What Is Luddism

The Luddites started out as 19th-century English working-class who opposed machinery. Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who destroyed two textile stocking frames. The fear was, machines would replace labor. (A valid concern.) No matter how many machines they destroyed, they could not stop progress. Machines were emblematic of a changing world. What people thought was possible had changed, and erasing thoughts was like erasing "blue" from the world. It could not be undone. People integrated machinery into their daily lives. Expectations had changed.

The Luddites had historical context to their fears: tools create efficiency, and efficient systems need fewer workers to produce more goods. Machines were a more efficient tool, and it did replace labor, a specific type of labor. Humans, however, are versatile, and new work opened up for people who understood machines. As with other tools, machines needed to be cleaned, repaired, and improved.

In evolution, there are forward leaps, and when it is time to jump, not everyone makes it to the next stage. It would be easy to talk about unfairness because it is unfair, and it is full of suffering. That is the nature of the universe. All things change. All things end. That is the only guarantee. As one form of opportunity ends, a new opportunity appears. As sentient beings, we cannot always choose the circumstances, yet we can choose our actions and our perspectives.

Luddism Is Neither Ignorance nor Nationalism

It would be easy to condemn Luddites as technically unsavvy, but in reality, it was the opposite, it was their technical knowledge that made them fearful. They feared what they understood. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking have expressed concerns over machines. Critics have accused them of Luddism, yet none would question their technical literacy. From the top economists, Silicon Valley execs, to President Obama, all have made clear that nothing has reduced employment like automation. But the ones in real danger are not the Luddites but the ignorant, the ones (willfully) unaware of their changing world. Luddites will hedge their bets and try to remain relevant.

Another distinction must be made, Ned Ludd and the Luddites were not nationalists, they did not blame foreign labor for their disappearing jobs, they blamed machines. Machines will not call in sick, take vacations, complain, rest, or have any political affiliation. (Machines are cheaper than foreign labor.) It would be like horses blaming horses in other countries, or non-native horses for taking their jobs, rather than the automobile. Nationalists often do not even acknowledge automation in their arguments. (You can try to keep immigrants out, but so far nothing has stopped the progress of machines.) You used to need lots of people to farm, now you don't. You used to need lots of people in warehouses to lift boxes, now you don't. You used to need people to make cars, now machines outnumber humans in factories. We are already telling children how actual humans used to be needed for physical labor. It's another part of history—strange, exotic, and almost unimaginable.

"Wait, we used to have to ride horses to get around? And send emails, called letters, by mail? And write it by hand?"

America is efficient, US production is higher than ever, and the amount of people needed to produce goods are lower than ever. Yet, we go on our iPhones and complain about people taking our jobs, completely oblivious to how our very iPhone can do the work of what used to take thousands of people. (Automation is so ever-present, we can no longer see it.) If it were actual humans taking our jobs, that would be a good problem. But that's an old world problem. We live in a new world now. (If you want to bring those jobs back, smash your phones, and only buy things made by hand. But that's unlikely, as that would be less convenient, more expensive, and the quality would be open to more human error.) Perhaps we can stop factories from opening up in another country, but how are we going to get that factory to use people rather than machines? And if it only uses humans, how will it be able to compete and stay in business? (We can blame who we like, but there's no one in charge of this world. It's a runaway world and it's impossible to know where it'll go.)

Technology is not intrinsically benevolent. There is an ethical argument to be made. However, that is not the subject of this article. The point of this article is the practicality of knowledge and maintaining individual value when values change.

Illiteracy In the New Language

Technology shapes our thoughts, creates new opportunities, and is full of challenges. It is our mindset regarding challenge that is the difference between adaptation and extinction. With biological advantages, we cannot grow wings or gills. Technology is different in that everyone has an ability to ride a plane or learn to scuba. (Technology is even shaping our biology.) Much of the conflict with technology comes from our attitudes, if we see technology as too daunting and overwhelming, we will avoid it. We will look for ways around it, and attempt to convince ourselves we can do without it. Imagine America in the 1900s, an illiterate youth would have an extraordinarily difficult time escaping poverty without the ability to read. It would be a near miracle. Technical literacy is of the same importance. We have different levels of access, yet having the wrong attitude can only compound disadvantages. There is no scenario where it would benefit anyone at any level of access to deny technology.

Willful Ignorance

Some believe ignorance is uniqueness. Yes, not knowing how to use a computer makes you different. If you're willing to live off the grid, that's fine. But if you want the advantages of contemporary life without modern education, you're not a rebel, you're willfully ignorant. Being the last fool is unique but hardly desirable.

If everyone you know is using something to communicate—that is language. The world will speak a unified digital language, as they once did with print followed by the telephone. The inability to communicate in this language denies the ability to cooperate, the strength of our species. You'll be functionally illiterate—lacking in the literacy necessary for coping with most jobs and many everyday situations.

Your tribe is beginning to run; the gap between you and your tribe is life or death. In practical terms, it means community, financial security, food, and being highly employable.

In severing ties with technology, we lose the ability to relate to the rest of the people who use it—out of touch with current society. If that is the intent, to become a naturalist and re-wild, embracing self-reliance, your choices are in line with your ideology. The ones doing it for no rhyme or reason other than to be obstinate are the ones this article addresses. Naturalists will have different expectations, which will be very minimal. Others who are incidentally defiant will have the same expectations as the rest of their peers without any of the tools to meet their expectations.

Politicians Are Criticized for Being Out of Touch

In an article in the Washington Post, journalist Catherine Rampell criticized what she called the "Luddite Caucus." There has been criticism of politicians being out of touch with their constituents since there has been politicians. Rampell writes: