Technology: A system based on the application of knowledge, manifested in physical objects and organizational forms, for the attainment of specific goals, developed and applied so that we can do things not otherwise possible, or so that we can do them cheaper, faster, easier; it goes beyond the usual identification with pieces of hardware and ways of manipulating them (Kelly).
The view that technology is detrimental to society began with an Englishman named Ned Ludd (or Ludlam). By happenstance, Ludd became the model for an industrial rebellion in England that lasted from 1811 to 1816.
By 1779, technology had already changed the textile industry of Great Britain. While working on a piece of mill machinery, Ludd, an apprentice stocking maker, either accidentally fell into the works, breaking two stocking frames, or he deliberately took a sledgehammer to the machinery in response to a higher-up
=s reprimand. Whatever the reason, the broken frames made the entire piece of expensive machinery useless (Sale, Rebels Against the Future, 69).Years later, this incident inspired a small group of dissatisfied weavers to follow his example. These rebels realized that mechanized looms and knitting machines were supplanting them, thus negatively affecting their job security. At first, these rebels, called Luddites in homage of Ned Ludd, started sneaking into mills and factories, in costume and often under cover of night, to surreptitiously sabotage textile machinery. Later on they abandoned their secrecy and declared an all-out war against increased industrialization. Attacking with sticks, stones and makeshift tools, they set out to destroy the machinery that threatened their livelihoods They often had the sympathy and sometimes even the participation of other, nontextile workers and tradesmen.
The British government decided to stop them. The Luddites did have a few supporters in Parliament, including Lord Byron, who had spent the summer of 1816 with the Shelleys, when Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley worked on Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus, which can be seen as a cautionary tale about the dangers of increased technology (Pynchon, 40-1).
At first, the Luddites used no violence, but overzealous government officials sent thousands of troops more than deployed with Wellington in his battle against Napoleon in order to quell their uprising. Luddites who managed to survive were either jailed, hung or deported to Australia (Sale, Rebels Against the Future, 74).
From this struggle over 150 years ago arose the neo-Luddites. These contemporary technophobes feel that industrial technology comes at a price, and in today's world, that price is rising and ever threatening, paying little or no regard to the collective human fate or to the earth from which it extracts its wealth (Sale, "Setting Limits on Technology").
These "technopessimists" are more numerous today than most of us would assume -- perhaps a quarter of the adult population, according to a Newsweek survey. The growing ranks include environmentalists, particularly in the American West; academicians, especially in departments of economics and ecology; Native Americans who are against the anthropocentric norm (i.e., the view that human life is more important than a flea's, rat's or cow's existence); activists fighting against nuclear power, irradiated food, animal experiments and toxic waste. They also include those whose experiences with modern technology have awakened them from what Lewis Mumford called "the myth of the machine." Some people have become neo-Luddites because increased automation has lead to them losing their jobs, while others have had their faith in "the technological dream" shattered through exposure to pollutants and chemicals, as in Bhopal, Love Canal, Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, the Gulf War and ozone depletion. The contingent also includes people whose experiences with technology in the home or office have left them perplexed, frustrated or demeaned, let alone having machines invade their privacy, deny them credit or turn them into mere ciphers. These folks are learning to just say no to technology. Whatever its presumed benefits, they believe that the "speed, or ease, or power, or wealth, ever-advancing technology comes at (too high) a price" (Sale, Setting Limits on Technology).
Still, few have resorted to violence in order to underscore their anti-tech views. One exception in the Unabomber, who instigated 16 bombings in which three people were killed and 23 others injured. The Unabomber took violent action
B mainly against people involved in high-tech industries, especially computers -- because he felt he was taking a political stand ().Of course, there is a middle ground, somewhere between the Unabomber's murderous tactics and the lackadaisical attitude of most technophobes. Writer/historian/lecturer Kirkpatrick Sale, an outspoken critic of technology, has stated that neo-Luddites don
=t have to completely eschew industrialization. After all, even the original Luddites, many of whom operated complicated pieces of machinery, were only against dehumanizing innovations. (Sale himself does not own a computer, but he makes telephone calls, drives a car infrequently and lives in a house wired for electricity.) He feels that while fellow neo-Luddites aren't "taking up the sledge-hammer and the torch and gun to resist the new machinery," they are beginning to understand that all technologies are not created equal. They are speaking up and acting out against certain technologies, from nuclear power to the Dalkon shield. While they don't dismiss technology as a whole, they can recognize that a particular technology is wrong and immoral and should be resisted (Kelly). While Sale expects this fledgling activism to increase in the future, it is important to note the numerous websites on neo-Luddism that are currently on the Net. One cannot help but infer that a considerable number of neo-Luddites deem the computer an acceptable form of technology, as least in part.
Do you think neo-Luddites are paranoid? Read this
reprint
of a Philadelphia Inquirer article, dated August 16, 2001:
Here is a prediction: "In offices, shops, factories and homes, there will be small machines designed to enable us to communicate with distant computers. . . . Offices and homes will have terminals for sending and receiving messages. When mail is instantaneous, it can become a dialogue."
So wrote James Martin in a 1977 book, The Wired Society.
The same year the Apple II hit store shelves, Martin predicted a planet networked by personal computers. He foresaw the Internet, e-commerce, telecommuting, and just about every other technology breakthrough that today dominates life in the global economy.
So when this now 67-year-old techno-prophet speaks, the high-tech community pays attention. Last week he addressed information-technology executives from Ford Motor Co. about the predictions in his new book, After the Internet: Alien Intelligence.
What he sees for our future is even more revolutionary than his 1977 visions. Some of it is downright scary.
In the near future, said the British-born Martin, we will:
 | Breed powerful neuro-computers capable of cyberthought. |
| Practice real-time control in medicine through implanted devices that
monitor and detect bodily functions and notify us and our doctors of
problems through our always-present PC (in the car, the office, at home and
in miniaturized smart cards we carry in our wallets). |
| Buy things, open doors, start our car, and log on to computers after being
identified by our facial characteristics through image-processing computer
cameras. |
| Watch television-like devices that in turn watch us and then deliver
programming based on our emotional mood and past viewing habits, accessing a
hard drive that contains more movies than an entire Blockbuster video store. |
| Identify potential criminals and develop remedial programs by data-mining
huge amounts of behavioral records collected since birth. |
All this, Martin said, stems from what he calls alien intelligence. Not artificial intelligence, because there is nothing fake at all about what he sees computers doing, but alien, as in not human.
"Right now, in one profession after another the machines are outperforming humans in critical tasks," Martin said. "In the future, humans won't stand a chance against machines in certain areas."
Is he worried? In his talk, Martin was enthusiastic and excited about the potential for these powerful new machines.
He sees alien intelligence bringing about what he called a planetary correctness, solving such things as world hunger by designing more efficient farming and averting future Firestone tire problems by processing vast amounts of data and spotting potential problems before they are out of control.
But deep down, Martin sees some problems with supersmart machines.
They have the potential to take over, to become the dominant species if we do not design in and maintain strong control.
"For the immediate future, developments in alien intelligence will bring great benefits to society," he writes in the book he gave the 200 people who heard his lecture at Ford's iTek Center in Dearborn, Mich. "We are perhaps two decades from the time when we will need to worry about machines being difficult to control."
The multimillionaire Martin, a former rocket scientist, the founder of an IT think tank called Headstrong and the author of 100 textbooks, now lives in a secluded mansion on a private seven-acre island in Bermuda.
According to Martin, networked computers will replace some executives. Factories will be more efficient and more automated. Entertainment will be more intense, pleasurable and accessible. Immense wealth will be created. Machines will make more and more corporate, government and personal decisions.
"Alien superintelligence will probably flourish until some sort of negative experience occurs, and the public suddenly comes face to face with the threat," he warns. "By the time this happens human dependence on superintelligence will be so strong that it will be effectively impossible to stop it."
Bibliography
Davidson, Ros. "Newsreal: How Mad Was Ted
Kaczyynski?" Salon. 2000.
<http://www.salon.com/news/1997/11/14news2.html>
Kelly, Kevin. AInterview with a Luddite,@ Hotwired, <http://www.hotwired.com/wired/3.06/features/saleskelly.html>
Pynchon, Thomas. "Is It Okay to Be a Luddite?" New York Times Book Review. October 28, 1984.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and Their War on the Industrial Revolution: Lessons for the Computer Age. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
Sale, Kirkpatrick. Setting Limits on Technology: Lessons from the Luddites." The Nation. June 5, 1995.
Wendland, Mike. "Techno-Prophet Fears Computers Will
Outsmart Us." Philadelphia Inquirer. August 16, 2001, Sec. F, 2.
Recommended Internet Links:
http://www.re-focus.com/RTCTexLud.html - "Here Come the Neo-Luddites: Three Approaches Towards Encroaching
Technology," reviewed by David Silver. Forthcoming in Journal of
American Culture. More fascinating info on technophobes.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/engl/projects/tictoc/news/himmelfa.htm -
"A Neo-Luddite Reflects on the Internet," by Gertrude Himmelfarb, in The
Chronicle of Higher Education. November
1, 1996 (p. A56)