Content deleted Content added
StrongALPHA (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Philosophy opposing modern technology}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2022}}
'''Neo-Luddism''' or '''new Luddism''' is a [[philosophy]] opposing many forms of [[modern technology]].<ref name=jonesagainstechnology>{{cite book | last = Jones | first = Steve E. | title = Against technology: from the Luddites to neo-Luddism | publisher = CRC Press | year = 2006 | pages = 20 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YwPP4pGRAwgC&q=Neo-Luddism| isbn = 978-0-415-97868-2}}</ref> The term Luddite is generally used as a [[pejorative]] applied to people showing [[technophobic]] leanings.<ref>Brosnan, M.J. (1998). Technophobia: the psychological impact of Information Technology. pg 155. London: Routledge.</ref> The name is based on the historical legacy of the English [[Luddite]]s, who were active between 1811 and 1816.<ref name="jonesagainstechnology"/>▼
▲'''Neo-Luddism''' or '''new Luddism''' is a [[philosophy]] opposing many forms of [[modern technology]].<ref name=jonesagainstechnology>{{cite book | last = Jones | first = Steve E. | title = Against technology: from the Luddites to neo-Luddism | publisher = CRC Press | year = 2006 | pages = 20 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YwPP4pGRAwgC&q=Neo-Luddism| isbn = 978-0-415-97868-2}}</ref> The term Luddite is generally used as a [[pejorative]] applied to people showing [[technophobic]] leanings.<ref>Brosnan, M.J. (1998). Technophobia: the psychological impact of Information Technology. pg 155. London: Routledge.</ref> The name is based on the historical legacy of the English [[Luddite]]s, who were active between 1811 and
Neo-Luddism is a leaderless movement of non-affiliated groups who resist modern technologies and dictate a return of some or all technologies to a more primitive level.<ref name = Sale>{{cite web |last1=Sale |first1=Kirkpatrick |title=AVOWEDLY LOW-TECH: America's new Luddites |url=https://mondediplo.com/1997/02/20luddites |website=mondediplo.com |access-date=2020-11-14}}</ref> Neo-Luddites are characterized by one or more of the following practices: passively abandoning the use of technology, harming those who produce technology harmful to the environment, advocating [[simple living]], or [[monkeywrenching|sabotaging]] technology. The modern neo-Luddite movement has connections with the [[anti-globalization movement]], [[anarcho-primitivism]], [[radical environmentalism]], and [[deep ecology]].<ref name = Sale />▼
▲Neo-Luddism is a leaderless movement of non-affiliated groups who resist modern technologies and dictate a return of some or all technologies to a more primitive level.<ref name = Sale>{{cite web |last1=Sale |first1=Kirkpatrick |title=AVOWEDLY LOW-TECH: America's new Luddites |url=https://mondediplo.com/1997/02/20luddites |website=mondediplo.com |date=February 1997 |access-date=
Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment,<ref name=christensenencyclopedia>{{cite book | last = Christensen | first = Karen |author2=David Levinson | title = Encyclopedia of community: from the village to the virtual world, Volume 3 | publisher = SAGE | year = 2003 | pages = 886 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=t1geOjQ6R0MC&q=Neo-Luddism| isbn = 978-0-7619-2598-9}}</ref> Neo-Luddism stipulates the use of the [[precautionary principle]] for all new technologies, insisting that technologies be proven safe before adoption, due to the unknown effects that new technologies might inspire.▼
▲Neo-Luddism is based on the concern of the technological impact on individuals, their communities, and/or the environment,<ref name=christensenencyclopedia>{{cite book | last = Christensen | first = Karen |author2=David Levinson | title = Encyclopedia of community: from the village to the virtual world, Volume 3 | publisher = SAGE | year = 2003 | pages = 886 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=t1geOjQ6R0MC&q=Neo-Luddism| isbn = 978-0-7619-2598-9}}</ref> Neo-Luddism stipulates the use of the [[precautionary principle]] for all new technologies, insisting that technologies be proven safe before adoption, due to the unknown effects that new technologies might inspire.
== Philosophy ==
Neo-Luddism calls for slowing or stopping the development of new technologies. Neo-Luddism prescribes a lifestyle that abandons specific technologies, because of its belief that this is the best prospect for the future. As Robin and Webster put it, "a return to nature and what are imagined as more natural communities
Neo-Luddism denies the ability of any new technology to solve current problems, such as [[environmental degradation]],<ref
In 1990, attempting to found a unified movement and reclaim the term ''Luddite'', [[Chellis Glendinning]] published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". In this paper, Glendinning describes neo-Luddites as "20th century citizens—activists, workers, neighbors, social critics, and scholars—who question the predominant modern worldview, which preaches that unbridled technology represents [[Idea of Progress|progress]]
=== Vision of the future without intervention ===
Neo-Luddism often establishes stark predictions about the effect of new technologies.
Although there is not a cohesive vision of the ramifications of technology, neo-Luddism predicts that a future without technological reform has dire consequences. Neo-Luddites believe that current technologies are a threat to humanity and to the natural world in general, and that a future [[societal collapse]] is possible or even probable.
These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by [[genetically modified organism]]s, [[nuclear warfare]], and [[biological weapons]]; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political [[Economic inequality|inequality]], widespread [[social alienation]], a loss of community, and massive [[unemployment]]; technology causing [[environmental degradation]] due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding.<ref
=== Types of intervention ===▼
▲These predictions include changes in humanity's place in the future due to replacement of humans by computers, genetic decay of humans due to lack of natural selection, biological engineering of humans, misuse of technological power including disasters caused by [[genetically modified organism]]s, [[nuclear warfare]], and [[biological weapons]]; control of humanity using surveillance, propaganda, pharmacological control, and psychological control; humanity failing to adapt to the future manifesting as an increase in psychological disorders, widening economic and political [[Economic inequality|inequality]], widespread [[social alienation]], a loss of community, and massive [[unemployment]]; technology causing [[environmental degradation]] due to shortsightedness, overpopulation, and overcrowding.<ref>[http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1998/sepoct/8b5018.html?paging=off Basney, Lionel. Questioning Progress, Books and Culture magazine, 1998]</ref><ref>Theodore J. Kaczynski, David Skrbina; ''Technological Slavery, The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber."''</ref>
In 1990, attempting to reclaim the term ''Luddite'' and found a unified movement,
== Movement ==▼
▲===Types of intervention===
Contemporary neo-Luddites are a widely diverse group of loosely affiliated or non-affiliated groups which includes "writers, academics, students, families, [[Amish]], [[Mennonites]], [[Quakers]], [[environmentalists]], "fallen-away
▲In 1990, attempting to reclaim the term 'Luddite' and found a unified movement, [[Chellis Glendinning]] published her "Notes towards a Neo-Luddite manifesto". In this paper, Glendinning proposes destroying the following technologies: electromagnetic technologies (this includes communications, computers, appliances, and refrigeration), chemical technologies (this includes synthetic materials and medicine), [[Nuclear technology|nuclear technologies]] (this includes weapons and power as well as cancer treatment, sterilization, and smoke detection), [[genetic engineering]] (this includes crops as well as insulin production).<ref name="GlendinningChellis" /> She argues in favor of the "search for new technological forms" which are local in scale and promote social and political freedom.
One neo-Luddite assembly was the "Second Neo-Luddite Congress", held
=== Relationship to violence and vandalism ===▼
▲==Movement==
Some neo-Luddites use vandalism
▲Contemporary neo-Luddites are a widely diverse group of loosely affiliated or non-affiliated groups which includes "writers, academics, students, families, [[Amish]], [[Mennonites]], [[Quakers]], [[environmentalists]], "fallen-away [[yuppies]]," "ageing [[flower children]]" and "young idealists seeking a technology-free environment."<ref name="jour">Doresa Banning, Modern Day Luddites, November 30, 2001, [http://www.jour.unr.edu/j705/RP.BANNING.LUDDITE.HTML] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307072339/http://www.jour.unr.edu/j705/RP.BANNING.LUDDITE.HTML |date=2016-03-07 }}</ref> Some Luddites see themselves as victims of technology trying to prevent further victimization (such as Citizens Against Pesticide Misuse and Parents Against Underage Smartphones). Others see themselves as advocates for the natural order and resist environmental degradation by technology (such as [[Earth First!]]).<ref name="jour" />
▲One neo-Luddite assembly was the "Second Neo-Luddite Congress", held April 13–15, 1996, at a Quaker meeting hall in [[Barnesville, Ohio]]. On February 24, 2001, the "Teach-In on Technology and Globalization" was held at [[Hunter College]] in New York city with the purpose to bring together critics of technology and globalization.<ref name="jour" /> The two figures who are seen as the movement's founders are [[Chellis Glendinning]] and [[Kirkpatrick Sale]]. Prominent neo-Luddites include educator S. D. George, ecologist Stephanie Mills, [[Theodore Roszak (scholar)|Theodore Roszak]], [[Scott Savage]], [[Clifford Stoll]], [[Bill McKibben]], [[Neil Postman]], [[Wendell Berry]], [[Alan Marshall (New Zealand author)|Alan Marshall]] and [[Gene Logsdon]].<ref>[http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1998/sepoct/8b5018.html?paging=off Basney, Lionel. Questioning Progress, Books and Culture magazine, 1998]</ref><ref name="jour" /> Postman, however, did not consider himself a Luddite.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Postman |first=Neil |author-link=Neil Postman |date=Winter 1993 |title=Of Luddites, Learning, and Life |journal=Technos |volume=2 |issue=4}}</ref>
▲===Relationship to violence and vandalism===
▲Some neo-Luddites use vandalism and or violence to achieve social change and promote their cause.<ref name=bellmcgraw>{{cite book | last = Bell | first = David | title = Science, technology and culture | publisher = McGraw-Hill International | year = 2005 | page = 55 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=pEcqiii4MOUC&q=Neo-Luddism| isbn = 978-0-335-21326-9}}</ref>
In May 2012, credit for the shooting of Roberto Adinolfi, an [[Ansaldo Nucleare]] executive, was claimed by an [[anarchist]] group who targeted him for stating that none of the deaths following the [[2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]] were caused by the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster]] itself: <blockquote>Adinolfi knows well that it is only a matter of time before a European Fukushima kills on our continent [...] Science in centuries past promised us a golden age, but it is pushing us towards self destruction and slavery [...] With our action we give back to you a small part of the suffering that you scientists are bringing to the world.<ref>{{cite news |title=Italian anarchists kneecap nuclear executive and threaten more shootings |author=Tom Kington |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/11/italian-anarchists-kneecap-nuclear-executive |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=11 May 2012 |access-date=13 May 2012}}</ref></blockquote>
Line 50 ⟶ 38:
In August 2011 in [[Mexico]] a group or person calling itself [[Individualists Tending to the Wild]] perpetrated an attack with a bomb at the [[Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, State of Mexico Campus]], intended for the coordinator of its Business Development Center and Technology Transfer. The attack was accompanied by the publication of a [[manifesto]] criticizing [[nanotechnology]] and [[computer science]].
Sale says that neo-Luddites are not motivated to commit violence or vandalism.<ref>[https://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/saleskelly.html Interview with the Luddite, Wired magazine, Issue 3.06, Jun 1995]</ref> The manifesto of the
== History ==
===Origins of contemporary critiques of technology in literature===▼
According to Julian Young, [[Martin Heidegger]] was a Luddite in his early philosophical phase and believed in the destruction of modern technology and a return to an earlier agrarian world.<ref>Young, Julian. ''Heidegger's Later Philosophy'', p. 80. Cambridge University Press, 2002.</ref> However, the [[Martin Heidegger#Later works: The Turn|later Heidegger]] did not see technology as wholly negative and did not call for its abandonment or destruction.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/heidegger Wheeler, Michael, "Martin Heidegger", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]</ref> In ''The Question Concerning Technology'' (1953), Heidegger posited that the modern technological "mode of Being" was one which viewed the natural world, plants, animals, and even human beings as a "standing-reserve"—resources to be exploited as means to an end.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/heidegger Wheeler, Michael, "Martin Heidegger", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]</ref> To illustrate this "monstrousness", Heidegger uses the example of a [[hydroelectric plant]] on the [[Rhine river]] which turns the river from an unspoiled natural wonder to just a supplier of [[hydropower]]. In this sense, technology is not just the collection of tools, but a way of being in the world and of understanding the world which is instrumental and grotesque. According to Heidegger, this way of being defines the modern way of living in the West.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/heidegger Wheeler, Michael, "Martin Heidegger", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]</ref> For Heidegger, this technological process ends up reducing beings to not-beings, which Heidegger calls 'the abandonment of being' and involves the loss of any sense of awe and wonder, as well as an indifference to that loss.<ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/heidegger Wheeler, Michael, "Martin Heidegger", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]</ref>▼
▲=== Origins of contemporary critiques of technology in literature ===
One of the first major contemporary anti-technological thinkers was French philosopher [[Jacques Ellul]]. In his ''The Technological Society'' (1964), Ellul argued that logical and mechanical organization which "eliminates or subordinates the natural world." Ellul defined ''technique'' as the entire totality of organizational methods and technology with a goal toward maximum rational efficiency. According to Ellul, technique has an impetus which tends to drown out human concerns: "The only thing that matters technically is yield, production. This is the law of ''technique''; this yield can only be obtained by the total mobilization of human beings, body and soul, and this implies the exploitation of all human psychic forces."<ref>Ellul, ''The Technological Society'' p. 324</ref> In Industrial Revolution England machines became cheaper to use than to employee men. The five counties of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire had a small uprising where they threatened those hired to guard the machines.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lindholdt|first=Paul|date=1997|title=Luddism and Its Discontents|journal=American Quarterly|volume=49|issue=4|pages=866–873|jstor=30041816|doi=10.1353/aq.1997.0033|s2cid=144450752}}</ref> Another critic of political and technological expansion was [[Lewis Mumford]], who wrote ''[[The Myth of the Machine]]''. The views of Ellul influenced the ideas of the infamous American Neo-Luddite Kaczynski. The opening of Kaczynski's manifesto reads: "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."<ref name=Kaczynski>[[The Washington Post]]: Unabomber Special Report: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore Kaczynski]</ref> Other [[philosophy of technology|philosophers of technology]] who have questioned the validity of technological progress include [[Albert Borgmann]], [[Don Ihde]] and [[Hubert Dreyfus]].<ref>[http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1998/sepoct/8b5018.html?paging=off Basney, Lionel. Questioning Progress, Books and Culture magazine, 1998]</ref>▼
▲According to Julian Young, [[Martin Heidegger]] was a Luddite in his early philosophical phase and believed in the destruction of modern technology and a return to an earlier agrarian world.<ref>Young, Julian. ''Heidegger's Later Philosophy'', p. 80. Cambridge University Press, 2002.</ref> However, the [[Martin Heidegger#Later works: The Turn|later Heidegger]] did not see technology as wholly negative and did not call for its abandonment or destruction.<ref name="HeideggerSEP">[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/heidegger Wheeler, Michael, "Martin Heidegger", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)]</ref> In ''The Question Concerning Technology'' (1953), Heidegger posited that the modern technological "mode of Being" was one which viewed the natural world, plants, animals, and even human beings as a "standing-reserve"—resources to be exploited as means to an end.<ref
▲One of the first major contemporary anti-technological thinkers was French philosopher [[Jacques Ellul]]. In his ''The Technological Society'' (1964), Ellul argued that logical and mechanical organization
==See also==▼
▲== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[:Category:Neo-Luddites|Neo-Luddites]] (category)
* [[Ned Ludd]]
Line 65 ⟶ 55:
* [[Antiscience]]
* [[Butlerian Jihad]]
* [[Environmentalism in The Lord of the Rings]]
* [[Green conservatism]]
* [[CLODO]]
Line 72 ⟶ 63:
* [[Hardline (subculture)]]
* [[John Zerzan]]
* [[Man and Technics]]
* [[MOVE (Philadelphia organization)|MOVE]]
* [[Pentti Linkola]]
Line 77 ⟶ 69:
* [[Reactionary]]
* [[On the Origin of the "Influencing Machine" in Schizophrenia]]
*[[Ted Kaczynski]]
*[[Technological Singularity]]
* ''[[Why The Future Doesn't Need Us]]'' – by Bill Joy, published in ''Wired''
{{div col end}}
== References ==
{{
== Further reading ==
* Huesemann, M.H., and J.A. Huesemann (2011). [http://www.newtechnologyandsociety.org ''Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment''], New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada, {{ISBN|0865717044}}.
* Kaczynski, Theodore (2020) ''[[Anti-tech Revolution|Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How]]'', Fitch & Madison Publishers, Scottsdale, {{ISBN|978-1-944228-02-6}}
* Kaczynski, Theodore (
* Marshall, Alan (2016) ''Ecotopia 2121: Our Future Green Utopia'', Arcade Publ, New York, {{ISBN|9781628726008}}
* Postman, Neil (1992) ''[[Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology]]'' Knopf, New York, {{ISBN|0-394-58272-1}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Pynchon |first1=Thomas |title=Is It O.K. To Be A Luddite? |journal=[[The New York Times]] |date=
* Quigley, Peter (1998) ''Coyote in the Maze: Tracking Edward Abbey in a World of Words'' University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, {{ISBN|0-87480-563-5}}
* Roszak, Theodore (1994) ''The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High-Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking'' (2nd ed.) University of California Press, Berkeley, California, {{ISBN|0-520-08584-1}}
* Sale, Kirkpatrick (1996) ''Rebels Against The Future: The Luddites And Their War On The Industrial Revolution: Lessons For The Computer Age '' Basic Books, {{ISBN|978-0-201-40718-1}}
* Tenner, Edward (1996) ''[[Why Things Bite Back|Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences]]'' Knopf, New York, {{ISBN|0-679-42563-2}}
* Mueller, Gavin (2021) Breaking Things at Work: The Luddites Are Right About Why You Hate Your Job; ASIN: B07ZN3MFL4
== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20140104063225/http://primitivism.com/ Primitivism writings archive]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150115211734/http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html ''Luddism and the Neo-Luddite Reaction'' by Martin Ryder, University of Colorado at Denver School of Education]
* [
* [
{{Science and technology studies}}
Line 109 ⟶ 105:
[[Category:Politics and technology]]
[[Category:Technophobia]]
[[Category:Luddites]]
| |||