Talk:Neo-Luddism

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of science

Untitled[edit]

For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-luddism

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 548 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Anti-singularity/gray-goo motivations[edit]

I've run across neo-luddite sympathies motivated by fear of a singularity or gray-goo type event. This is mostly just the logical extreme of the standard anti-techonology arguments, but it might be worth a mention, as some people are opposed not to specific technological improvements but utimately a sudden and pronounced loss of our control over them.

I think we should not pour the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of tech that is useful and harmless. The problem starts where access to bank accounts is concerned. All events in tech can be faked and that includes transfers, payments, and invoices. Stick with cash in normal day to day activities. The IT architecture is very costly in terms of money, time, and cyber insurance. We should not be hoodwinked by the software vendors who are the main beneficiaries. No doubt we need to wind it back, but not all. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8862:E45A:8668:6185 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaczinsky[edit]

The content of this article seems overly focused on the Unabomber, clearly a figure that does not highlight the positive qualities a neo-Luddite might have. While Ted was most certainly anti-technology, why is he the most prominent “philosopher” of neo-Luddism in this article. While I agree he should be mentioned and discussed, the quantity of Ted focused content in this article would make the casual reader think that all neo-luddites share an affinity with Kaczinsky. Patdmulroy99 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luddites[edit]

The article currently says that Luddism "opposes all forms of technology." This contrasts with the Wikipedia article on the movement, which says, " movement of English textile workers which opposed the use of certain types of cost-saving machinery...." Our article should be changed.Kdammers (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]