In what way is the view that opposes technology deemed destructive or otherwise detrimental to society dangerous ? — RussellA
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. — Bylaw
Some of the problems and potential problems with tech and non-neutral humans is not easy to track and predict like loaded guns on the floor of apartments with kids or teenagers being able to order neutron bombs online, say. — Bylaw
OK, I think that was a pretty crappy response. I also saidAnd , more importantly, whether a tech is ‘dangerous’, and what makes it so, is far from obvious when it comes to the concerns of many neo-luddites. We’re not just taking small neutron bombs here. — Joshs
referring to the neutron bombs. and I also pointed out that they didn't exist. I also mentioned that we are generally dealing with tech less immediately easy to track effects.OK, no one is making a mistake about those — Bylaw
You'll pardon me if I ignore your posts from here on out and also please pardon me for hoping you never end up on any important regulatory body or find work as a debating coach or editor. — Bylaw
OK, I think that was a pretty crappy response. I also said
OK, no one is making a mistake about those
— Bylaw
referring to the neutron bombs. and I also pointed out that they didn't exist. I also mentioned that we are generally dealing with less immediately easy to track effects. — Bylaw
It seems to me the greatest concern of neo-luddite’s isn't immediate physical harm cause by something like a weapon , but the psychological effects of tech. Here I reject the idea of any simplistic shaping effects of our machines on our behavior. — Joshs
I didn't read joshs response as an attack. He is generally testing the assumptions that underpin arguments here and this can seem provocative. — Tom Storm
. I did not take it as an attack per se, but on one level a very poor response, philosophically/discussion-wise. On another rude. It's as if I didn't write other things which I did write. It took a position and instead of responding to it, plucking one quote out of context as if one is responding to the post — Bylaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.