They also reduce children's ability to recognize facial expressions. IOW they reduce empathy. — Bylaw

Ishin-denshin is traditionally perceived by the Japanese as sincere, silent communication via the heart or belly (i.e. symbolically from the inside, uchi), as distinct from overt communication via the face and mouth (the outside, soto), which is seen as being more susceptible to insincerities. — Wikipedia

Ishin-denshin is traditionally perceived by the Japanese as sincere, silent communication via the heart or belly — Wikipedia

What struck me about this Japanese concept is that there are some fairly complicated nerve nexuses around the heart and belly and that this may be more than a mere metaphor or body phantom thing.

The issue boils down to a simple fact: people want tools that can enhance (their abilities) and not replace (them entirely). — Agent Smith

I wish this was true, or better put, it is true, but to a certain degree and I wish it was more so. Where I live we have a lot of cars, and now we also have a lot of electric scooters, electric minimotorcycles and electric skateboards. So, people use bikes and walking less. Status, laziness, fun new toy effects all collaborating to move us from mobile mammals to something like burrs from burdock plants. I am far from a spring chicken, but truly like to bike and walk everywhere. People seem to dehumanize themselves for a variety of reasons and, yes, many will pay decades down the line for their technological addictions. And we pay now in varying ways, including just the pain in the ass of these speedy devices on bike paths and sidewalks, along with the more traditional mass of cars, most used for no good reason. I am certainly not a full luddite (and neither were the Luddites). I am happy to use a washing machine and a computer to some degree. There are many labor and time saving devices I appreciate and many parts of modern medicine and so on. But there is something out of control going on and I liked your distinction, which I quoted, and worry about my fellow humans and then in turn what this means for me and the planet.

A possibility worth exploring. My hunch, the autonomic nervous system, but what goes on in one's heart & belly is was once beyond our event horizon; with modern science we can now place sensors that monitor heart rate, breathing, sweating - Wonder Woman's lasso of truth.

People seem to dehumanize themselves for a variety of reasons and, yes, many will pay decades down the line for their technological addictions — Bylaw

All of the 19th century technologies--photography, telegraph, telephone, electricity, radio, recorded sound, and automobiles became products or services delivered by corporations eager to maximize its profitability. New technologies are consequently not merely offered, they are pushed--maybe 'rammed' is a more accurate verb--into the market. Cell phones are a good example but hardly unique.

Extracting maximum profit is the name of the game. That's what the industrial revolution has ben about.

On the one hand, capitalism and industrialism are dehumanizing because they reduce people to productive and consuming cogs, else they are deemed irrelevant. [chicken - egg aside: It doesn't matter much whether capitalism begat industrialism or visa versa.]. On the other hand, the capitalist's drive to find new things to sell leads to new products, some of which are actually good things. But good or bad isn't the issue. The important question is "Will it sell?"

Capitalists and industrialists are short-term operators. Long-term consequences are external issues for somebody else to worry about. A good, current, example of this is electric cars. There are about one billion gas-guzzling cars in the world. That's a problem. Solution? Replace them with one billion battery guzzling cars. That's the obvious profit-maximizing solution. Screw mass transit! Can't make much money on that.

I've been on a bit of a rant lately about cars and electric scooters. No incredible insights to follow, but where I live in Europe many of the drivers are young immigrant or second generation immigrant men. It's like watching someone hit themselves in the head with a hammer...and hit the rest of us. They take this big loans out for speedy looking cars. And, yeah, noise, pollution, congestion...etc. Non-immigrants are more likely to use bikes, which has many good side effects. But the city is arranged for cars. Society here is arranged for cars. So it's not just the capitalists, though there are obvoiusly problems there, it's infrastructural. Of course this can be a side effect of capitalism. That the state works for the capitalists. But I wanted to bring up how society is organized for certain technologies.
Then a few years ago the elscooters came. The city had laid out a huge network of bike rentals that were fairly cheap. Then for some reason allowed the elscooter companies to come in, leave their vehicles everywhere and did not charge a fee for us of public areas for their business. Direct competition for the very bike rental set up they'd put a lot of money and effort into. Competition that does not help the health of its users, is actually dangerous, using space on bike paths despite being much faster, and using eletrical energy sources. Over time the city has started charging fees and charging for any elscooter they have to move, which is many. We've been moving backwards. More people use electrically driven things (including now these bikes that look like bikes and people often pedal in a lackluster fashion because there a battery el-driven motor in there). So, people propel themselves less

There are worse things going on in the world, but it's rather amazing to see the government encouraging less beneficial transport again to help the companies or worse.

That's the obvious profit-maximizing solution. Screw mass transit! Can't make much money on that. — Bitter Crank

If the workers controlled all production in a Marxist utopia, why should we expect they would choose to advance mass transit over personal cars?

It seems the real problem is that people when left to their own devices will tend toward satisfying their immediate desires with less regard for long range consequences. The solution isn't one economic system over another, but just a more reasoned and deliberate populace. I'd agree with that, but not just so that I could have better transportation solutions, but so I can also have less crime, less unwanted pregnancy, less drug usage, and less of pretty much every other problem in our society.

We just need smarter and more tempered people. It's my Swedish Theory, which basically holds that it doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as Swedes are running it, at which time crime will drop, happiness will increase, and everyone will be beautiful.

It seems the real problem is that people when left to their own devices will tend toward satisfying their immediate desires with less regard for long range consequences. — Hanover

This is true, and in some non-existing workers utopia, people would also satisfy their immediate desires.

a more reasoned and deliberate populace. I'd agree with that, but not just so that I could have better transportation solutions, but so I can also have less crime, less unwanted pregnancy, less drug usage, and less of pretty much every other problem in our society. — Hanover

Absolutely. One way a more reasoned and deliberate populace effects its will is by electing people who form a reasoned and deliberate government which is capable of making reasonably enlightened decisions. (There aren't many of these around -- not even in Sweden, though they have been less crazy than some other governments.)

The city had laid out a huge network of bike rentals that were fairly cheap. Then for some reason allowed the elscooter companies to come in, leave their vehicles everywhere and did not charge a fee for us of public areas for their business. — Bylaw

Maybe some money was paid under the table? It's depressing.

The Luddite movement can be pinned down to sheer jealousy - machines are (getting) better than us at being us! Machines are stronger, faster, smarter, and the only thing keeping them from leaving us in the dust is human stupidity - we're not intelligent enough to create (more) intelligent machines! Perhaps this is one of the rare occasions our idiocy saves us from a possible grim Frankensteinian fate where the invention destroys the inventor.

An option is symbiosis - a mutually beneficial partnership between man and machine - where the two potential rivals can team up; the combo a being more powerful than either alone - cyborg territory? A complementary yin-yang kinda deal! Luddites would have no reason to complain and the machines would probably approve.

we're not intelligent enough to create (more) intelligent machines! Perhaps this is one of the rare occasions our idiocy saves us from a possible grim Frankensteinian fate where the invention destroys the inventor. — Agent Smith

Wow! No, I don't so. Humans will always be one of the most intelligent species on planet. We always survived to all catastrophes and even evolved thanks to that. I don't give any chance to machines. Just for the fact that they depend on our technology.
I can't imagine a machine using their own "technology" or programming because all of these tools come from us.

To have machines take over, kick off the technological/cognitive singularity would be the sparkling jewel in our crown even if it means our exit from the evolutionary race. What more could any intelligent species ask for? You pass on the torch and then stop to catch your breath (RIP). I heard bamboo flower only once in their lifetime, dying when it happens. :flower: :death:

It is dangerous. Since the beginning of time people have feared and worshipped in the name of ‘knowledge’. Ironically those who oppose technology are able to spread their ignorance by using technologies they oppose.

Leaders of nations would excel if they were educated professional scientists who could weigh the risks against the benefits by understanding what experts were saying and taking any accountability out of their hands. The whole covid situation was badly mismanaged due to appointing ‘experts’ and essentially backing them into a political corner where they will er on the side of caution when it comes to mortality rates.

Other instances are genetically modified foods and livestock … it is utterly ridiculous the ‘safety’ measures that are put in place because they end up causing more damage and creating a food industry based on public opinion over public safety. It is quite shocking how wilfully ignorant some people are.

It seems today people are more inclined to source their information from sci-fi movies/series that basically suffer from poor writing, ideological gibberish and barely resemble art as they are there merely to fill heads with garbage (act as ‘filler’ for commercials and empty opinions).

I do have a feeling the next few generations are actually looking better. Probably because they have seen firsthand mass stupidity and are actively trying to avoid being sucked into the madness created by greedy people and the ideologically possessed.

Other instances are genetically modified foods and livestock … it is utterly ridiculous the ‘safety’ measures that are put in place because they end up causing more damage and creating a food industry based on public opinion over public safety. — I like sushi

I'm not sure if you are pro or con by this short description, but I am guessing you are pro-gm. In the current system, in the US, the regulators are often in a revolving door with industry. They work in the industry, then for the government regulator and vie versa. There is also lobbying, industry control of research, advertising revenue influence on media and campaign finance influence on politicians. When issues like this are discussed it is often as if there was research done and industry wants to do it, then this is science. But apart from lay people influencing policy, we have monied interests influencing policy and their sense of safety

Maybe some money was paid under the table? It's depressing. — Bitter Crank

Or even just the sense that it is good for business, without any money exchanging hands. I was stunned by how naive even journalists were about the issue.

Luddites would have no reason to complain and the machines would probably approve. — Agent Smith

Though we don't owe future potential machine consciousnesses anything (yet). Once they are here and if they actually experience life, well, I suppose we should take into account their opinions. But we could, of course, choose tech that benefits a wide range or people, be cautious about certain kinds of tech. And keep ourselves or at least the animal kingdom as the only experiencers, and take into account what is best for us. We don't have to create things more intelligent than us. At least, I see no moral obligation to do this. And, given what you call our stupidity, what we create could yes, well be monstrous and not just for us.

What motivates the neo-Luddite worldview? — Bret Bernhoft

Skepticism of the potential of technology to improve our lives rather than the opposite, based on historical trends and on emerging scientific research into the interaction between technology and power.

I sat at my desk, looking at the new computer that had been delivered that morning. I had been a neo-luddite for years, but my work required me to use the latest technology. I was a philosophy professor, and I liked to think that I was above such things. But the truth was, I was struggling to keep up with my students.

Ah... but what precisely does it mean 'to keep up'?

Ah... but what precisely does it mean 'to keep up'? — Tom Storm

That's a great question. Perhaps it means to "remain relevant"?

Well, we know from the pejorative expression, 'keeping up with the Joneses' that there is something problematic and to be resisted in this superimposed values system of keeping up. It is ultimately about conforming to a worldview you did not participate in creating and may have no interest in sustaining. A system generally implemented and choreographed by marketing and technocracy.

Was the story meant to show that being a neo-luddite is an untenable position?

Was the story meant to show that being a neo-luddite is an untenable position? — Bylaw

Essentially, yes; alongside another purpose.

The other purpose for the quote was to demonstrate the power of technology to enable the individual. That is to say, the text that I shared was from an Artificial Intelligence that I'm experimenting with to generate novelty in my "life" or "work".

The quote/story that I shared was generated by a GTP-3 AI-powered tool that has a public facing UI. It's can be found here.

Is the neo-Luddite worldview dangerous? — Bret Bernhoft

You define Neo Luddism as "An individual who opposes the use of technology for ethical, moral or philosophical reasons", and ask "Is the neo-Luddite world-view dangerous?".

The Wikipedia article on Neo Luddism concludes "Neo-Luddism distinguishes itself from the philosophy originally associated with Luddism in that Luddism opposes all forms of technology, whereas neo-Luddism only opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society."

In what way is the view that opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society dangerous ?

I don't think it shows this. Does a philosophy professor really need a computer to teach philosophy? Didn't we have excellent (and of course not so excellent) philosophy teaching before computers and before computers were used like they are now? Isn't his problem more likely to do with the academic cultural habits, rather than performance in the field?

Alienation, comrade – compunded by anthropogenic climate change, technocapitalist "progress" (re: automation) is politically incompatible with global population growth (re: maximizing surplus labor). It seems to me that various anti-modern, anti-tech movements such as Greens & Neo-Luddites for at least the last half-century or so have mostly ignored the other driver of (mass) alienation which is overpopulation. — 180 Proof

Is overpopulation really an issue or is it something that is to thought to be an issue? I could be wrong but there are some people that claim that in the developed world there is actually an issue with negative population growth and the lack of young people entering the work force may become a real issue in the coming years. Of course these people could be wrong but it seems there is a disagreement as to whether the problem is either with either overpopulation or with negative population growth.

The other purpose for the quote was to demonstrate the power of technology to enable the individual. — Bret Bernhoft

I think there are very few neo-luddites who are against all technology and the original ones were not against all technology. Nor would many disagree with the idea that technology can enable humans. So, coming up with an example of when someone might need to reluctantly or not start using new tech doesn't really address the concerns of people who identify as NLs. And I would be on that spectrum.

I am a happy practitioner of OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) gathering. And from these activities, I've observed a rather stark increase in the total volume of voices that are in support of the neo-Luddite worldview; especially on YouTube, Twitter and Reddit. Ironies aside, I am curious about what genuinely motivates the neo-Luddite perspective. And I would like to hear from the thoughtful minds on this Internet forum, as to what they think are the motivating forces underpinning "it".

So my inquiry in, "What motivates the neo-Luddite worldview?" — Bret Bernhoft

I could be wrong but I don't know of a any culture or society in history being really anti-science/anti-technology. Part of the issue is if any large group within a society is too against technology they run the risk of being marginalized by others that are not opposed to technology. Look back at history when there has been contact between two societies when one was more advanced then the other such as when the Europeans came to America. While the Indians may have frowned on some of the ways of the Europeans, they also understood that if they didn't adapt and start using the more advanced weapons of the Europeans they would be at a great disadvantage whenever there was conflict.

I will admit that I'm not quite as informed about the issues around Luddism or neo-Luddism, but I'm guessing that it is partly motivated by those that use technology to marginalize or disenfranchise certain people/groups in society and make their lives worse than it already is. If this is even partly correct then it may be partly about political/social issues about how technology is being used to undermine those less fortunate in society than the fact that such technology exist and is being used.

I believe history of the last few hundreds of years is littered with examples of those that have profited in exploiting new technology but at the same time have twisted the arms of others in their attempts to increase profit.

Like the old saying goes "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Overpopulation = overconsumption = overproduction of waste / pollution (where "over" meeans unsustainable).

Follow me down the rabbit hole, Alice. :mask:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/741865