them.
if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them.
If she floats, she's a witch.
in my userid, and you have 5,
Will this digitism ever end?
Well, no not really. At the risk of sounding anal, a slave does in fact receive wages, even if only in the form of food. Otherwise, the slave dies. By "definition" a slave is someone who if forced to work for another, not someone who works without compensation.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
I find it ironic that the original Luddite movement pitted the common man against an Industrial Revolution headed by rich upper class men, whereas the modern Luddites are fighting the common man in a Technological Revolution. Power to the people?
Hahahaha, OH MY GOD!
....
Hehe, did you just say you come here for facts and opinions? You may get a lot of opinions, but god, if you are reading a Katz article and expecting to see facts
I'm sorry, I just realized anything I add to that would be construed as flamebait or trollish behaviour. Not that the moderators won't moderate me down anyway, but.
Bite my yammer.
Far more interesting than the Luddites, were the perpetrators of the Rebecca Riots, who dressed up in women's clothing to attack tollbooths and smash-up turnpikes...
And a campaign against restriction of movement was on far higher moral ground than one for restriction of trade...
Not that I've always wanted to run rampage in a dress, you understand ;)
Read more
About 7% of the population at any given time believes in UFO abductions and Elvis is still alive.
54% of people polled recently by US News and World Report and MSNBC belive in the actual real existance of angels, ghosts & demons. That is, they are really here and excert a real influence on people.
The most banned books from US schools over the whole of the 1990's to present are the Harry Potter series because it is believed they promote Satanism, Devil Worship and general un Christian unacceptable thinking.
Today it was reported on national US news that one of the outcomes being seriously considered by the US Congress in response to the reports that movie companies market to children is that there should be only 2 movie ratings: G and NC-17. That is, there are either cartoon movies with talking animals or everything else that is absolutely forbidden to children even if their parents are present.
In a recent poll by CNN, ~27% of those polled would accept a fascist dictatorship if it meant that crime would be reduced and/or undesireable people (undefined) were removed from the United States.
In a recent poll by USAToday 45% of those polled would support the elimination of the separation of church and state as long as the church was Protestant/Fundamentalist.
In a recent poll by the NY Times 59% of those polled support religious education in public schools.
So it's not really a matter of technology or Luddism. It's a matter of slowly but surely sliding towards a dark dark ignorant world.
I agree very much with your comments. Most people don't get what the luddite movement was all about. The folks protesting the WTO meetings held all over the world are much closer in spirit and tactics to the followers of Ned Ludd than most who profess luddism today.
I also don't think that John Katz quite grokked the luddite movement. Very few luddites were farmers. Luddites were mostly skilled tradeworkers. Nor did they break into all factories to randomly smash machines. They broke into factories which had dangerous working conditions, unfair wages, and turned out a shoddy product. (British textiles went from being acclaimed throughout Europe to being the last pick of those who couldn't afford anything better as a result of many of the textile factories that put the hand laboring luddites out of work. Its hard enough to get by making hand made goods with a factory making the same goods next door at less than 1/4 the price, but when the market starts thinking that all the goods made in your area suck canal water, it gets almost impossible.)
Another thing that Katz misses is that while the luddite rebellion was bloody, the violence was almost entirely on the part of the establishment. The luddites broke machines. Capitalists and Sheriffs shot luddites. IIRC, there was only one case of a luddite shooting back during the entire course of the luddite rebelllion.
And anyone who thinks that the luddites should have just gotten a grip and taken up new trades has no clue to what working in a factory during the industrial revolution was like. Pay was subsistance level or less for inordinately long shifts. Sometimes entire families, including children, had to work just to buy enough food to get buy. The rebellion was not about people being upset about losing their jobs, it was about people being upset about being trampled on by factory owners seeking to maximize profits at the expense of the workers.
And no, contrary to what some posters have alleged, the luddites were not communists. They just wanted fair wages for a fair day's work.
On the other hand, we have the neo-luddites of today that aren't looking for a way to get by, but looking for a way to prevent others from getting by. Most (but probably not all) neo-luddites want to censor instead of propagate. They want the large IP corporations to be in charge of the rules governing music and software. They want to return to the good old days where a few large corporations have control over the means of the production of information.
Look at the past.
Before the industrial revolution most goods were made in cottage industries by skilled tradeworkers. Enter the industrial revolution, one person with capital can now control a large segment of the industry.
Look at the present.
Before the information revolution most IP was produced and controlled by a few large corporations with large amounts of capital. Enter the information revolution, content transforms into a cottage industry where skilled workers can have the same potential benefits as the media moguls.
The free software movement and groups like the EFF (and even 2600) have more in common with the luddite movement than the neo (or modern day) luddites that Katz describes.
have a day,
-l
have a day,
-l
Well, you heard El Presidente over here. From this day forth let all posting cease!
HOLY CRAP that's nasty! I really did want to get some background on the movement, but it's just a clip of a girl vomiting and then eating her own vomit. Blech.
Ñ'
Katz again shows in this article he's got blinders on, that anyone that espouses a moral position different than his own must be against technology. William Bennett and Joe Lieberman are not against technology. They are against moral decay which is prevalent, and highly visible in U.S. society today. Its true that technology makes delivering crap from Hollywood and the record companies easier, but its the crap that Bennett and Lieberman are railing against not the technology.
h ildren.violence.ap/index.html
Interestingly, Bennett and Lieberman also preach personal and parental responsiblity, something they are often not given credit for.
As for 80% of the people blaming the net for the crap served up on it, I think if you look through "pre-net" history you can find plenty of cases where the messenger was blamed for the content of the message.
Don't automatically accept the paragraph about violence dropping because of media influence. I remember seeing a study a few years ago detailing how violence skyrocketed in almost every country about 15 years after widespread availablity of TV hit. Also violence rates which have finally declined, are still much higher than they were 60+ years ago in many large cities.
Finally, perhaps Katz would like to do some research on the American Medical Association reserach report on how media including computer games does affect kids in regards to violence.
Read it yourself at:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/07/26/c
This is a pretty false dichotomy, Jon. As if one's 'way of life' is or could be or should be distinct from one's moral and cultural vision of a good society.
Note that, according to Kirkpatric Sale, the Midlands artisans were not averse to technological innovation -- they had adopted many themselves. Where they objected was when the new technologies (backed up by goverment force) cleared the way for sweatshop factories and massive industrial pollution. In other words, the Luddites were rebelling against The Corporation, not Technology. And they were right -- the new machines did make "fewer masters." Ned Ludd had the right idea.
No. He's absolutely right to criticize in this way. Mr. Katz is not soaring with this particular article. I had to stop reading, in fact, because I so severely disagree with his apparent premise. The idea that the people in the world who have "power" are afraid of technology or are somehow Luddite in nature is ludicrous. Saying that their endless moralizing is the same as criticizing technology for the mass destruction of a way of life is a bizarre leap. It's a patently false assertion, to boot. If there are people in power, they are heavily invested in using technology to preserve that power and to coerce others to do their bidding.
Examples: infrared scanning for hot buildings to locate illegal marijuana grow rooms, corporate surveillance of employees and customers, police departments using the internet to post the names, photos, and other info about people arrested (but not necessarily convicted) of prosititution-related offenses, drug screening, IRS electronic filing (and presumably increasingly automated audit scoring), nuclear weaponry, Carnivore. I could go on and on. But none of these smack at all of any fear or even a pretension of fear of technology. It is foolish to call those in power Luddite. It pollutes the meaning of the word and ignores the very real communities that exist who work to prevent this sort of technology from ruining their way of life. The only real difference between the Luddites past and those today is that today's Luddite knows better than to knee-jerk reject technology. They seem to have an understanding that it can have a role in preserving their way of life, and that their true opposition is a much different beast than the simple machine.
I do not have a signature
Factory owners and forement were allowed to beat the assembly line workers for virtually any reason they wanted to. Pay was subsistence level or less. Neither hours nor age was regulated (until after the luddite rebellion).
Honestly, Katz did a disservice in implying that luddites were agrarian. Most luddites were skilled tradeworkers put out of work by factories that could make the same types of goods at a far lower cost.
The other falacy is that most (but not all) people will think of modern assembly line jobs when they think of factory work. Factory work in the 1800's was mostly unregulated. Workers were often chained into the factories. There were no health standards, little or no air circulation. Often there was no heat in the winter. Breaks were seldom. Beatings for not meeting a quota were common.
Now, sure farm life can be difficult, especially in times of famine. But this is apples and oranges. The luddites weren't farmers that went to the city to find regular work. They skilled tradeworkers that had been apprenticed in a skilled trade and suddenly put out of work.
I think most /. readers would start breaking machines if they lost their well paying IT job and the only alternative to put food on the table was working in a dark, dirty factory for fifteen or sixteen hours at a stretch while the line supervisor often beat you for not working fast enough.
have a day,
-l
have a day,
-l
I think that a large amount of the people who consider themselves Neo-Luddites are concerned about these same issues. It isn't about dangerous labor in a dank and smelly factory, but it is about fearing the destruction of communities, social customs, privacy and individual freedom. Furthermore, modern luddites are very afraid that technology is spiraling out of control and will destroy us very soon.
Do you think the Unibomber was going out and blowing people up out of some grab for power? He was doing it because he was angry with the way technology was dominating our lives and ruining our planet. Far be it for me to trumpet the beliefs of a terrorist but I think he clearly illustrates the real issues and fears involved here.
Now, I grant you, there are many politicians and power hungry figures who are using Luddism as a tool to power. It's the same thing that Hitler did with racism in Germany before WW2. It's just a matter of playing off of fears, and manipulating people.
Personally I believe that technology is merely a double edged sword. I think it posses great power to help us, and also great power to destroy us. One side cures disease, one side inflicts it. One side generates limitles clean power, the other side creates new weapons of mass destruction. We need the luddites to be out there to help keep us from using the wrong edge of the sword.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
So far as I can tell, Lieberman and Bennett are mostly going after Hollywood. As long as they stick to criticism rather than actual censorship, I'd say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Valenti has to call in favors in order to get Congress to cut the industry slack on violence, then that's so many fewer favors that Congress owes the film industry the next time the film industry wants Congress to take away our rights. In practice, I think the current hearings are pre-election grandstanding, and the film industry will be back to business as usual in six weeks. As for actual technology issues, Lieberman voted against the CDA, and I haven't seen any issues where he's appeared actively anti-technology.
I've been talking about the neo-luddite movement for years, about 10 in fact. (Which makes me wonder who coined the term sice I've been using it for so long.) What is being refered to here is really but a shadow to the real thing, which you can expect to start showing up in about 10 years from now or so. And it will be a REAL problem compared to the propagandic ludditism discussed here. Don't get me wrong, despite what many commenters here are saying, I am not a luddite. But the bottom line is that our social structure is not prepared for the technological reality with which we will soon be faced. In about a decade intelligent programs/robots will become a factor and human jobs will begin to drop like flys. Though this technology could serve us all, as it should, it will instead serve only the rich. And from there, well, its obvious that a neo-luddite revolution is in the making. Thank you for bring up the luddite issue. As for all you nay sayers: Didn't your mom ever teach you that if don't have something nice to say then...
:T:R:A:N:S:
I don't think his article was saying Corporations don't use computers, but rather many large corporations do not want individuals having power over their computers . i.e.. MPAA, RIAA. THis could be construed as neo-ludditism.
who would have thought? Slashdot = info = nerdinterest = "their gonna know I'm cool" = moronic post = newinfo = nothing really learned. Thus +Karma cool. Right? Wow! -A
shock the monkey
Reading the book caused me to question what effects will internet technologies have on our society: clearly there will be some negative and positive. One negative impact is that businesses which used to at least maintain an attractive outlet to sell things, may now work out of some dingy warehouse, which will reduce the pressure to maintain attractive public spaces that are friendly to humans. On the other hand, people that can work at home, don't have to drive and may be able to be more invested in the their communities (if they're not just spending all their time on-line drinking Cliff Stoll's Silicon Snake Oil). What are you doing tonight again?
The cult of the child is the new mainstream religion. And like so many other religions, it only serves to blind its worshippers to their god.
Some moral values are good for you. One of their biggest complaints is the violence and sex in the entertainment industry. Look at it this way. Imagine children as sponges sucking in all the water they can handle. The water would be the constant bombardment of media images, sounds, and ideas that kids face everyday.
It is a known fact that if you want to chang a societies views. Kids are a good place to start. I seem to remember something about Hitler doing this sort of thing with children. Children are easier to get to except ideas. I remember watching a Psychology experiment where a teach would tell tell children stuff like children with brown eyes are evil and can make you sick. The children would then avoid those children that had brown eyes. The next day the teacher would change the story saying that children with brown eyes are fine and good, but children with blond hair are evil and can make you sick. The children no longer avoided the brown eyed children and avoided the children with blond hair.
The point is, we as adults have already grown dull to the media bombardment of sex and violence. We are less prone to start doing these things, but children don't have these defenses yet. Their subconsous(sp?) doesn't have the year ours do as adults. Children just suck all this up, and it pentrates their subconsous(sp?). Then, they might might start doing it with really knowing they are doing it.
I think we should have some censorship to allow for the common enjoyment of the majority, but I don't like the idea of in either extreme. No censorship would be worse, and complete censorship would bing us to a level of Government controled media like the comunist nations have. The problem lies in finding that middle ground. Currently, I think I a return to moral values would be benificial. A lot of our current societial problems can be traced back to the lack of some moral values. The idea of somehting being right if it feels good is stupid. What about the rapist who feels good about raping their victims? What about the phycho-murders who enjoy killing?
Whether you realise it or not, currently we are heading towards the idea that anything is right as long as it feels good for you. Look at each generations. With each generation the societies morals have losened. Their was a time when homosexuality was frowned upon and kept behind closed doors. Today, it is excepted, and promoted as a loving behavior. Today, you have groups like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) meeting in public libraries where only a generation or two ago such people would be dead (or at the least in jail). The current trend is heading towards *TOTAL* exceptance. This is bad. That is why I don't see a problem with stressing a return to moral values.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Ummmmm..... Pardon me but aren't guns technology too? It seems the author wants to shift the Luddite hysteria from the sacred internet, which he presumably likes, to the EVIL WICKED guns, which he presumably does not like.
I watch the Elephant and Jackass parties going round and round with this shit and it never ceases to horrify me:
Elephants: We need the gummint to censor Quake and violent internet sites so our kiddies won't go on killing sprees
Jackasses: We need the gummint to take people's guns away so our kiddies won't go on killing sprees.
As a gun and gaming nut they both drive me nuts.
--
--
Nothing to see here. Mooooove along...
By your own account, the Luddites weren't anti technology, they were anti industrialization. By this definition, the true Neo-Luddites would be Jon Katz and a large portion of slashdotters in genral. Crackers and Napsterites are the militant Neo-Luddites, think about it
Just because it's an opinion you don't agree with doesn't mean it's a "flame." To paraphrase: if you don't like the comment, don't reply to it.
Bring on the information deluge, rife with its so-called immorality and crassness. We'll strain it like baleen whales do to seawater, growing strong off the supposedly worthless scum of the ocean. Intellectual and moral elitism will only lead to "mental inbreeding," a weakening of the mind due to a narrow range of stimulus to develop from.
Katz dismisses anyone not of his mindset as a Luddite, dismissing the idea of legitimate concerns and the rights of the individual to reject things they don't want in thier lives.
I suppose security folk, people who use cryptography and those talking about the dangers of jumping into something that one doesn't fully grasp is a bad thing. No. Katz proclaims that we must jump into the Net full force, not look back, and not think about the long term consequences of our actions.
I'd hate to see what he thinks of Clifford Stoll.
- Serge Wroclawski
Now this is John Katz at his best - worried about people and pissed at folks stomping on them. This is what made me like the Hellmouth series, and why I was disappointed in some of his recent work.
And, yes, there is a problem - people are blaming technology for every ill they can think of, instead of noticing that people use technology. A gun, a computer, a car, a knife - they're tools, but its people who put them to use.
However, frankly, it does seem Americans (at least politicians) don't want to take responsibility for their actions, but instead seek to justify them and demonize people. The net is seen as "Power to the Perverts" technology, guns are the cause of all violence (as opposed to irresponsibility), and so on. Demonize a technology and some of its users and bingo - instant reason to put the smack down on the Constitution.
Most people are just fine and responsible on their own, but we get the neo-Luddites and the Pat Robertsons and the rest of their ilk convincing them they need to find someone to blame. The average person, given a few days to think about an issue, will probably reach a rational, intelligent conclusion. Sadly, with all the alarmists, we rarely get time to think.
I'm also glad to see Katz call attention to child-rearing processes. That almost always seems to be ignored in discussions of violence - after all, we must be raising our children right and its only those weirdos with their technology causing problems . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Didn't the first luddites destory spinning wheels, because they feared they would lose their jobs? But instead of destorying automatied wheels they destoried ones that people used... hence speeding along the rise of the industral revolution by cutting themselves off at the knee.
That's how I learned it in my history class.
Your comment begs the question. Who sets the standards? The church? which church? Without insulting too many people, I would have to say that morally and ethically the christian church is one of the most hypocritical social forces in the world.
The notion that individuals may do as they please is not entirely right either, so I do not totally disgree with what you say. In an ideal world however, this do as you please attitude would be fine, so long as it was grounded in respect, for self, and other. Being somewhat pagan (I like to call myself a cyber-pagan), I favor the wicann notion of "do what though wilt so long as it harms none", which oddly enough mirrors the sort of christian "love your neighbor as yourself".
I wonder if therein lies the rub, we *are* following that golden rule, treating others as we would ourselves, but in a society which has robbed us of self respect, our actions towards others are not as they should or would be if we had healthy self respect.
Where does this lead? On a long search for the roots of this loss, or a search for a new found self respect?
Unfortunately, like most westerners I am ignorant and apathetic: I don't know and I don't care.
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
I am by nature a computer geek, I love computers and all the hours of fun they provide. I do not love them in K-12 classrooms though.
More and more I have seen school boards chant that they have to stay modern, and a wired school with computers in every classroom is absolutely essential. I don't know about anyone else, but that is the sigle dumbest idea ever.
Now don't get me wrong, having a pod of computers for student use is good, but they do not belong in the classroom. Simply because they do not educate students in anyway.
Whatever they could teach a kid about computers is going to be outdated in 5 years anyhow. Even learning to type might be a waste of time in the next decade.
Picture a parent asking their kid what they learned today. "Well today we were going to learn about division but my computer wasn't working so we learned how to scandisk, reboot, scan for viruses, reboot again, listen to Jermey get yelled at for unplugging Suzy's mouse, after the teacher spent 15min trying to figure out why it wasn't working."
The 3R's my friend. Let's teach our kids something useful for a change.
-- taking over the world, we are.
The only thing I disagree with John about is that he calls these people neo-luddites. Granted, most of them (notably the politicians) aren't even tha, as they are spineless cowards hopping on an easy bandwagon instead of fighting real targets. But the other "radical" luddites today are needed, folks. Why? Because they are the few that can actually give us a real perspective on what's going on. Jesus, just look at how technology has absolutely enveloped our lives since 1994!! It's amazing. But are we ebracing everything that comes down the pike without thinking of the long-term consequences? I think so. And these "neo" luddites are the few who can see through all this.
I think more people need to think twice about this subject. it shoudln't be taken lightly. It's changing the way we all live very quickly.
I maintain that there are plenty of neo-Luddites out there, from the followers of Ralph Nader, to the labor unions who oppose the WTO, to the Clinton administration banning work on human cloning, to the evangelicals who would like to see all childhood instruction on morality and sex done within the family. These groups are reacting to change by attempting to drag things back to the way they were. It's not only natural, it's expected.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
No, the people protesting the WTO, World Bank, and IMF (and the Republican and Democrat Conventions) are spoiled, self-important, ignorant facsists. They don't believe that anyone they disagree with has the right to assembly or speech. They don't know how to actually accomplish any of the goals they claim (end world hunger, end poverty), but when someone else has a solution that has been proven effective (genetically engineered foods, capitalism, low trade barriers), they throw things at them. Given their way, they'd impose a system which is far more repressive and intrusive than anything we've seen yet, all for "our own benefit."
-jon
Remember Amalek.
It's interesting how modern-day Luddites invoke morality as a shield to mask zealotry and ignorance.
I'm tired of this. Why is it that the conservatives are accused of zealotry and so-called intolerance?
The so-called liberals who embrace modern "tolerance" of ideas and beliefs are completely intolerant of ideas which differ from theirs.
This is exemplified by the motion brought before the USHouse of Representatives to revoke the Federal charter of the Boy Scouts. They did this based on the idea that the Boy Scouts rejection of homosexual scout leader candidates was "intolerant."
What is ludicrous is that the "liberals" are intolerant of the rights of the Boy Scouts to hold a view that differs from theirs!
Boy Scouts don't hate homosexuals, they just don't want them as role models for their sons. Whether you agree or disagree with them, that is their constitutional right as a private organization. They don't take actions against them, they simply ask them not to be a part of their organization. From a purely denotative meaning, they tolerate people who are different - even teach giving respect to others - even others different from you. Tolerating someone's differences is not the same thing as agreeing with or promoting them!
The so-called liberal tolerance is the real-life embodiment of Orwell's 1984 - where doublespeak has become so firmly enmeshed in our culture that in the process of stomping on the rights of a private organization, the "enlightened" demand that the members of that private organization think the same way they do.
This is neither liberal, nor tolerant.
</rant>
WRT violence - There is no question that the problem of violence is a broad one, and that computer games are not solely responsible. The answer doesn't lie simply in banning games or in warning labels for parents.
For that matter, it doesn't lie in changing TV, music and movies to remove violence. Finally it doesn't lie in removing the temptation and glorification of "extreme sports."
Those things are simply the symptoms of a deeper problem - that problem of a lack of real, intimate relationship between parents and children.
Building deeply intimate (emotionally, NOT sexually) relationships within families will resolve many of these issues.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Jon Katz's article is basically the same used by the Porn Industry. "There are these evil people that want to take our freedoms away."
Katz starts off his argument with a classic ad hominem argument by calling people that appeal for a higher morality as Luddites. Then he misquotes statistics and bends them for his use even when they really indicate just the opposite. And he uses loaded pejoritive words to accentuate how bad these people are to tell him and his ilk to curb their appetites for socially unacceptable behavior.
Frankly I admire the positions Joseph Lieberman and former Education Secretary William Bennett on the corrosive effects of the movie, computer game, cable, organized crime, and porn industries. These industries are really all very much in bed with each other (sometimes literally). They are not small cottage industries and they are not harmless to our society, our children, or even Slashdot and the internet industry. And they are not harmless to Katz although he doesn't realize it yet.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. Ludwig Wittgenstein
www.luddites.com
first, if you want to understand what the luddites were upset about, read Lewis Mumford's "Technics and Civilization." It's from 1930, but is pretty incredible about describing the IR. As others have pointed out, it wasn't the technology, it was its use to enslave the majority of the populace. That isn't to say there aren't positive uses of technology, but time and time again we need regulation to stop human greed.
second, Katz, when you say There are virtually no credible connections between technology use, media and violence, you are wrong. I've TA'd a class in media and violence, and although lots of idiots write in to the NYT, the connections are there, proven time and again. It's not that playing Q2 will make you violent, that's far too simple. One of the profs in my dept is huge on media, violence, and children, try reading some of his stuff if you can find it and if you can understand academic and statistical papers, his name is Rowell Huesmann - he's actually testified before the US Congress (and has two books listed at Amazon, but one is out of print and the other is special order).
What Jon is talking about is the efforts of people to squash technology in order to maintain power. What he doesn't include is that the same people would use the very latest technology without binking an eye if it would help their situation. If they could, the MPAA would use 512-bit encryption on DVDs. That's no Luddite. From the dawn of humanity, people have been using technology to assert power over others. Guess what? The internet has brought in a whole bunch of new technologies in a short time. So we're seeing a frantic rush to embrace some technology, and stop others. Most people will use whatever technology they can to gain/keep power, and try to stop technology that gives power to others. Again, that's not Luddite behavior -- it doesn't stem from a pathological/philosophical problem with technology, it stems from fear and greed. You could possibly paint the slashdot crowd as Luddite if you only read articles about DoubleClick or RealNetworks. That's what Jon is doing. Ho-hum.
-------------
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
Says it all, really. Since when is Katz this cogent?
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
This article is really poorly written, without a coherent thesis, or indeed anything to back up its incoherent thesis. And I think Katz missed the more interesting issue.
Who are these modern "wannabe anti-technology intellectuals"? What do they believe? These "modern-day Luddites invoke morality as a shield to mask zealotry and ignorance", but what makes them Luddites? Isn't possible they're only zealots & ignoramuses?
Having said that, I sympathized strongly with the Unabomber Manifesto. I love my fast AlphaStation, my compact ThinkPad, and my PalmPilot. To call blindly for technology, without thought for the social consequences of that technology, in the modern world, is wrong. That approach brought us the Son of Star Wars, the Auburn Dam, the Y2K problem... And this, I think, is the interesting bit that Katz missed -- I'm far from the only geek I know who thinks this way. How do we resolve the contradiction? How do you?
Appropriate technology is the antidote to these concerns about social consequences. When you drive down the freeways in California, what do you see? Emergency call boxes, powered by tiny solar panels -- how elegant to power these geographically dispersed devices by the sun! Consider the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight -- there's innovation & a technologically elegant solution to today's problems of air pollution & high gas prices, and people are responding with their dollars.
People like technology, but nobody wants to be a gull for the big tech companies, or for the government.
Columbine advanced the hysterical ideal that computer games were not only unhealthy, but mortally dangerous. This idea has become the central rallying cry of the neo-Luddites.
And, ironically enough, it's also become the central rallying cry of Jon Katz.
NO CARRIER
Despite the Watchowski bros.'s Luddist lifestyle (the Matrix was written on a mechanical typewriter), the Martix was more about rebelling against the social norm of accepting the illusions of your reality for the truth.
A good example of this would be turning on most any sitcom. By accepting this as a mirror of life, you would assume that it's all good. No troubles in this world. But, the reality is much worse, once you turn on CNN. Think from a different perspective. Take the red pill.
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
You know, JonKatz, you remind me a lot of an English professor I had in college. He was a pedantic geek.
oh but then you'd have something less to moan about, and that's not on.
--
Katz hates this technology, calling it "corporatist". Katz is therefore, by his own definition, a neo-Luddite.
Imagine someone comes up with a robot that can write software. Then your grandma could use the robot to create programs. Would software engineers love the robot? Take out engineers and put in farmers and weavers. Take out robots and put in the factories and looms. And things will seem a little more clearer or rather bleaker. All people who feel threatened by technology have a right to protest against it. Ridiculing that right aint right. BTW there is an inherent contradiction in the argument that the original luddites were heroes. Has not crime reduced over the years, has not lifespans increased and has not medical science made advances. By that argument luddites must have been wrong and therefore not heroes but stupid.
The problem with democracy is that you should understand that the majority opinion wins. If you argue that the majority is a fool then you are facist.
O this learning! What a thing it is - William Shakespeare
Whenever it is pointed out that certain atheistic (some proportedly "scientific") regimes of the 20th century have slaughtered more people, by orders of magnitude, than all the religious zealotry of the world's history, it is quickly pointed out that those numbers were a product of technology, not of philosophy. ("You witch-burners would have taken Spain and Turkey right off the map if you had the right weapons!")
And I would hardly consider any of the humanities ("philosophy, literature, political science, history") as irrelevancies. Science and technology can address some problems, but humans are not merely creatures of knowledge; we are also creatures of heart, of emotion and of purpose, and science cannot begin to tell us, personally, who we are.
And as for exorcism, well... that's another debate for another day.
In short: (-1, Flamebait)
If that is true, their actions certainly don't show it. It is not the role of government to:
- create a gigantic mandatory Ponzi scheme under the guise of a retirement plan
- dispense billions of dollars in corporate welfare
- use police-state tactics to imprison millions whose only crime was to ingest a substance they disapprove of
- censor the Internet "for the children"
And what people like Lieberman or most other moral-right politicians do is use their newfound Celebrity status to voice their opinions. That's all well and good, really. When you see legislation mandating that companies or citizens do something unconstitutional successfully working it's way through the legislative process, maybe you have the right to complain.
Lieberman and Gore have specifically said that if they're elected and Hollywood doesn't clean up its act in six months, they will try to get legislation passed to force them to. I think it's entirely reasonable to protest threats of censorship.
On the other hand, Gore and Lieberman subsequently attended tons of Hollywood fund raisers and curiously failed to bring the topic up, so it's possible they were just pandering to soccer moms for votes. So they are either liars, censors or both.
every other person you disagree with has that some right to freedom of Speech, and there is not reason that holding a government salary should prevent them from saying what they belive.
Absolutely. I have no problem with Lieberman saying he doesn't like what Hollywood produces. I have a huge problem with him threatening to imprison people if they produce things he doesn't like.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Exploiting the idea that technology as [is?] a menace to children is a lot easier and cheaper than confronting more complex social problems like child abuse or guns. The anti-gun hysteria is no different than the anti-game hysteria...note that both were roundly blamed for Columbine. Guns are not a social problem. Unrestrained fear and panic is! And it's pseudo-journalists like Katz who are shamelessly feeding it.
You know, I can never understand why people get all into a frenzy about censorship, freedom of speech, and technology, and then go and bash the Democratic Party, Clinton, and Lieberman. The fact of the matter is that while many of us Democrats support the idea that violent/sexual material should generally be restricted from children, it is the Republican party and right-wing fundamentalists who seek to ban it. Take a look at Internet censorship laws. Who proposes them? Republicans like Sen. John McCain. (Yes Katz, McCain was the one who supported mandatory filtering at schools and libraries, not Lieberman). Take a look at "child protection" laws like COPA. Who's behind them? The Republican-led Congress. The GOP has historically supported censorship in the name of fundamentalist morals for years.
The next little leap of logic I'd like at address is this backlash against Al Gore when it comes to technology. Let's take a look at Gore's history for a moment. Which major candidate in this election has been a constant proponent of computers and technology in our schools? Who started pushing for email and the Internet in the federal government before most people even knew about it? Which candidate has been fighting to bring technology to poor areas and the people lease able to otherwise access it? The answers to all of these would be Al Gore. Gore has consistently supported the expansion of the Internet, while the GOP has consistently fought to restrict it and censor it. All whining about "creating the Internet" aside (which really wasn't what he meant at all), Gore has done more to promote the Internet than just about any other federal official in history. You will hear the GOP, on the other hand, talking about "protecting our children" from the Internet, never about embracing it (unless you count the pop-up ad on his website to donate money). Which brings us back to the main point:
There are certain things which society has deemed innapropriate, in general for children. These things include extreme violence and sexuality. This is not to say that these things do not exist in the world we live in, or that they should not exist, or even that all children can't accept or understand them. What it does mean is that children ought to be kept away from these things until or unless their parents deem it appropriate for them. At the same time, such materials should not be restricted in any way from aduilts. This is where labeling, such as movie and video game ratings, comes into play. Ratings are not censorship, and the current hysteria here and elsewhere about violent games being marked as such is rediculous. Let's look at this realisticly. Let's say I want to play a Quake deathmatch on the network here at Bradley University. I should (and am) free to go to the software store and buy a copy of Q3A and play it as I see fit. Labeling it as violent does not impede my doing this, and it won't affect my purchase since I already know what the game is about. What it does do is shift the responsibility of deciding what is appropriate for children to the parents. I fail to see what the problem is if K-mart chooses not to sell "M"-rated games to kids. The games are not banned at all, they are just off-limits by default to kids . Parents are still free to buy those games for their kids if they feel it is appropriate for them, it's the parents' choice. This is just like porn. You can't buy it yourself if you're under 18 because society feels it's an adult subject, but your parents are completely free to buy it for you if they think you should have it. The decision is simply shifted to the parents. That said, we musn't restrict information. Preventing children from talking about drugs is a lot different from preventing children from access to drugs. (Or guns, or sex, or whatever). It is this restriction of information that these neo-luddites, or fundamentalists, or "moralists", or whatever (pick a name) are really centered on. Information is power, and these groups don't want other people to have that power. This is what we should really be concerned about, not the fact that Lieberman thinks movie studios shouldn't market violence to young children (which they shouldn't, and for the record, Leiberman has never propsed any type of legislation banning said material). Katz bashing the Democratic party over this issue while letting the GOP off the hook* shows bias and ignorance. I guess Katz is just really confused if he can write an essay like that and then apparently empathize with the party that supports all censorshp bills (and don't get me started about their stance on spam).
I wonder what Katz really wants out of this election - the better party for technology, or a little more tax decrease to line his pockets since he's morally opposed to making any money as a writer.
* Yes, I realized that he mentioned George W. in his sermon as well. But the implication was that the Big Bad Democrats (tm) are coming to take away our rights and George just happened to be there for the ride. Read between the lines, folks.
But is this right? I don't know. I try to find "authoritative sources" ...
BTW, also see the FBI's Crime Reports, from their home page (http://www.fbi.gov) to "verify" that violent crime keeps going down.
Now I also need to know if there really are less trees than there were in 1492. Anyone?
--
--
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
The term "Luddite" gets thrown around whenever someone isn't all gung-ho about the latest technology. That's a warping of the term. The key is that progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing. For example, a lot of people like to play the upgrade game. They buy new CPUs, they buy new video cards, they recompile new kernels, they upgrade their applications and utilities whenever a new X.0Y verion is released.
For the most part, I don't get involved in this sort of thing. I keep puttering away, working on projects and code. There are excellent computer science books that could keep you busy for decades, yet they're not based around DirectX 8 or the capabilities of the GeForce 2. By general web-oriented terminology, I'm a Luddite, because I'm not obsessed with the latest and greatest. Perhaps a new term is needed here, something that means "is not interested in constant faux-improvements driven by people who have made a hobby of buying the fanciest consumer tech."
You're moral argument goes like this
Everything that is law is moral,
my action is within the law,
therefore, my action is moral.
first off, the law is changing constantly, and things that used to be in the law are not any longer because we found them to be immoral. Things such as slavery, Jim Crowes laws, women's rights. This shows that the law has not always been the ultimate source of morality, because it has been 1) wrong, and 2) changing.
You see, ultimate morality can never change, nor could it ever be wrong. Its contrary to the nature of being "ultimate".
Law is supposed to be based on the moral principle of Justice. HOwever, oftentimes the law is NOT JUST. For a discussion that is far better than anything i could write, go read Socrate's Euthyphro. Anybody got a link?
tagline
... hi bingo
OK, so it's my job to protect my young kids from crap in the media (movies, tv, net), at least when they're at home. Am I a Luddite for asking for the tools to do my job? I can't possibly watch every movie or tv show or visit every web site before my kids do - so is it ok to trust a rating system, and employ filters? I know they suck, but have you ever seen what happens when a kid tries to find the whitehouse on the internet? Even the suckiest filter is better than nothing. We're talking 9 years old, not 19....
Katz...... Why are you so protective of the first amendment, but have a distain for the second? In my opinion the 1st amendment is protected by a society who can keep the government at check by being armed! I only say this because you made a small comment about guns being a problem in our society. I know you are smarter than that! Guns are not the problem, but rather the abuse of guns created by a society, which believes violence is an answer, is more getting to the point. Have a nice day :-)
-------
----------
No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.
- Victor Hugo
Katz missed out the Dr Who version of the Luddites vs the Industrialists
Didn't anyone ever see the episode where the Master was using mind control drugs to turn the luddites crazy and make them attack the industrialists?
The master aranged for all of Englands greatest inventors and engineers to meet up so that he could use their collective intelligence for another of his dastardly schemes
Of course Dr Who won the day and they all lived happily ever after...
That wasn't an opinion, it was a 100% content-free post that did nothing but insult Katz's article with no reasons why. In other words, a flame.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I think you don't know what you are speaking of. Try reading the literature of some of the opponents of the WTO. One such paper is here.
Some excerpts:
Here is another article.
Some excerpts:
Aside from the reality of the severe effects of the WTO on the world, I really have to wonder how when people protest and are met by tear gas and billy clubs how the people doing the protesting are the 'fascists.'
have a day,
-l
have a day,
-l
In your article, you make the follwing statement: "and to a shift away from brutal physical punishment in child-rearing, a practice that shows up again and again as a common factor in the background of violent criminals."
Could you please provide your source data, or (more likely) tell me where I can find it? I've heard this before, but have never seen any evidence of it. Thanks,
You can trust me. I'm with the government.
I don't know about you, but I'm capable of taking responsibility for myself. I won't place the blame for my weaknesses on inanimate objects.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
rather than poorly thought out extremism Why it's okay to be a luddite
... and an almost-fanatical devotion to the...
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
One wonders if Katz bothers to proof-read or validate his little essays. He reads like some freshman lit critical writing paper.
Although the term "Luddite" gets kicked around a lot, few people understand who the first Luddites really were.
Its pretty clear Katz isn't one of those people.
Contemporary Luddites are fighting technology to keep power rather than livelihood, though they have as much chance of succeeding as their predecessors did.
Please note, Katz's so called neo-Luddites aren't by any stretch of the imagination. The real Luddites are the people that break into scientific labs and release all the animals (even if the research is say something like a cure for a certain type of cancer), trample and pull out experimental plants, picket nuke power plants as being unsafe (compared to what? the smog generated by coal plants?) and physically try to thwart their construction (rather than by legislation, et al). Luddites don't work through legislation like Katz's so called Luddites, they work by terror and violence. They destroy other people's life works because of their own fear. There's very little difference between the Luddites, neo-Luddites, and the Inquisitors of the Catholic church. They want to bury your head in the sand, or bury you in the sand if you resist.
Apparently Katz considers anyone that disagrees with him as a Luddite. Don't like 5 year olds being able to get to p0rn unsupervised on the Internet: you are a Luddite! Information wants to be free. You're a corporation and want to maintain control, gasp, you are a Luddite.
Slashdot needs to get a grip and get rid of Katz. The only purpose he seem to has is to stir up the pot. Which isn't bad, they just need someone that doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
I guess I have to add the word "Luddite" to my "Oh, please!" filter.
I did not read Richard Rhodes' article in the New York Times which Katz cites, but I did read his book Why They Kill , and it seems to me that Katz has misrepresented Rhodes' position. In the book, Rhodes explains and elaborates on the theory of the "maverick criminologist" Lonnie Athens, regarding the origins and perpetuation of violence in society. It's well worth reading.
In Why They Kill, Athens and Rhodes do indeed discuss the considerable decrease in private violence (revenge, blood feuds, etc.) in Western societies over the last several centuries, and its replacement by "official" forms of violence: civilian police forces, an organized system of criminal justice, etc. But when Katz writes "Rhodes and others have pointed out that as media use has increased in the western world, violence has generally declined", ISTM he is putting words in Rhodes' mouth. Athens' argument, as reported by Rhodes, has little or nothing to do with media and everything to do with the very personal process which Athens has dubbed violentization. This process incorporates brutalization, exposure to violent behaviour (especially perpetrated upon a loved one), and successful violent performances, tending to lead to a violent self-image and an acceptance of violence as an integral part of one's identity. This, according to Athens, is the process by which violence passes down through the generations; and he holds that understanding this process is the key to reducing violence in society. There is no particular reference to the role of technology, if any. (If Rhodes did indeed specifically address technology in the Times, of course, I would accept that.)
Of course, there is as always some substance to what Katz writes. There is a significant measure of hysteria, verging on moral panic, in the debate over violence in media. If he wanted to shed some light on this, Katz might have cited some studies by George Gerbner, who among other things has noted a positive relationship between media consumption and fear of violence (i.e., those who watch more TV believe the world is a more violent place than those who do not -- no surprise, given the "if it bleeds, it leads" ethos of most local TV news programs in the U.S.!).
Katz might also refer to the book On Killing by Dave Grossman, a history of violence in warfare which offers a very interesting perspective on the effects of violent media, especially video games. Grossman establishes with some authority that it is very difficult to train people to kill; most soldiers don't do very much killing at all. When this fact was discovered by the U.S. military after the Second World War (and it came as a nasty shock, as you can imagine), it led to new training methods based on operant conditioning, which led further to the familiar Vietnam syndrome -- significant increases in kills perpetrated by increasingly traumatized soldiers. And this kind of operant conditioning, Grossman believes, is also at work in first-person shooters and similar violent video games. I can't do justice to his argument (which I don't quite buy, BTW), but it's worth a read.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
You're not addressing Sherpajohn's original point by your response. For the first point, a BILLION people is less than 20% of the world, so it seems a bit out of line to discuss standards in that light. By your very argument we should all be following Bhuddism. But again, that's not his point at all. Also, you state: > If you have respect for "others" you don't go > and label them as the "most hypocritical social > forces in the world". Well, he didn't. His condemnation is of the Christian faith in comparison to other faiths, not the Christian people (if you're having trouble seeing the separation of a religion as an entity and its adherents individually, I would refer you to the philosophy section of your local library for many better arguments than I could hope to give here). His point is that our slow erosion of respect for ourselves and others had led to the inability, even with the best intentions, to treat others with their own worldviews as respectable, because if you can't treat yourself with dignity you certainly can't treat others that way. His question is which approach to fixing the problem (find out why we degraded our self-respect and fix it, or seek a new way to learn self respect) will be the outcome of this realization. I also don't have the answer to that, but that's a different discussion. Virg
annotated http://socrates.clarke.edu/aplg0150.htm
t hyphro.txt
lynx friendly http://www.knuten.liu.se/~bjoch509/works/plato/eu
down, drive failure http://classics.mit.edu/
I know it seems like all the leaders today, they're all the same. Sure, you could waste your vote on a nazi like bush, but why? If you have to have ethnic killing and book burning, why not just go the direct route?
That is why I am encouraging all of the slashdot community to vote BERT 2000!
Bert would make a good leader because he has much political experience, with groups such as The KKK, Dennis Rodman, O.J. Simpson, JFK, and Adolf Hitler himself.
So when you vote this year, don't waste a vote on a luddite neo-nazi like bush, waste it on a real nazi like BERT!
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Today, very few people work 12 hour days.
Glad you brought that historical point up. It's nice to see someone else who has some grasp that there is something called "history" and that in certain ways, things were different back then.
So a little while back I reread the Communist Manifesto, including the various prefaces I never read before, and when after Marx's death Engels wrote the preface to the 1890 English edition, he wrote...now wait, do you have a job, work for a living? or do you live, effort-free, upon the dividends of your or your parents's and grandparents's capital investments? If the latter, hang up now, I'm not talking to you, parasite; if the former, then this, brother, is what Marxism has done, historically, for you:
"...But that the eternal union of the proletarians of all countries created by it is still alive and lives stronger than ever, there is no better witness than this day. Because today, as I write these lines, the European and American proletariat is reviewing its fighting forces, mobilized for the first time, mobilized as _one_ army, under _one_ flag, for _one_ immediate aim: the standard eight-hour working day to be established by legal enactment, as proclaimed by the Geneva Congress of the International in 1866, and again by the Paris Workers' Congress of 1889. And today's spectacle will open the eyes of the capitalists and landlords of all countries to the fact that today the proletarians of all countries are united indeed.
"If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!"
So, in the names of decency and gratitude, won't you please say "thank you" to the shade of old Uncle Karl? For having untightened somewhat the clamps and shackles of your wage-slavery, so that they don't bind so severely, or chafe so harshly, that after your working day you have no strength left to think straight.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
So how do you get out from wherever you live to wherever you hunt? I'm making the not-completely-implausible guess that you don't happen live in the deep woods of Montana or wherever. Why I surmise, you or your buddy drives a motor vehicle, right?
Now, suppose I take at face value your pangyric to the perfect virtues of hunting - OK, I'll admit that a.) I myself eat meat and b.) hunting one's meat with a rifle is a thousand times more morally justifiable than buying it out of the grocery freezer in cellophane and supporting that nightmarish factory industry which delivers it there. That aside, but taking into account the irrefutable logic that no 4x4 to drive you fifty miles from your house to the woods equals no thrilling hunting/male bonding experience, do you from that conclude that the state should not ever under any circs lift a finger to remove repeat drunk drivers, blind persons, young children and the stark raving mad from behind the wheels of cars?
Believe it or not there is a narrow pathway betwixt allowing the over-the-counter sales of Stinger anti-aircraft rockets and punishing possesion of a steak knife with decades in the federal slam. All I ask of the govt. is that all through the U.S.A. (where there are no internal customs stops) there should be a law regulating the sales of firearms so that felons can't buy them with impunity from so-called "private owners" at public gun shows.
I know it's a hassle for you gun lovers. I know the very notion of universal national handgun registration (together with almost seven decades worth of various legislation, like that which outlaws free commerce in Tommy Guns, but which nonetheless, strangely, the Supreme Court has found to pass muster) ruthlessly violates that old long dead letter the Second Amendment. I know, like the license tag laws, it opens up the possibility of abuse (I'm thinking here of the curious fact that the FBI through their informer allegedly informed the Alabama Ku Klux Klan of Viola Liuzzo's tag number). But the ugly fact remains that your favorite hobby object, the gun, is responsible for thirty thousand deaths and a quarter million injuries a year in this country. And while I know guns are themselves inanimate and blameless, still I refuse to buy the argument that any so perilous a technology should, on moral/ethical/constitutional grounds, be immune to effective regulation.
You allude to the ineffective gun laws in New York, etc. Have you ever visited a gun show in sunny Florida? I did once. No ID required, no background check, all the pistols and ammo you can carry, and they'll sell 'em to ya even if you still have on the stripy orange Raiford suit and the sawn handcuff-halves on your wrists. Now hop in the old car in Bradenton, I-275 to I-4 to I-95 and (if you've got enough methedrine) without stopping except at the Pump-n-Piss all the way to NYNY, where even including the costs of guns, gas and tire wear you can double your investment on their gun-controlled streets. Remember: no internal customs stops.
Now I really really really don't want to take away your goodole deer-huntin 30-06, much less my old buddy Tim Kurtz's fancy muzzle-loader. But seriously, answer me this, friend: it is asking too much to have the law put the likes of Hank Earl Carr out of business?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Yes, I was blaming how we *use* technology, and not the technology itself. The examples that I cited - Cell phone interruptions, Surfing the Web at work, Media propaganda, of course they're all controlled by people. I used these as examples because probably 99% of the people can relate to them being a negative use of technology. ... personally... I don't even like shoes, but I'll keep that to myself.
I believe you touched on the point. In Luddite ideology, we make value judgments. We compare the benefits of a virtual community vs. a 'real' community. We compare ruled society vs. an unruled society (as it relates to technology).
Reading the previous posts - Luddites disliked the use of technology because it stole their livelihood. It's stealing something from us too... though likely not our livelihood.
BFD. Small-scale indigenous farming is a good way to starve a country to death. How is this for an idea? Rather than having children working the fields on the family farm, they could be in school, learning to read and write. They could probably find SOMETHING they make better than other people and sell it. Or they can keep pissing and moaning that 5,000 year old agriculture techniques are losing out to more efficient techniques that can feed more people using less land.
The destruction of the traditional lifestyles of indigenous peoples because of the appropriation of their lands and resources, has resulted not only in the degradation of the environment but also in ill health, and high levels of stress manifested in alcoholism and suicides. This is a conclusion reached in the "International Consultation of the World Health Organization with Indigenous Peoples"
This is because losers like you would rather give people a handout (or keep them in an undeveloped state) so you feel better. Teaching them to fish is so much more useful than giving them fish to eat.
You could be working towards, oh, building roads, starting businesses, teaching computer skills, setting up civil organizations, but you'd rather bitch on the Internet and throw things at cops. It makes you feel morally superior, which is far more important than actually doing something.
I could go on with the rest of your quotes, but it's not worth the bother. But this one was just too much:
Aside from the reality of the severe effects of the WTO on the world, I really have to wonder how when people protest and are met by tear gas and billy clubs how the people doing the protesting are the 'fascists.'
Well, gee, when those shitheads at the riot following the Rage Against the Machine concert in LA started throwing concrete blocks at the police, they were lucky they only got tear gas. And considering that RATM is on SONY, for crying out loud, what kind of a corporate tool are they?
BTW, how many of those third-world children you want to save starved to death while you wrote your message? How much did your message help? That's what I thought.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
And of course we have the inevitable flames. Every single Katz article seems to end up looking like this sooner or later.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
Guns are quite a simple issue -- the more guns any society has available to ordinary people, the more stable it is and the less crime it experiences.
Relative, of course, to the same society without guns in the hands of ordinary people.
This fact is well-proven, in many studies over many countries over many years.
As Katz said "Children are safer than ever."
All 20,000 gun-control laws are unConstitutional.
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Pardon my ignorance, but what do riots at a RATM concert have to do with the protests against the WTO?
have a day,
-l
My history of the subject is pritty poor so if I'm wrong just say so.
However my understanding is that Luddites were basicly in fear of mass production. They were worryed the lifes they had were comming to an end. They were fearful of losing jobs.
They were not wrong. The skills they had would be displaced by masproduction. But thies skills were obsolete and the solution was to distory the machines.
Right problem wrong answer. If you find your skills are obsolete you update your skills. Become familure with the new skills you'll need to keep working.
Those Ludites were not herros...
Part of survival is the ability to adjust to new realitys.
Masproduction kinda took people by supprise.
But computers did not...
The moral objections to the Internet are nothing new.. They were the same moral objections to the BBSes.. TV.. Movies.. etc...
The Ludite lable may be a good one for thies people.. fear of new technology. But the tactic isn't sabotog mearly censorship.
Right solution.. wrong problem.. They updated skills.
Now is the time to addapt as a socity to the realitys technology brings us.
Not nessisarly NEW realitys but realitys we've been able to hide away before.
Today the issues must be faced upfront and honnestly. You can hide no more.
I prefer the book burner synbology.. becouse it isn't pure technology but the power it brings to unleash knowladge. This is the thing most feared. Not technology but the information it may relay.
To be correct the Internet unleashes data.. knowladge may or may not be contained within...
In the past it could be ignored. Enough data and you can be reasonably knowladgable on a given subject.
People who wish to be masters of given subjects do not fear this. They allready have a knowladge base to start from and can simply add to it using the data available on the net and they may provide a valuable service to those who simply don't have the time.
People who wish to supress a given subject however live in terror as now that subject is at the fingertips of every person on the face of this earth.
Blind acceptence of technology is a bad thing.. Waiting about 10 to 30 years for the thing to be on top of you before you react is also a bad thing.
Most of the issues we have today are stuff we had preliminary warnnings of about 10 to 20 years ago.. people just ignored it... None of this happend "suddenly" and maybe it wasn't obveous it's also something that could have been forseen at least 5 years beforehand (as it became more and more obveous) Porn BBSes... and wav file swapping...
I don't actually exist.
The concert was held at a protest rally outside the Democratic National Convention. The same people who organized the WTO and World Bank protests in Seattle and Washington, DC organized this protest as well. Same people, same topic, different venue.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I disagree with some of Katz's logic however.
I am against a lot of the crap/violence/filth that is delivered to young people daily. But I am very pro-technology. Many boomers like me would fall in that category.
BTW, where does Katz get the idea that loathing Hollywood and network television makes you a Luddite? And what does William Bennett have to with Kirkpatrick Sale? And what do Joe Lieberman's political exhaust trails have to with anything but focus groups and polls?