Overview

The anti-technological movement known as Luddism was founded by Nedl Ludd in 1811. The movement began in England, during the industrial revolution, and succeeded in destroying much of the newly appearing technology. Early Luddites were known for their opposing view of any new technologies designed to replace humans in the workplace and they succeeded in destroying all of that technology during the revolution. During the nineteenth century, the movement grew rapidly and eventually reached a point where the British Army had no choice but to interfere [2] New radical movements proceeded to form from the existance of Luddism, including Neo-Luddites and Anarcho-primitivists [9]. These new groups developed the idea of Luddism as a movement that is opposed to all new technologies and not only to to technologies that can replace humans.

Doctrine

Luddism is a movement that opposes any kind on new technologies. First Luddites argued to be against technologies that could replace human work, but Neo-Luddites and other radical movements created from the existance of Luddism have declared that Neo-Luddism does not support new technologies [3]. Neil Postman, an expert in the field of technology and an aknowledged Luddite, uses a simple question to look at technology: "What is the problem to which this technology is the solution?" Postman also raises the debate about technology being creations that increase the human possibilities or as invention that open new sides in the field of human thinking. He added that technologies only solve problems that humans create [6].

Kirkpatrick Sale, a writer for Times Magazine, The New York Times Magazine and Resurgence among others, argues against the common mindset that industrialism is equal to progress and new is better than old. Sale also disagrees with the approach that speed is always good in human life. He states that all this attitudes are reinforced by the technological world because they set the right mind state in people that leads to consumism and necessity to adopt the latest technologies [11].

John Zerzan, a well-known theorist for the Anti-Civilization movement (movement created from the existance of Luddism), argues that technology is the problem, and not the solution. Zerzan's goes back to the creation of agriculture to defend the movement. He explains that the creation of this technology brought along for the first time in the history of humanity issues like hierarchy, gender inequality, disease, and soil depletion among other negative consequences [7].

Another common argument used by Luddites is the destruction of ecosystems, as well as exploitation to workers, pollution, and a disolution of cultures.  Martin Luther King, even though he was not a Luddite, once said, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on program of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." [8]This phrase reflects the same fear Neo Luddites have about the future of the world.

Movements

Luddism

Movement created in England, in the towns of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Chesire, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Flintshire in 1811 by highly skilled textile workers that saw their jobs being made by new knitting frames that could be operated by workers with virtually no training. Luddite's mode of action was attacking factories overnight and destroying the new machines. Luddites attacked factories for months before they were reppressed. The main complaint of early Luddites was the low-quality of the products made by knitting frames, and also the minium training that new textile workers required to control these machines (New workers didn't complete the seven year training program that use tobe required to textile workers). These new workers didn't expect high wages, which was an advantage for British factories that were going through bad economic times due the inexistant economic exchange with the Napoleonic France and countries politically asocciate with France [10].

Luddism grew strong, and British army and parliament had to interfere after seeing the fast rate of growth impulsed by this movement. Luddites remained mostly quiet for three years, between 1813 and 1816. In 1816, Luddites attacked Heathcote and Boden's Mill, destroying 53 different machinery. Company's economic losses surprassed 6,000 british pounds, and six Luddites were executed due their involvement inthe attack. This was the last big attack perpetuated by earl Luddites. Early Luddites inspired all the actual anti-technology movements [10].

Neo Luddism

The history of Neo-Luddism is not clear. Since they didn't work by attacking companies and destroying machinery as early Luddites did, the origins of the group are hard to determine. Neo Luddite's main point of view is the damage that new technologies cause to human and natural ecosystems. To Neo-Luddites, concerns related to technology include damage to animal's environments, increased patterns of consumerism, human behaviors relying too much in technologies, and overall dehumanization caused by the fast-technological and cultural changes in the society [3]. 

The ideals of the Neo Luddites are similar to the way of thinking of the early Luddites, but a slight development in the deepness of their opinions has been made. Neo-Luddites use comparison among brain usefulness in the times before comiplex new technologies were used and the capabilities of the human brain when using technologies that compliment the task [6]. Neo Luddites consider that a big part of society think the same way as Neo-Luddites do in several aspects like: protecting theie environents, communities, and familiy structure [3]. Arguments agaisnt the use of machines as tools that can only turn a man in slaves of their jobs, in the way that machinery reduces the capabilities of the human race by only assigning a certain restricted job instead of a work that develops human brains by expanding the fields that a worker can cover.

Existant theories consider Neo Luddism to be a weaker movement that early Luddism. Arguments against Neo-Luddites argue that early luddites were put in a situation that has never seen before in the world (machinery replacing human labor), and they didn't have time to react [9]. On the other side, Neo-Luddites were born in a world in where technology was a part of every-day life. In addition to that, oppositors argue that technology in 20th and 21st century can do nothing but help humans and multiply the information available in the media.

Anti Civilization movement 

Like Neo-Luddites, this movement was created from the ideals of early Luddites. However, the main difference among both movements, is the disguse that Anti Civilization member show against civilized means. John Zerzan, a famous member of the group, argues that the insertion of agriculture and animal domestication, first ways used by humans to organize civilizations brought along issues like animal extinction, soil deplotion, racism, and gender differenciation. Members of this group consider that the only group that succeded in adapting to the world were the prehistoric humans [7].

Langdon Winner, another recognized member of this group, argues to not be against technologies that contribute to human equality, and contributes to sustain ecology and preserve justice. Anti Civilization member admit not to be anarchist, but consider themselves pro-anarchism. Symbols of power were present during the prehistory, this is why members of the group don't wish to emulate the period. Anarcho-Primitivists consider civilization to opresse  society, and not a tool to build equality [8].

Opposition

Oppositors to luddism claim to find new technologies useful, or at least value-free (value free means that it won't affect the values of the user]. This difers from the Luddite opinion that  sustains that technologies are one of the main factors concerning the dehumanization, depletion of ecosystems, degradation of languages, and destruction of the family and cultural structures. Supporters of technology consider Neo-Luddites emotionally driven people that don't try to understand technology. Because of these reasons, challengers to Luddites decline to get in arguments against them [9].

Opposition finds Luddite's point of view no convincent in issues concerning medicine and the nostalgia that Neo-Luddites have of first civilizations. Enemies of the Luddite doctrine consider that creation of cures to diseases like cancer, HIV, and potentially life-threatening diseases can only improve human life, but this can only be achieved by the use of technology, something that Luddites refuse to consider a help for human societies. Regarding to first civilizations, challengers to the Luddite theory consider that negative aspects of these societies like canibalism and slavery rise above the positive sides found by Luddites [3].

In the field of economics, the term "Luddite fallacy" is recurrent among economists dissagreing with the attempts of Luddites to save human labor among companies. The fallacy lies in the fact that employers seek to have constant revenues by keeping labor-intensive jobs instead of adopting machines that could increase their profits [9].

Luddism examples in ordinary life

Luddism is not only practiced by members of the movement. Recognized writers and politicians have use Luddism to reason about new technologies. Neil Postman, a recognized writter of books like "Four arguments for the elimination of Television", have admitted no to be a Luddite, but agrees to a great extent with their ideals. Postman, in the article, "Of Luddites, Learning, and Life" question the usefulness of new technologies by questioning its usefulness, and what is the technology doing that he couldn't do himself [6].

George W. Bush stopped using the internet as a tool to communicate to other people, because he considered it was the only possible way in which he could occult his conversation to cyber-hackers. He also prohibited the use of wireless communication like cellphones around him [1].

Neo Luddite Theodore Roszak, a writer for the New York Times, argues agaisnt the use of computers as typing tools. Roszack considers that all the options offered by the word processors can only delay the writer and don't offer an edge at the moment of developing a written piece. He compares the writting process of a  Shakespeare piece to an essay written in by a college student, by saying implying that by the time the college student chose the best tools to write his essay (font, size, margins, spacing), Shakespeare was already done with the first act of a play [1].

References

[1] BBC News. Neo luddism: I love the 1970s. 26 March 2001, 1451 GMT. BBC. 25 November 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/1243298.stm

[2] Neo Luddism. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 14 december 2008. Wikipedia Foundation. 14 November 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neo-luddism

[3] Neo Luddism, Global Oneness. Global Oneness. 5 November 2008.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/neo-luddism%20-%20views/id/4854040

[4] Luddites, Luddism, and Neo-Luddism, Tripod.14 November 2008. http://doggo.tripod.com/doggludd.html

[5] Anarcho Primitivism. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 15 December 2008. Wikipedia Foundation. 14 November 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anarcho-primitivism

[6] Neil Postman. On Luddites, Learning, and Life. 2001. Agency for Instructional Technology. 14 November 2008. http://www.ait.net/technos/tq_02/postman.php

[7] John Zerzan. Introduction. John Zerzan's website. 14 November 2008. http://www.johnzerzan.net/

[8] Langdon Winner. Langdon Winner's Home Page. 12 November 2008 http://langdonwinner.org/

[9] Luddite. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 7 December 2008, 17:19. Wikipedia foundation. 14 November 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

[10] Marjie Bloy. The Luddites 1811-1816. 30 December 2005. 14 November 2008. http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/victorian/history/riots/luddites.html

[11] Kirkpatrick Sale. Lessons from the Luddites. 5 June 1995. The Nation. 25 November 2008.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021210114512/http://www.ensu.ucalgary.ca/~terry/luddite/sale.html