The reasons for 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology are rooted in the fear of job loss and economic disruption, as seen in historical examples of Luddites who opposed technological progress due to the threat it posed to their jobs.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job security and working conditions, rather than being opposed to progress or technology itself.

"The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is rooted in the fear of job loss and disruption of their way of life, similar to the historical Luddite movement. The demonization of AI and other new technologies in the popular imagination also contributes to this resistance."

"The 21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job loss and replacement by automation, as well as uncertainty about the future of work, highlighting the need to understand the historical context of technological change and its impact on professions."

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job security, loss of traditional skills, and issues of power and control, as well as the potential for exploitation by those in control of the technology.

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones over smartphones, implying he may be opposed to the complexity or distractions of smartphones.

Andrew Luck prefers a flip phone due to its comfort and his desire to not be connected 24/7, highlighting the importance of setting boundaries with technology.

Resistance to new technologies can be attributed to concerns about job security, lack of understanding about the benefits of new technologies, and inertia in adapting to change, as seen in the historical context of the Luddite movement.

Luddites oppose new technology due to fears of job loss and disruption to traditional ways of working, as seen in historical examples such as the British textile industry in the 19th century.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the fear of job loss or reduced salary due to automation, as machines and AI can perform tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the perceived threat to their jobs and livelihoods, rather than a fundamental opposition to progress or technology itself.

Luddite opposition to new technology stems from the fear of job loss and inability to compete with new methods of mass production.

"A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the fear of job loss and replacement by automation, as technological change has historically led to the disappearance of certain professions and the creation of new ones."

The fear of job loss is a common reason for opposing new technology, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites in the British textile industry.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear of job loss or reduced income, as new technologies may automate tasks and replace human workers.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the recognition that it may be used against workers, threatening their jobs or working conditions.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear that it will replace human workers or transfer wealth from workers to employers, as was the case during the Industrial Revolution.

The opposition to new technology can be attributed to the fear of job loss and the inability to adapt to new methods of production, as evident in the historical Luddite movement.

The Luddite revolt was a response to the loss of jobs due to technological innovation in the British textile industry, and this historical context can help explain why some individuals in the 21st century might be opposed to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was primarily a labor struggle focused on job security and workers' rights, rather than opposition to technological progress.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement fighting for workers' rights and against poverty, rather than opposing technology and progress. This historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day resistance to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a workers' struggle against the introduction of new machines that threatened their jobs and transferred wealth from workers to employers. This historical context can help us understand why someone in the 21st century might be opposed to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a historical movement that fought against technological change and job displacement, and this context can be used to understand modern-day resistance to new technologies.

21st century Luddites may fear a society where technology has too much control over individuals and their lives, leading to a loss of autonomy and potential negative consequences.

21st century Luddites likely fear a society dominated by technocracy, where technology and those who control it hold significant power and influence over individuals' lives.

21st century Luddites fear a society where individual freedom and autonomy are compromised by the increasing control of technology and the elite, and where people are managed to serve the collective rather than their own health and well-being.

21st century Luddites fear a society where technology controls their lives, limiting freedom and autonomy, and potentially leading to a loss of upward mobility and individual choice.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, as it has brought about significant changes in people's lives and is developing rapidly, potentially beyond the control of individuals or organizations.

"Famous figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence, indicating that concerns about AI's impact on society and human well-being are a key reason for resistance to new technologies in the 21st century."

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to resistance and conflicts, as seen in the dispute between Sea Rocket and the town of Ocean City over houseboat rentals, highlighting the challenges of adapting to change and the need for clear regulations and jurisdiction.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to concerns about job security, the pace of technological change, and the potential for automation to replace human workers, as illustrated by the example of a friend who was unemployed and struggled to compete with AI tools that could perform tasks quickly and at a low cost.

People may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to fear of job loss and disruption of traditional industries, as exemplified by the historical Luddites who resisted technological progress in the 19th century.

"Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest, fear of job loss, or resistance to change, as seen in the examples of the mayor and town council, as well as the supervisor in the background information."

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working because they believe it will negatively impact their jobs or working conditions, similar to the historical Luddites who opposed certain technologies that threatened their livelihood.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, disruption of their industry, or unease about the impact of technology on society, similar to the historical Luddites' fears about automation displacing human workers.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the context of the technocracy movement and the potential collapse of Western civilization, which may be related to the rise of Luddites who oppose new technologies.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the West over the past 60 years, with a move towards a culture of caution, anxiety, and risk-aversion.

"Some individuals may be resistant to new technologies due to growing skepticism and zero-sum thinking, believing that progress and technological advancements are not always beneficial."

"Some people may resist new technologies due to concerns about losing human autonomy and decision-making power to artificial intelligence, potentially leading to a 'digital dictatorship'."

"Some individuals may resist new technologies due to concerns about the erosion of individual autonomy and the concentration of power in the hands of a centralized authority or technocracy."

"Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of AI technology, which has the potential to replace human labor in various tasks such as document processing, email management, and content generation."

"Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of generative artificial intelligence, a modern technology."

Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of artificial intelligence (AI) due to concerns about its potential dangers, and this includes prominent figures like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking.

Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of modern technology, particularly AI, due to its potential impact on jobs and society.

"Some people in the 21st century may be labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of modern technologies such as automation, cybernization, unmanned vehicles, chatbots, and neural networks, due to concerns about job loss or replacement."

The opposition to new technologies in the 21st century may be driven by concerns about job security, as automation and AI tools can potentially replace human workers, making it less likely for them to be hired.

The opposition to new technologies can be driven by concerns such as job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and perceived threats to livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites.

People may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security and the potential for automation to replace their jobs or lead to lower salaries.

The reasons for 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology are rooted in the fear of job loss and economic disruption, as seen in historical examples of Luddites who opposed technological progress due to the threat it posed to their jobs.

Title:

Content: Does AI make the arts poorer?
The real difference between the rich and the poor is the human mind.
▲ Since we have AI tools, we can do things quickly and well with a simple prompt, and the cost is low. (Illustration / Reuters)
2nd / Podcaster
I had a friend who had been unemployed for a while and asked me if I had a job for him to do, such as simple things like keeping an account and sorting out documents.
I said, if you asked me two years earlier, there must be, but unfortunately not now.
In the past, those chores took time, since the AI tool, as long as the simple prompt can be completed, the monthly fee is only a few hundred yuan, two or three hundred hourly wage students may not do so well.
He listened to me, didn ’ t believe it, and was curious to ask me how I use AI now.
In fact, the application is too broad and too complicated. To make him understand it as soon as possible, I cite my entire workflow as an example.
For example, when writing an article, in the stage of collecting materials, AI helps me to make notes of books / meetings / lectures / courses with speech, and the content is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
At the writing stage, I will discuss with AI what different topics can be cut into perspective, such as this article I want to know how AI is changing our society, ask it to help me summarize the main views on the Internet, and I will continue to ask for some details, and also ask it to grab the latest data for me.
Next, before po comes to the community, ask it to help me modify the typos and punctuation, the correction only takes a few seconds, and the text creation is basically completed.
I asked my friend, do you think you can do better, faster and cheaper than AI?
▲ AI can help users to take notes with voice, and the content of speech to text is accurate and the grammar is strict. It can also be converted into various forms of charts, different lengths and various articles.
(Chart / CFP)
Next, the image creation.
Now many devices, including WebCam and Monocular, the camera can lock the portrait to move in small amplitude, and even deliberately create a natural hand shake, self-portrait images are becoming more and more dependent on others.
Before the oral video, mainly rely on improvisation or reading, the former plays subtitles until the hand is broken, the latter has to get a reader to adjust the speed, now AI recognition subtitles are very common, the reader also evolved into the script will follow my words run (used readers will know how convenient this is), greatly speeding up the efficiency of recording videos.
It is also a technology derived from AI speech recognition: AI editing. Although it is not completely free from manual work, the editor is now editing by reading the text, without the need to listen with ears, which saves a lot of effort.
Music and images can be generated by AI, saving a lot of time to find materials and reducing the risk of copyright infringement.
As for the job that my friends are looking for, such as document processing and answering e-mail, I just write a SOP file to feed the robot, and it can do it flawlessly, and there is no need to rest for 24 hours.
It doesn ’ t matter if what is said above is not understood, in simple terms, I used to find two or three more people to deal with the process of chores, and it was replaced by AI, and AI did well and fast.
After all, it was all simple work.
▲ Document processing, e-mail and other things, as long as you write a SOP file to feed the robot, it can do flawless, and 24 hours without rest.
(Chart / CFP)
My friend is angry after hearing it.
I said, but I still need someone to help me, because I ’ m saving a lot of time now, have more capacity, and have the opportunity to make more money.
Do you do business sponsorship? Do you write creative scripts that are popular with young people? Do you have experience in IP marketing?
He was frustrated and said that he would not be those, as if he could only be eliminated.
Then he complained to me, saying that Taiwan's industry is serious, only the technology industry can make money, and other people live in deep water.
In fact, every technological innovation is like this, the British textile industry in the 19th century industrialization, a group of textile workers are also very angry at their loss of work, in the factory to destroy the loom.
These people are called Luddites. Now Luddites have become synonymous with opposition to technological progress. Most people also know that Luddites are marginal beings who will eventually die.
But it is obviously not accurate to attribute the fierce competition to the struggle for literature. In the example above, I am also a writer, but my property has leapt with the industrial revolution.
The difference is that I did two things: the first is the investment trend, and the second is that I treat AI as extremely cheap capital and use it to make money.
But I have taken advantage of resources, like I do not mix badly, will mix better, and mixed badly, will only mix worse.
Times change too fast, now this environment can not guarantee that you listen carefully to the classroom to teach those textbooks out of the society to eat, talent needs a flexible brain, as well as a variety of information judgment, to keep up with the pace of faster and faster technological development.
Then it is true that some people can not do, some people from the past to the present, all want to do the simplest job, they either can not find a job, or they have to get a lower salary than the robot.
▲ In the era of rapid technological changes, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened.
(Image from Google Translate)
In fact, education must be reformed as soon as possible, we need new departments, abolish some old departments, and now it seems like the pure language department of the college is really harming students, ensuring that they graduate and lose their jobs. (This sentence is easy to be misunderstood, it seems that I am belittling a particular department, I am not necessary.) And...
In my experience as a minor in Japanese at university, although I can also study culture and history, the advantages of language have been greatly weakened, and the teaching syllabus must be adjusted.)
The gap between the rich and the poor is inevitable, and policies can only try to avoid too many poor people, otherwise there will be social unrest.
Put on the beautiful idea of science fiction, before the civil unrest of mankind, I hope that robots will take care of our food like mothers.
Can you think about it? – I love this post.
Welcome to join the "cloud theory fan group" to see more!
● This article is authorized to be reproduced from the “XIX ” Facebook page.
The above remarks do not represent the position of this website. Welcome to submit "Cloud Theory" to let high-quality good articles be seen by more people, please send to editor88 @ ettoday.net or click here to submit, this website reserves the right to delete the text.
Hot Click 》
► Erotic websites can really be used for united warfare!
You want color, you want health, you don't want to be watched.
► Not "internal waters", not "territorial waters", but "territorial waters".
► Ammunition Preemptive Panic The DPP may be the initiator of the war.
► Can Singapore ’ s 3-Day Weekend Pass Taiwan ’ s Work-Time Revolution?
Share with friends:
Follow us
Back to the top.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job security and working conditions, rather than being opposed to progress or technology itself.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

"The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is rooted in the fear of job loss and disruption of their way of life, similar to the historical Luddite movement. The demonization of AI and other new technologies in the popular imagination also contributes to this resistance."

Title:

Content: The new is the old well forgotten.
Where in the Network there was a fashionable insult to the opponents of AI
In the Internet discourse, deep in the study of sarcastic comments of anonymous persons, you can find the term "Luddite".
This label is often referred to as people who dare to express the slightest inclination to inhibit the constant development of artificial intelligence (AI).
Related video
Interestingly, such prominent figures as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates have been awarded the Luddite Award, which is recognition of their cautionary position regarding the potential dangers associated with artificial intelligence.
During the ceremony, Robert D. Atkinson, the organizer of the award, noted: “Unfortunately, luminaries such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking have contributed to the feverish refraction of hands about the impending apocalypse of artificial intelligence, ” writes IFLScience.
In Focus.Technology appeared its own Telegram-channel.
Subscribe not to miss the latest and exciting news from the world of science!
Atkinson also explained: "Do we consider any of them personally Luddites?
No, of course not.
They are pioneers of science and technology.
But they and others have done a disservice to the public — and undoubtedly have helped and comforted the increasingly common neo-Luddist impulse in modern society — by demonizing AI in the popular imagination.
But how did the term come about?
Its roots can be traced back to the early 1800s in England.
Before the industrial revolution, skilled craftsmen who knew a lot about textile production made clothes using their own machines and specialized tools.
However, a situation arose when new technologies and methods of mass production appeared, as a result of which artisans were unable to compete.
The result was a movement whose purpose was the destruction of the textile industry and the destruction of new machines.
Although there is some truth to this story, it does not reflect the whole essence of the Luddite movement.
Their actions were not driven solely by a reaction to new technologies; rather, they were a response to the profound transformations taking place in their professional activities.
While it is true that they often attacked a knitting machine known as a stocking frame, as well as other mechanized fixtures, their main concern was the labor practices associated with these machines.
Kevin Binfield, editor of the Luddite and Compassionate Works, explained their motives: "They simply wanted machines to produce high-quality goods, and that these machines employed workers who had been trained and received fair wages.
It was their only concern. ”
The nickname "Luddites" comes from the nickname "Ned Ludd", an apocryphal figure who allegedly sabotaged a textile factory in 1779, although historical evidence suggests that this man was most likely a fictional one.
In a 2007 paper, researcher David Linton explained: “Some say that a young man, possibly with cognitive impairment, named Ned Ludd once misunderstood an order and accidentally broke his frame machine.
Others argue that this was done deliberately, in a fit of anger.
Whatever the motive, it seems to have become a joke phrase that whenever the machine breaks, for whatever reason, you can say something like, "Ludd must have been here."
From this construction, it is a short step to the ironic application of the name Ludd to vandalism for political purposes. "
Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddite movement held sporadic and somewhat unorganized protests, characterized by the destruction of cars and the burning of factories.
In response, the mill owners resorted to extreme measures, using deadly force against the Luddites.
In April 1812, there was a grim turning point in Huddersfield, where at least four people died at the hands of the mill owners.
In retaliation, the Luddites killed the owner of the mill, William Horsfall, who boldly declared his intention to "smear himself with Luddite blood to the saddles."
Horsfall was shot while sitting on his horse.
Faced with these uprisings, the government immediately sent thousands of soldiers to quell the protests.
Moreover, they adopted a law according to which the breakdown of cars was subject to the death penalty or sending to colonies.
Subsequently, the movement dissipated, but the stable expression "Luddite" could not accurately convey the ideals and goals of the Luddites.
Previously, Focus wrote about the first IPSO in the history of mankind.
It turns out that it was invented in Babylon and it concerns the Flood.

"The 21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job loss and replacement by automation, as well as uncertainty about the future of work, highlighting the need to understand the historical context of technological change and its impact on professions."

Title:

Content: You will not miss us!
8,008 followers
Why robots will take your job, and what to do - panic or rejoice
Why robots will take away your profession.
Increasingly, you can hear about the challenges posed by automation and cybernization to existing professions today.
And we are talking not only about unmanned vehicles and chatbots replacing call center operators, but also about programs that can calculate bank loans and insurance rates, depriving analysts and, moreover, neural networks that claim to compete with highly qualified and creative employees.
Exemption from routine or danger of unemployment?
A cause for concern or long-awaited freedom?
History of the problem
Mechanisms of ancient times.
Competition has always existed – professions disappeared and arose, people fought for jobs with each other and with technology, philosophers and economists built forecasts and tried to predict the prospects and are still doing it.
For example, you can assess how much automation threatens your profession and how quickly robots will replace you by using Will Robots Take My Job.
Aristotle was the first to think about the possibility of transferring “work ” to machines.
In the first book of his Politics, he suggested that they could evolve to such an extent that the need for human labor would disappear.
For him, quite in line with the views of work at the time, as something distracting from participation in public life and personal development, this was an extremely optimistic forecast.
“Work ” in ancient Greece was considered to be the lot of the lower classes, and the mechanisms would only liberate slaves, considered nothing but“ machines of flesh and blood. ”
The reorientation of the economy to the export of wool led to the introduction of a policy of “enclosures ”.
The real competition of a sufficiently large mass of people technology for the first time was only more than a millennium and a half later in England.
At first, the reorientation of the economy to wool exports led to the introduction of a policy of “fencing ”, in which landlords expelled farmers from the fields in order to free the territory for sheep grazing, which led to the first massive surge of“ unemployment ” – albeit not in the current sense.
The then arising vagrancy and poverty contemporary of these events, the Chancellor of England and philosopher Thomas More described the famous "sheep ate people."
However, after a few decades it became clear that no – not eaten.
The former peasants were absorbed by the growing cities, where they found a new job in textile manufactures, processing the same wool obtained from shearing sheep.
This was the first example of how, by taking away one thing, “technology ” is able to offer something different.
But we must admit: the process of urbanization was painful, the work that replaced the cultivation of land turned out to be hard and dirty, the gap with the traditional way of life was very traumatic, and the population of England as a result of hunger and the fight against vagrancy, which was conducted, including the use of gallows, decreased, according to some estimates by 30% (to understand the scale - the Soviet Union during the Second World War lost "only" 15% of the population).
Workers in a textile factory, late 18th century.
The next episode of the confrontation between people and technology occurred a century later in the same field of light industry - the invention in 1785 by Edmund Cartwright of a mechanical loom increased labor productivity forty times.
Jobs that had just been lost were once again lost.
But again temporarily – after spinning machines, others appeared and all of them demanded new resources, and their extraction – new types of labor.
Manufactures were replaced by factories, and muscle strength by the power of steam obtained from coal.
Machine Destroyers
The Luddite movement.
This time, the changes that occurred were met with bayonets - there was a movement of Luddites.
Sabotage of work and direct action: attacks on factories and the destruction of machines caused a harsh reaction of the state, which sent troops to suppress the “army of Ned Ludd ”.
It is characteristic that no one at the top bothered to convey to the workers the idea that there will still be work for them, even if not the one to which they had time to get used.
The fact is that the “top ” themselves at that time did not think too much about how all this was arranged, and people were perceived as expendable material, while the inertia of consciousness of ordinary workers who had just recovered from the transition from the agrarian to the urban way of life was also very high.
The First Industrial Revolution at the beginning of the 18th century.
The theoretical basis for the interaction of technological innovations and the masses of labor began to be summed up only by economists and philosophers of the middle of the XIX century.
They were the first to suggest that the disappearance of certain types of work in the process of technological development entails the emergence of new ones, and “work ” as a whole is not something final, which may be“ not enough ”.
The First Industrial Revolution was in full swing and the optimism of its apologists only grew stronger over time.
By the end of the century, it seemed that progress would eliminate not only social problems and contradictions, but could also rid humanity of wars.
However, while some spoke of the "Luddite delusion", others spoke of the "enslavement of the masses" and the need to hand over to the "factory workers", predicting that as long as the instruments of production are in the hands of the big proprietors, their employees will remain disenfranchised, and the lack of social security will cause explosions of unemployment at any moment.
Second wave
The Second Industrial Revolution.
The word “unemployment ” came into being at that time.
The fact is that a peasant working in the fields or a craftsman who provides for the needs of himself and the small surrounding community could not face something like this - he himself formed his employment.
When the scheme of selling labor on a strict schedule became mass within the framework of fulfilling a strictly regulated set of duties, the challenge arose to lose such an opportunity.
The Second Industrial Revolution was on the way.
The basics of streaming production were laid at the end of the 19th century, and by the beginning of the 20th century, the combination of Ford ’ s marketing strategy (he invented that the car was not an attribute of the elites, but a mass need) and the conveyor he introduced led to new changes that went beyond factories and factories.
On January 18, 1886, the first car invented by Karl Benz was released.
It was the emergence of technology on the streets of cities that brought a new wave of competition.
Look at the photos of the streets of the beginning of the last century: here they are dammed with carts, among which a lonely clumsy car is trying to maneuver, but ten years later, the only horse frightened by the roar of engines and sobbing of klaxons is clutching to the sidewalks.
Here it will be important to note how unpredictable this jump became: “At the beginning of the 20th century, the French Academy warned about an environmental disaster, which inevitably should lead to the accumulation of horse manure associated with the development of horse-drawn transport in Paris, ” recalls, reasoning about the prediction of the future Stanislav Lem.
However, note: in those regions where human labor is cheaper, technology can not replace it, as we are shown, for example, rickshaws, until recently used their own muscle power and only with a sharp drop in the cost of small vehicles motorized.
A more modern example is “computer rickshaws ” – hundreds of thousands of low-skilled Chinese, hacked captchas all day, because their work costs less than the introduction of scripts.
Technological unemployment
The line of the American unemployed during the Great Depression.
In the 1930s, Maynard Keynes, who gave the world the theory of the “social state ”, from the attempts of which many economies have not recovered so far, introduced the term“ technological unemployment ” into mass circulation.
Since then, the debate about whether the introduction of new technological solutions and opportunities can create a long-term job crisis or whether everything is limited to repurposing, when obsolete professions are replaced by new ones, and it is enough for people to change or improve their skills.
Until the end of the last decade, most experts were inclined to believe that “technological unemployment ” is always a temporary phenomenon, leading to the renewal and improvement of the professionalism of workers.
Mechanical labor was replaced by physical labor, the operator - a profession more status and highly paid than the worker, the reduction of costs leads to the release of time - these are the main theses sounded then.
Pessimistic views remained largely the domain of marginals, such as Theodore Kaczynski, famous for his terrorist struggle against progress under the name of Unabomber and primitive philosophers.
Pessimism
The first full-fledged computer in the USSR BESM-1.
Cautious voices expressing doubts about the correctness of this approach sounded even then.
And if in one of his speeches in 1962, President Kennedy said that “if people are able to invent new machines that take away their jobs, even more so are able to invent new jobs, ” then two years later, a letter from scientists and activists concerned with the problem of technological unemployment, sent to his successor, Lyndon Johnson, stated that“ a revolution in cybernetics will create a separate nation of poor, unskilled unemployed. ”.
Theorists disputed the impossibility of long-term unemployment, as did Martin Ford in the book “Light in the Tunnel: Automation, Acceleration of Technology and the Economy of the Future ” or Marshall Brains in“ Robotic Nation ”.
Gasne-Peter Martin and Harald Schumann, in their Global Trap, describe a society in which the labor of twenty percent of the population is enough for the world economy to continue to develop.
There are those who see it as a threat and a danger, like Paul Krugmann in his article “Sympathy for the Luddites ” or Frey and Osborne in“ The Future of Work. ”
In addition, in practice, it turned out that technology is not so freeing up time – for example, representatives of professions requiring high qualifications, at least in the United States today work more than 30 years ago, and technologies that provide remote access to working tools allow them not to break away from professional tasks and in their “free time ”.
It is also important that new jobs, as it was noticed at the beginning of the XXI century, are created not so much by technology as by the change in the way of life that they entail.
So in the mid-2010s, nine out of ten working people are employed in professions that did not exist a century earlier, but only 5% of the jobs that appeared from 1993 to 2013 are in high-tech areas, such as IT or telecom.
However, the question is whether this does not mean that indirectly they still arise due to technologies that provide an opportunity for development for the service sector.
Is it bad?
A shot from the film "I, Robot" (2004).
Harvard economics professor Lawrence Summers, who previously served as U.S. Treasury Secretary, said in 2014 that he no longer believes that automation will always create new jobs and that it is not some hypothetical possibility in the future; it is something that is emerging now.
In his opinion, the changes will be very global and will lead to mass unemployment not only among low-skilled employees, but also for “blue ” and“ white ” collar workers, because “there are many reasons to think that the software revolution will be even more significant than the agrarian one. ”
The robot prepares food.
However, this is what allows us to look to the future with optimism.
Summers ’ s thought of the meaning of the digital revolution echoes the position of futurologist Alvin Toffler.
As early as 1970, in his book Future Shock, he wrote that by comparing the Digital Revolution with the Industrial Revolution, we downplay its significance and it would be more correct to draw a parallel with the exit of mankind from caves and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and cattle breeding.
Potentially, this means that humanity is on the verge of an unprecedented, unknown written history civilizational leap of colossal proportions.
And, due to the fact that the speed of changes in the world has increased many times and now, the fact that in the case of the end of the Stone Age, took millennia, is being carried out in front of one, a maximum of a couple or three generations, this breakthrough, of course, will be painful.
However, having reviewed the usual way of life, the attitude to it and their values, will not humanity be able to break through to the conditions of life, previously even unimaginable.
"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991).
We are easily accustomed to such changes in “work ” as freelancing and remote work, quite calmly came to a repeated change of professions, instead of a continuous, decades-long“ career ” and even were able to include them in your life, saying that this is the way to find yourself.
So is it not time to begin to accustom ourselves to the idea that, as economic historian Robert Skidelsky said, “Sooner or later we will run out of work ”?
After all, freelancing and remote employment are about freedom, about leaving the “office slavery ” and searching for the way of life that is convenient for us.
Yes, to get used to the idea that the traditional “work ” is over and now we will have to independently invent what to occupy ourselves will not be easy.
It will require responsibility, but it is freedom.
Isn ’ t it time for us, joyfully exclaiming “Glory to the robots! ”, to go in search of our place in the new world?
Why robots will take away your profession.
The fact that it is not only about robots, but also about the “work ” itself and the possibility of life without it, about the risks associated with negative scenarios of confrontation between people and machines and the possibilities of overcoming them, we will talk in the next parts of the cycle.
source
If you liked this post, please share it with your friends:
And don't forget:
Subscribe to my Instagram
Link to the original source
Picture of the day
top

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about job security, loss of traditional skills, and issues of power and control, as well as the potential for exploitation by those in control of the technology.

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones over smartphones, implying he may be opposed to the complexity or distractions of smartphones.

Title:

Content: Andrew Luck Finally Upgrades His Flip Phone … To Another Flip Phone

Intro: Andrew Luck has made it clear that he’s not interested in joining the world of smartphones. He’s just fine with his flip phone, and he finally got an upgrade this week.

INDIANAPOLIS — Has Andrew Luck finally turned in his ancient flip phone for a smartphone?

No. No he has not.

But, he did get a new flip phone this week.

The Indianapolis Colts quarterback on Thursday shared on his Facebook account that his mobile carrier had hooked him up with a new phone.

In June, Luck became the recipient of the most lucrative contract in NFL history, and many wondered if the fifth-year Stanford product was going to splurge on the newest smartphone for himself.

"One, I like it. It's a comfort thing," Luck said of not giving up the flip phone lifestyle. "I think anybody can appreciate that, if you're used to that. … Two, I don't think I want to be connected 24/7, and this phone is maybe sort of a reminder that you don't have to be connected. And it's nice to get away. It's nice to turn your phone off."

Luck's phone at that time — and his new one, we assume — can send and receive text messages, and for all the newest crazes in apps and technology, he says he has an iPad.

"What else do you need?" Luck asked. "I'm not a Luddite."

Luddite | Ludd·ite | Noun: "One of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly :  one who is opposed to especially technological change." Thank you, Merriam Webster.

Nice word choice, Andrew. Looks like his "Andrew Luck Book Club" is paying huge dividends.

While many of us (including the author of this article) remain glued to their smartphones, Luck is obviously content with what's gotten him to this point in life.

Smartphone or flip phone — or rotary phone — he's back on the field and healthy for the Indianapolis Colts, and that's all that should matter to his fans and his organization.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Please use the Contact Us link in our site footer to report an issue.

Related Content

2023 Season Tickets On Sale Now!

Secure the best seats, benefits & more for next season! Be there live for exciting matchups against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and more opponents to be announced soon. Learn more today!

Advertising

Andrew Luck prefers a flip phone due to its comfort and his desire to not be connected 24/7, highlighting the importance of setting boundaries with technology.

Resistance to new technologies can be attributed to concerns about job security, lack of understanding about the benefits of new technologies, and inertia in adapting to change, as seen in the historical context of the Luddite movement.

Luddites oppose new technology due to fears of job loss and disruption to traditional ways of working, as seen in historical examples such as the British textile industry in the 19th century.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the fear of job loss or reduced salary due to automation, as machines and AI can perform tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the perceived threat to their jobs and livelihoods, rather than a fundamental opposition to progress or technology itself.

Luddite opposition to new technology stems from the fear of job loss and inability to compete with new methods of mass production.

"A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the fear of job loss and replacement by automation, as technological change has historically led to the disappearance of certain professions and the creation of new ones."

The fear of job loss is a common reason for opposing new technology, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites in the British textile industry.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear of job loss or reduced income, as new technologies may automate tasks and replace human workers.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the recognition that it may be used against workers, threatening their jobs or working conditions.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear that it will replace human workers or transfer wealth from workers to employers, as was the case during the Industrial Revolution.

The opposition to new technology can be attributed to the fear of job loss and the inability to adapt to new methods of production, as evident in the historical Luddite movement.

The Luddite revolt was a response to the loss of jobs due to technological innovation in the British textile industry, and this historical context can help explain why some individuals in the 21st century might be opposed to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was primarily a labor struggle focused on job security and workers' rights, rather than opposition to technological progress.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement fighting for workers' rights and against poverty, rather than opposing technology and progress. This historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day resistance to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a workers' struggle against the introduction of new machines that threatened their jobs and transferred wealth from workers to employers. This historical context can help us understand why someone in the 21st century might be opposed to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a historical movement that fought against technological change and job displacement, and this context can be used to understand modern-day resistance to new technologies.

21st century Luddites may fear a society where technology has too much control over individuals and their lives, leading to a loss of autonomy and potential negative consequences.

Title:

Content: In October 2021, Mark Zuckerberg announced the arrival of the metaverse generation.
In fact, humans have already lived in a virtual world to some extent; the emergence of the metaverse will accelerate the process of virtualization and keep approaching virtual reality.
Even if our family lives under the same roof, in the virtual world, they have their own circle of friends, political views, spiritual consolation way.
The metaverse will increasingly expand such personalization and alienation, and people's lives will inevitably be controlled by various algorithms.
When machines can read human thoughts, ask, high-tech development in the end where to go? This kind of problem has a long history, but humans have been unable to solve.
In other words, the form of the problem is constantly changing, but the main part of the nature of the problem has never changed.
On the one hand, we are happy to know that many brilliant ideas of civilization represented by Greece are still helpful to us; on the other hand, we are sad to find that the development of high technology is changing rapidly, but the ability of human speculation has not surpassed that of the philosophers or theologians of history.
The metaverse has brought about changes in people ’ s lives, not just in the realm of private life.
High-tech development, like a wild horse.
Everyone, including the legal person, has no control over the direction of high-tech development, and even has no right to speak.
High-tech development occupies the top position of the production line, affecting the vast majority of industrial chains.
The author speculates that high-tech industries will eventually launch a war for human control against various political forces.
In the initial stage of the war, the high-tech industry will compromise or cooperate with various political forces to a certain extent, but according to the current development trajectory, the high-tech industry will eventually win.
Sadly, the controllers of the high-tech industry do not intend to govern society, they will directly rule humanity.
When we discuss this point, we will find that whether it is "mathematical physics" or "literary merchants" in the general sense, they provide the key that does not solve the above problems.
Because the core of the development of high-tech industries is whether human beings can master the uncontrolled desire and creativity of human beings; perhaps the field of law can be inked, but after extending upward, it must enter the field of philosophy, and even the field of theology.
In this process, we can not avoid the question is, the human reason has its limits, the reason is not enough, how should mankind deal with? This part of the discussion, theological field has long been heated debate; but the impact of the dispute, is not only the storm in the ivory tower, because the scope of its reference, related to the progress of human civilization.
The author believes that a positive contribution caused by the "side effects" of the metaverse is likely to be theological research sealed in the hidden place of the academic circle by factors such as the industrial revolution and capitalism, and will once again come to the forefront, affecting both secular and spiritual fields.
But how does theology function as the ultimate moral guide?
This proposition, limited by human rationality, will always be controversial.
There is no need to be too pessimistic that when humanity realizes that it needs to turn to God, even if a significant number of people are necessarily going down the wrong path, it is better than all of them falling into the abyss together.
At this point, it is necessary to review what is "theology"? The concept of "theology" first appeared in ancient Greek thought; there are similar legends in other civilizations. Karl Barth, a famous Swiss theologian in the 20th century, said that in ancient Greek thought "the word about God" is "the word of God to man."
In the works of Plato and Aristotle, there are many conflicts with theology, which constitute the record of metaphysics.
After the coming of Christ, "theology" gradually became exclusively used by Christian scholars, and diverged from the "theology" of polytheism.
The main concern of theologians is the salvation of God and the reconstruction of human order.
Later, whether it is scholarly philosophy or the Theological Encyclopedia, theology is regarded as a critical and theoretical science.
After the Middle Ages, theology began to have the image of practical science.
In the 19th century, the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher understood theology as a field of evidence; he believed that through “godliness, ” spiritual experience and assurance were obtained.
There are two problems that need to be solved here: one is how to rebuild (or correctly understand) the scientific nature of theology in the arrogance and madness of mankind; the other is how to lead God to hope for the direction of human struggle through the establishment of a relationship between God and man.
The second question, beyond the author's ability, can be left to continue this discussion in the future or others.
The last thing I want to talk about today is how to correctly understand the science of theology.
In fact, “scientificity ” is a deceptive term, and the so-called scientificity is nothing more than a verifiable model of knowing things under certain conditions.
On the one hand, there is a strong subjectivity, and on the other hand, there is a strong neutrality.
Evangelical theologian Professor Alister McGrath, of the University of Oxford, said that Neo-Atheism believes that people can only believe what they can prove, and should ignore questions of faith that are justified and motivated.
Moreover, Neo-Atheism seems unable or unwilling to evaluate its own ideas by its criteria for evaluating the beliefs of others.
British philosopher A.C. Grayling argues that theological reasoning is unacceptable to a rational person because it is carried out under the “premises and parameters ” of a system.
However, most of the thinking and argument takes place under certain “premises and parameters ” of the system, including mathematics and logic.
Observation and interpretation are intertwined in an inevitable cycle.
Willard Quine, the great American philosopher / logician of the 20th century and a professor at Harvard University, argued in his book The Two Doctrines of empiricism that what really matters is the ability of a theory to explain the world as a whole.
Our beliefs are connected in an interconnected network that is related to the boundaries of sensory experience, not at its core.
Thus, Quinn argues, the only valid test of a belief is its suitability for an interconnected belief network that is consistent with our experience as a whole.
In other words, one of theology ’ s chief intellectual virtues is to provide a coherent, rationally motivated explanation of the world, connecting the transient, seemingly disconnected world we experience through a hidden web of meaning that is revealed.
No matter how fragmented our experience world may seem, there is a large translucent picture linking things together, its footprints connecting things that might otherwise be disconnected and meaningless, forming a web of meaning.
In fact, the rationality of the human world is not predetermined by pure reason, but is to be discovered by dealing with the human world.
The basic question for scientists to ask is not “Is this reasonable? ” but“ What is the reason for believing it to be true? ” Man cannot prescribe in advance what the “rational ” character of the universe is; rather, it must be by letting the universe tell us, or finding a way to unmask it.
Therefore, the rationality of science is that it is the best way to discover things, not that it is some pre-determined or predicted “truth. ”
Paul said, “Do not be like the world, but change the mind ” (Romans 12: 2); this is to change the way you see the world through the renewal of your thoughts.
Paul used a series of images to describe the fundamental changes in the way people see things: our eyes are opened, the scales fall off, and the veil is removed (Acts 9: 9-19; 2 Corinthians 3: 13-16).
Christianity calls for an imaginative adjustment through which people see the world with new eyes, a transformation brought about by grace, not by human wisdom or achievement.
This passage captures the empirical experience of the theologian Schleiermacher about the feeling of “godliness. ”
On the basis of this understanding, when we re-examine the impact of the metaverse on humanity, we can understand that the value and worth of human existence will be different under different paradigms.
High-tech industries are not regulated by any external forces in pursuit of the “progress ” of human life, which is an enhanced version of atheism and materialism, or can be described as an extreme form of capitalism.
Under this extreme capitalism, human beings will be placed under the control of the technological maniac, and all human beings, including the technological maniac, will be consumed by the desire itself because of this crazy and uncontrolled material desire.
If this situation cannot be changed as soon as possible, humanity will first fall into the bottomless abyss on Earth in the process of pursuing interstellar migration.
The author believes that if there is a historical moment in the 21st century, that is, theology with faith as its core, it will be the moment to be exalted again; if this historical moment does not appear, then the technological maniac will take his turn and become the golden bull of human worship.
※ The above statements do not represent the position of Wangzhong Media Group ※
# Theology # Human # A # Problem # Development

21st century Luddites likely fear a society dominated by technocracy, where technology and those who control it hold significant power and influence over individuals' lives.

Title:

Content: Overcoming The Noble Lie: Great Narratives & Compelling Futures

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 6 (Dec 2021)

If the last two years taught us anything, it’s that humanity is now at its most critical inflection point. We stand at the precipice of a major turning in western civilisation – the culmination of a millennium of human development, seminal events, knowledge, and culture.

It is undeniable, yet not at all clear, the direction we are headed, or what the future holds, and who will be around to see it come to fruition. We are not seers or prophets and cannot peer into the future, but we can read the signposts of the past and present.

We have a wealth of shared experience and a vast living memory – a collective consciousness updated and added to every day. If we search humanity’s archive, we find answers to many of these questions. Those answers have always been available, gleaned from understanding ourselves, our journey as a family, and the human race.

French novelist Alphonse Karr famously coined the saying, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” or, the more things change, the more they are the same.

Yes, we have been here before.

Let’s step back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries – a time of upheavals and period of great turbulence on many human fronts – politically, spiritually, and technologically. The western world was in the midst of an existential crisis as secularisation brought with it two disruptive forces to the traditional order of knowledge and influence: the rise of the intellectual and mass media.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the world finds itself in a very similar impasse approximately a century later, with many of the same conditions present today, only on a much more pervasive level.

The parallels between then and now are astonishing. This should not be viewed as ‘history repeating itself’ but rather as a more intense interlude of what had already come to pass – only this time events are unfolding at much greater speed, propelled by advances in communication technology on a global scale inconceivable to previous generations. Such changes were equally profound in 1900, as were the transformations that took place across society.

As the 20th century approached, theology was supplanted by evolutionary science. An ascendant Darwinian authority presided over existential questions like “Who are we?” and “What is man’s purpose?”

Undoubtedly, this was a tumultuous time, intellectually and spiritually, with acrimony leading to heated exchanges between clergy and scientists, even leading to violent confrontations. But, with its newfound status, it was inevitable the secular power of Darwinian science would colonise the political and social sciences before giving rise to the sordid science of curative breeding known as eugenics.

Recent history leaves no doubt that if left unrestrained by morals and ethics, wanton destruction and incredible suffering are wrought in the name of science and progress. These forces of modernity materialise in today’s advances in genetic engineering that have brought us back to that point once again: humanity faces the dilemma of resisting game-changing advances of technology and innovation or surrendering to it and prostrating at the altar of science and progress.

We are an entire century into a fully secularised society in the West. Today’s tech gurus, vaccinologists, and public health officials now occupy positions of prestige and command the reverence once reserved for pontiffs, philosophers, and poet laureates. The divine mysteries have given way to the ‘divine’ algorithm, and timeless sublime prose to the transience of the latest epidemiological model – from Gandhi to Gates, Whitman to Whitty, in just a few generations. How else could a man like Dr Anthony Fauci, an 80-year-old career gatekeeper for the transnational pharmaceutical cartel, still occupy the US government’s highest-paid job, and recently voted People Magazine’s “sexiest man alive”? Albert Camus once said, “Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.” Indeed, if not for the wave of mass hysteria and fear that swept over the world in February 2020, few would even know of Dr Fauci, let alone revere him as a demigod. On one level, we may be deluded into believing that today’s gaudy exhibitionists are mere frivolities of pure media spectacle, but behind the facade of political celebrity is an unforgiving ideology called technocracy.

You will often hear the trope that “more people have been killed over religion than anything else.” If only it were true. The 20th century serves as a potent reminder of the misleading nature of that statement, for no other century witnessed the sheer brutality and crimes against humanity on an industrial scale perpetrated in the name of various despotic interpretations of some variant of social Darwinism or political science, reaching levels of totalitarianism never seen before in human history. There are too many examples: WWI, WWII, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to name only a few. In almost every instance, the preservation of secular dogma took precedence over the lives and souls of humans who were unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire of ‘progress’. Fascism, socialism, communism, neoliberal capitalism – each would justify collateral damage as a means to achieving the goal of transformation or the formulation of a new order.

In the 21st century, the forces that inherited the mantle of power – the dynastic families and special interests – are preparing the next act in this worldly saga.

The Grand Narrative

So often it’s been said that in war, history is written by the victors, who impose what is known as the ‘living memory’ of a nation or people, chronicling a shared experience, generally of collective sacrifice undertaken for the greater good, and paying tribute to the martyrs along the way. These become the narratives that post-war orders and worldviews are built upon, a central pillar around which the reorganisation of society and economies occurs. Without marshalling the “narrative,” a ruling establishment cannot lead and steer society in its direction of choice.

What happens in the absence of a bona fide world war? Can elites still construct an equally compelling living memory which the people can rally around?

Grand narrative management is precisely what Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) has been attempting from the onset of the ‘global pandemic’ crisis. In 2021, the WEF announced its “Great Narrative” initiative, although evidence for this project can be traced much further back through a number of their documents and website presentations.

To create the requisite living memory, Schwab and the WEF replaced the usual military war piece with the new war on microbes. “The pandemic has revealed the acute need to focus on the future and long-term health of our societies,” said the globalist luminary.

While the rhetoric sounds innocuous, everything we’ve witnessed over the last 24 months proves beyond any doubt that their hyper-centralised ‘public health’ planning has little to do with the health of the individual and more about how the individual can be more effectively managed to serve the collective, that in turn is to be administered by the new technocracy. The WEF is merely the latest avatar for this elitist ideology whose primary goal is always to meet the ruling oligarchy’s financial and consolidation goals and objectives. This was true 100 years ago as it is today.

Just as with the global financial crash in 2008, when elites privatised their profits and socialised their losses through gargantuan government bailouts, so too will elites seek to consolidate their baronial individual asset wealth portfolios and privileged asset classes while demanding infinite self-sacrifice for everyone else – all for the greater good, of course. It is also about managing expectations, as the WEF states:

“The Great Narrative Meeting [in November 2021] is a linchpin of the Great Narrative initiative, a collaborative effort of the world’s leading thinkers to fashion longer-term perspectives and co-create a narrative that can help guide the creation of a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable vision for our collective future.”

You might be asking: what is their endgame? Put simply, every new world order needs a financial reset, and in the WEF’s Great Reset, the plan is to intentionally overinflate and collapse the current fiat money system, reimagined and replaced by a new globalised economic system backed by a new superficial asset class under the guise of the “financialisation of nature.”

That plan gained a significant foothold in October 2021 when the Rockefeller Foundation and the New York Stock Exchange announced the creation of a new asset class that will effectively monetise the natural world as well as the processes underpinning all life. All in the name of “sustainability.” The lifeblood of this system will be a new Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) which will be fully programmable, meaning that the currency issuer can stipulate how the digital money is spent.

This is the highest form of social engineering conceivable and can become the payment mechanism for Universal Basic Income, allowing the government issuer power over what you are allowed to purchase. It could limit your transactions to green spending and ‘carbon-neutral’ activities. It’s also a system designed to eliminate upward mobility unless you gain promotion through the political economy.

It could lead to the ultimate victory of the technocracy. However, its Achilles heel might be that it seeks to remake the world in such a short space of time, presumably so these masters of the universe can marvel at their ‘remarkable achievements’ in this lifetime – the ultimate act of hubris by these self-anointed stewards of the planet.

When the technocracy movement first emerged in the early 20th century, contemporary thinkers raised the alarm that pseudo-intellectualism and the mechanised worldview augured an eventual collapse of western civilisation. The timeframe wasn’t clear, only that it was inevitable. In his historical literary work, The Decline of the West (1928), Oswald Spengler described the event horizon that eventually consumes all major cultures, and which generally have a limited lifespan of roughly one thousand years. He examined eight major civilisations as examples: the Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Indian, Greco-Roman, Mayan-Aztec, Arabian, and European-Western. He envisioned the West being consumed by its intellectual vortex:

Today we live so cowed under the bombardment of this intellectual artillery, the media, that hardly anyone can attain to the inward detachment that is required for a clear view of the monstrous drama. The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has finished off its masterpiece so well that the object’s sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed.

Now realise what is at stake. The unconstrained vision of Davos elites may become the final revolution within a larger civilisational cycle. The Covid-19 pseudo-pandemic would be one of the catalysing events in this process, followed by global cyberwar, and then finally ending in something more outrageous like a nuclear conflagration before ushering in a New World Order.

Such a protracted multi-phased upheaval would mark the end of the main features of modern western civilisation: the post-Westphalian nation-state, the era of enlightenment and rational thought, self-governing democracy and republican forms of government. The world would move into what Zbigniew Brzezinski called a Technetronic Era. Compared to the 20th century, this would more resemble a centralised command and control economy and a highly automated society. In terms of individual rights, it would look like a neo-feudal dark age.

This cycle was discussed by American writers William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book The Fourth Turning (1997), which illustrated how the development of Anglo-American society is a feature of a much larger centuries-old cycle. Or, as Italian commentator Federico Dezzanidescribes it, “like a snake biting its own tail over the span of a century, Anglo-American societies are born, grow, mature and die, only to rise again and begin a new cycle.”

The Noble Lie

In the end, it all comes back to Malthus – Malthusianism – which is ultimately the ideological standard hoisted by the likes of Schwab, Bill Gates, Stanley Johnson, Prince Charles, and globalist outfits like the Trilateral Commission. These elites believe that the people must bear the brunt of this epic existential predicament of an overcrowded planet in a state of terminal decline due to man and his industrial exploits, which is said to be driving anthropogenic global warming to the point where Earth will be uninhabitable. To save humanity from itself, we must be forced to accept that there are too many of us, so we play their globalist game of musical chairs. We know what they mean, but they won’t state their intentions openly, not yet anyway. Only it’s not true.

In Plato’s Republic, in the dialogue of the myth of the metals (social castes), Socrates explains that to maintain order and social continuity, the ruling class must act under the aegis of “the noble lie.” This is based on the belief that from time to time, the ruling class must feed the general populace an ennobling fiction to maintain order and continuity. The noble lie is noble because it benefits the soul of the person who believes it. From an elite’s perspective, this is done for their own good and that they might feel better about their station in life.

If you think about our living memory, or what happened in the West over the last half-century, it’s been a continuum of such lies, although hardly noble: the assassination of JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Saddam’s WMDs, 19 Arab hijackers on 9/11, spreading freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, overpopulation, climate chaos, Trump-Russian collusion, Covid-19, the Great Reset, and soon it will be the coming war on China. Each epic yarn spun with the help of a 24/7 mainstream and social media barrage of propaganda and misinformation. By brainwashing the population incessantly, the establishment creates the illusion of a ‘bottom-up consensus’, so much so that the people believe they’ve collectively arrived at a grassroots consensus.

Drifting out noble lies in the 21st century has become a pretty efficient process with the consensus enforced by digital dragnet: dare oppose any noble liedeployed by the globalist caste for your own good to ‘reimagine’ and reorganise socio-economic systems, and you’re treated the same as a blasphemer in medieval times – silenced, excommunicated, banished from view, and no longer permitted to speak in the public commons. Deplatformed, depersoned, cancelled.

At the same time, however, a very real great awakening is also taking hold with a rising level of political and conscious awareness much broader and wide-ranging than anything before in human history. This is a consequence of the same global panopticon wielded against the people by the elites. Such awareness is the prerequisite to ultimate liberation, or as philosopher G.I. Gurdjieff once said, “If you wish to get out of prison, the first thing you must do is realise that you are in prison. If you think you are free, you can’t escape.”

Which brings us back to the philosophical and existential question: why are we here? What is the purpose of humans on this planet? Darwinian genetic science says we are here to promulgate our genes and advance the species. On a fundamental level, this is what makes us human. But the new green technocracy says this is no longer possible, and we must embrace a higher truth – a new altruism imbued in the Great Reset doctrine.

The irony is that collectively speaking, humanity might not survive this new ‘empty planet’ initiative. Elite technocrats will contend that only a planned society modelled after Huxley’s vision of a technocracy organised by functional castes and selective breeding in vitro can save the planet from the alleged existential menace of human consumption and climate change.

Whose compelling future is this? Is this not the ‘scientific dictatorship’ that H.G. Wells foresaw, with a global government run by an elite committee of scientists and technocrats who hold the reins of power over every aspect of life and dictate how society is organised and run minute to minute? This is unconstrained totalitarianism. Under such a system, the individual will have no agency, no conscience, and eventually no soul.

The last 250 years have been an extraordinary progression from monarchies to democratic nations, in which the state eventually assumed a god-like status. It set the stage for what is heading towards us now: the advent of globalist transhumanism and a one-world unified state.

Far from being its crowning victory, this crescendo of technocracy and the perversion of ‘progress’ exposes how materialism and the scientific priesthood cannot satisfactorily answer the fundamental questions we’ve asked since time immemorial, those eternal questions and divine mysteries pursued by monks, sages, and sannyasi. The forces of modernity cannot resolve this predicament, so people are left searching for something more grounded – where through the natural world they may also know the supernatural. Once again, people reach for religion and spirituality to find meaning and purpose, including (and not surprising as one may think) the younger generation.

We should be under no illusion about the challenges lying before us. But even beyond an awareness of what you face, you need to have a vision of a world you wish to live in. Elites have always been adept at occupying the minds of the people with propaganda, and the latest war or catastrophe, so we never settle long enough to formulate our vision of a compelling future. Instead, our vision is mired in a never-ending procession of reactive emotions, leaving us vulnerable to the power of suggestion – and a ‘compelling future’ is instead continually served up to us by our rulers. They create the problem (a noble lie) that elicits our reaction before they present us with a solution to which there is usually no alternative.

Make no mistake: the great and the good in Davos are busy designing your ‘compelling future’, and if no other counter-narrative is offered, they will decide your future for you. It’s that simple.

Qui tacet consentit. Translated: your silence is your consent.

There is still much work to be done, but the work is never done. Throughout time, this has always been the case. The more things change, the more they are the same.

This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 15 No 6.
If you appreciate this article, please consider a contribution to help maintain this website.

Footnotes

1. Albert Camus (1963), quote from “Carnets: 1935-1942”
2. Wall Street’s New Asset Class Will Put Natural World ‘Up for Sale’, childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wall-street-new-york-stock-exchange-natural-asset-company
3. Federico Dezzani, www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/covid-destruction-institutions-and-beyond
4. What is a Noble Lie?, kenyonreview.org/2007/02/what-is-a-noble-lie/

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

About the Author

Author Patrick Henningsen is the founder and editor of the news and analysis website 21st Century Wire, and is an independent foreign and political affairs analyst for RT International. He is also the host of the SUNDAY WIRE radio program which airs live every Sunday on the Alternate Current Radio Network. Learn more about this author at: www.patrickhenningsen.com

Author Archive Page

21st century Luddites fear a society where individual freedom and autonomy are compromised by the increasing control of technology and the elite, and where people are managed to serve the collective rather than their own health and well-being.

21st century Luddites fear a society where technology controls their lives, limiting freedom and autonomy, and potentially leading to a loss of upward mobility and individual choice.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, as it has brought about significant changes in people's lives and is developing rapidly, potentially beyond the control of individuals or organizations.

"Famous figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence, indicating that concerns about AI's impact on society and human well-being are a key reason for resistance to new technologies in the 21st century."

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to resistance and conflicts, as seen in the dispute between Sea Rocket and the town of Ocean City over houseboat rentals, highlighting the challenges of adapting to change and the need for clear regulations and jurisdiction.

Title:

Content: OCEAN CITY, Md. - Sea Rocket, a provider of aquatic activities in Ocean City, finds itself in a legal dispute with the Ocean City City Council over its venture into houseboat rentals. The conflict escalated further when Sea Rocket threatened legal action in response to recent pushback from the town.

The dispute arose when Sea Rocket announced plans to expand its offerings this summer by introducing houseboat rentals near Dorchester Street in Ocean City. However, their ambitions encountered resistance when the town sent them a warning email, insisting that such rentals were not permitted.

Sea Rocket contested the town's email, arguing that vessels fall under the jurisdiction of the state, not the town. This stance prompted Ocean City to consider adding an ordinance to local law explicitly prohibiting houseboat rentals, a move supported by Mayor Rick Meehan.

"We want to specify and clarify that houseboat rentals are not an intended use in our code or comprehensive plan," Mayor Meehan stated. "Our recreational marinas are vital amenities for residents and visitors, and we aim to preserve their intended purpose."

In response, Sea Rocket's CEO, Will Wangel, rebuffed the town's legal stance, asserting, "They cannot dictate our operations on parasail boats or houseboats. It's beyond their jurisdiction." The company remains adamant about their right to operate within state regulations.

As tensions persist, Ocean City officials are seeking the removal of Sea Rocket's current houseboat from local waters. However, Sea Rocket has no plans to relocate the vessel anytime soon.

In a statement issued by Sea Rocket, the company commented the town's handling of the situation and also outlined its grievances...

"While we initially wanted to work in good faith with the town to create something new and excitingit appears the mayor & town council are set on protecting their own self-interest & are unwilling to even have a discussion."

You can read Sea Rocket's whole statement below.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to concerns about job security, the pace of technological change, and the potential for automation to replace human workers, as illustrated by the example of a friend who was unemployed and struggled to compete with AI tools that could perform tasks quickly and at a low cost.

People may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to fear of job loss and disruption of traditional industries, as exemplified by the historical Luddites who resisted technological progress in the 19th century.

"Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest, fear of job loss, or resistance to change, as seen in the examples of the mayor and town council, as well as the supervisor in the background information."

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working because they believe it will negatively impact their jobs or working conditions, similar to the historical Luddites who opposed certain technologies that threatened their livelihood.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, disruption of their industry, or unease about the impact of technology on society, similar to the historical Luddites' fears about automation displacing human workers.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the context of the technocracy movement and the potential collapse of Western civilization, which may be related to the rise of Luddites who oppose new technologies.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the West over the past 60 years, with a move towards a culture of caution, anxiety, and risk-aversion.

Title:

Content: Wednesday, 10 January 2024 02: 51 GMT
The culture of growth is declining.
Is the West pulling itself into the fall?
(MENAFN- Al-Bayan)
The Industrial Revolution was one of the most important events in human history, with technological breakthroughs, over the course of a few decades, honing economic output out of a centuries-old bottom and soaring high in human populations, living standards and life expectancy.
Vital as it is, there is still considerable disagreement as to why it all came about, when and where it began.
One of the most compelling arguments has come to mind by Robert Allen, the American economic historian, who argues that Britain ’ s successes in trade in the 16th and 17th centuries raised wages and lowered energy costs, creating powerful incentives to replace labor and mechanize manufacturing processes with energy and capital.
Others emphasize the role played by institutions in the United Kingdom, while some consider innovative ideas, as a result of increased interactions between growing and densely populated populations.
Another interesting theory is that economic historian Joel Mucker, in his 2016 book The Culture of Growth, argues that broader cultural change paved the way for the Industrial Revolution.
Prominent British thinkers, such as Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, advocated a progressive view of the world centered on the idea of the importance of science and experimentation in increasing human well-being.
Although convincing, until recently, Mucker ’ s theory was nothing but a theory.
But an impressive paper published last month by a group of economists demonstrates this argument.
The researchers analyzed the content of 173,031 books printed in England between 1500 and 1900, and tracked the frequency of changes in the terms used, using them as evidence of the cultural concepts that prevailed.
Researchers found a marked increase in the use of terms related to progress and innovation, beginning in the early 17th century.
This supports the idea that "cultural evolution in the orientation towards scientific potential partly explains the British Industrial Revolution and its economic breakthrough."
To see if that applied to other countries, she adapted and extended their analysis to include Spain, which fought economic competition with Britain until the 17th century but lagged behind.
Using the data of millions of digitized books in the Google Gram project, I found that the boom in discussions about progress in British books occurred almost two centuries before the boom in Spain, reflecting the trends of economic development in both countries.
It ’ s not just about people talking about progress as their countries move forward, culture developed in both countries before growth accelerated, but the discovery of the important roles language and culture play in stimulating economic development has had a profound impact on the West today.
As long as the line of analysis is straight up to the present day, a startling scene appears to us.
In the past 60 years, the West has been moving away from a culture of progress and towards a culture of caution, anxiety and risk-aversion, with economic growth slowing in parallel over the same period.
The frequency of use of terms related to progress, improvement, and the future has decreased by about 25% since the 1960s, while the use of terms related to threats, risks, and anxiety has become many times more common.
It may not be a coincidence that the simultaneous use of language associated with caution is growing, but rather an equal and opposite force that works against growth and progress.
Roxandra Teslow, one of a growing group of writers focusing on progress and its relationship to science, economics and politics, believes that the growing skepticism of technology and the rise of zero-sum thinking in contemporary society is one of the defining ideological challenges of our time today.
Rebalancing priorities, from timeless progress to caution, may be seen by some as a good thing, but a catastrophic mistake.
Along with economic growth, we have been driven to advance modern medicine, longer and healthier lives, abundant food supplies, a significant reduction in poverty rates, and more and less expensive renewable energy.
Therefore, the challenges facing our world today can be solved by focusing more on progress, not reducing it.
Collective conflicts, exploitation and suffering have dominated the pre-industrial world, and if we want to avoid decadence, the champions of innovation, growth and abundance must overcome the preachers of doom.
MENAFN08012024000110011019ID1107697886
Legal Disclaimer:
MENA Financial Services Network provides information "as is" without any representations or warranties...
This disclaims our responsibility for the privacy practices or content of the sites included in our network, including images and videos.
For any queries regarding the use and reuse of this source of information, please contact the provider of the above article.

"Some individuals may be resistant to new technologies due to growing skepticism and zero-sum thinking, believing that progress and technological advancements are not always beneficial."

"Some people may resist new technologies due to concerns about losing human autonomy and decision-making power to artificial intelligence, potentially leading to a 'digital dictatorship'."

Title:

Content: "Dissent of Dictatorship": The "Digital Dictatorship" era of artificial intelligence as the new oracle, the most terrible is probably the collapse of the community.
Photo Credit: iStock
What we want you to know is
Democracy – especially in modern times, can be said to be a breeding ground for dictators.
Therefore, the book believes that modern people living in a democratic society need to review the history of dictatorship and further consider the relationship between dictatorship and modern democracy, which is the best way to prevent the deterioration of democracy.
(in Japanese).
Chapter 15: The Future of Digital Dictatorship
The epidemic deprives the meaning of "freedom"
Since the pandemic of the new coronavirus pneumonia in 2020, the lives of many people around the world have completely changed.
Infectious diseases can be described as extreme “equality ” in a sense, which deprives people of all kinds of freedoms regardless of income, race or gender.
This is where we stand now and try to explore the politics of the COVID-19 era.
In eighteenth-century France, Benjamin Constant, a thinker and novelist, in his speech entitled “The Freedom of the Modern Man and the Freedom of the Ancient Man ”, mentioned that the freedom of the ancients was“ not a slave, ” as opposed to self-practice, and that the freedom of the modern man was “the enjoyment of the rights of the individual. ”
The ancient man's "not a slave" means not to serve his master, which means that he can decide things according to his own personal will.
However, it is doubtful whether it is equivalent to the modern definition of "freedom".
In most cases, their participation in national and official decision-making is limited.
In the city-states of ancient Greece, only a small number of citizens other than slaves were able to participate in direct democracy.
Moreover, while “direct participation ” sounds good at first glance, it can only be practiced at the expense of time spent enjoying a personal life.
By handing politics over to elected representatives (politicians), modern people have the right to free time and to participate in general direction decisions through electoral voting.
I think of the primitive state of humanity as described in Johan Huizinga ’ s Homo Ludens.
Modern people can exchange their time for personal freedom by means of a representative system and use it for fun.
And many modern people who are completely incomparable to ancient times have gained this kind of “freedom. ”
However, what we are limited by the pneumonia epidemic is precisely this kind of "modern freedom": we cannot travel outside, we cannot meet people we want to meet, and we must "self-discipline" when it is not necessary or urgent to go out.
Especially for modern people living in advanced countries, the freedoms they used to enjoy are being threatened on a scale not seen since World War II.
Why are people deprived of their freedom? Because this is the most effective way to combat infectious diseases.
In other words, in an emergency like a pandemic, it is most effective to make quick, powerful decisions that restrict our freedom, and a dictatorial political system has the advantage in this regard, leaving us in a dilemma that we can ’ t find answers to.
The "medicine" that could turn into a tragedy.
I think now is not the time to completely evade dictatorship, but to adopt a partial, limited dictatorship, and the history of the republican system is a reminder.
As I mentioned in Part II, the Roman republic attempted to defend itself against dictatorship in all its aspects, but it also concentrated power in the hands of the dictator in the event of national events, giving him considerable autocratic power.
In my view, they designed this system of limiting the length of the term, prohibiting reelection, and reporting after leaving office, which can be said to be an ingenious condition for authoritarianism to exist.
Dictatorship does have its disadvantages, so I don ’ t rashly praise it.
For example, the Communist Party of China ’ s suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and the Uyghur Autonomous Region in Xinjiang is, of course, open to criticism.
Modern politicians, at least those who claim to be democratic countries, are in the structure of multiple checks and balances of power; but many of the most senior people use clever control of the flow of money and people, so that this structure of checks and balances is reduced to an empty form.
In addition, it is also necessary to pay attention to whether the most senior people in the country have a tendency to extend their terms of office, etc. History tells us that the corruption of the dictatorship is due to the absolute need to establish a mechanism to limit it.
The people do not have to think or make decisions on their own – this is one of the characteristics of a dictatorship. If this “medicine ” is misused, it will lead to tragedy.
In order to prevent tragedy, we must learn from history now.
Is it really good to deny "factional politics"?
Of course, we should consider the idea that dictatorships are basically harmful and dangerous, and that important matters should be decided by consensus among groups.
On the other hand, it is also important to understand the problems and pitfalls of democracies.
Democracy is essentially populism, and it is better to say that it is populism than to say that it is populism.
With this in mind, we should embrace the mindset of learning the virtues of authoritarianism and republicanism in order to make politics as good as possible.
When I visited Europe, I saw their television coverage and admired the extremely detailed descriptions of politicians.
Even though they were born into a world of debating discourse, and it is not unusual for them to speak like this, I can feel their thoughts as men of knowledge.
In contrast, what about Japanese politicians? It would be good if they only forked the question, and some even threatened journalists who asked questions.
Journalists are also an important part of the checks and balances of power, and with this attitude to their politicians, it is natural not to be called a person of insight and discipline.
However, the people do not seem to attach much importance to this issue, and it may be that one day Japan will suddenly fall into dictatorship.
I am not an expert in Japanese politics, but I think it has nothing to do with the end of factional politics.
Today ’ s Japan, when it comes to “factional politics, ” will probably be regarded as an absolute bad thing, but it should not be just bad.
The Roman Senate is typical of “factional politics ”: they form factios in response to concerns and opinions, and like-minded people ponder their arguments within the party and confront party comrades who disagree — a scenario we often read.
In Japan, the faction is nothing more than a group of politicians with the same goal in mind, discussing policies, discussing ideas, developing ideas, and so on.
Even when they raise money individually, consult with each other (or rather the power struggle around the prime minister ’ s throne), they check and balance each other, and there is a sense of tension within the faction.
And under the effect of this tension, they will carry out a certain degree of talent cultivation in order to enhance the strength of the faction.
However, since Japan switched to the system of small electoral districts and began to implement the administrative party subsidy system, factionalism has gradually disappeared.
Politicians no longer think about their own characteristics, just listen to the party, and since then become more and more like a kind of "office worker", and then go on like this, I think it will be a great loss to Japan.
It is not enough to rely on a "legal society" (Gesellschaft), but also a "polite society" (Gemeinschaft) in which discussions can be freely and actively conducted and internal partners can coordinate with each other.
Therefore, at the level of this "polite society" organization or space formation, factional politics also played a certain role.
Excluding factional politics may be tantamount to weakening some of the senatorial style, and politicians will lose the opportunity to hone their insights.
Things to Consider in the Age of Digital Dictatorship
If you want to explore modern autocracy, you can not ignore the argument of the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari.
In his recent book 21 Lessons, he points out that the era of digital dictatorship is coming.
In recent years, due to rapid advances in information technology and biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI) is far more efficient and accurate than humans.
And robots, drones in various fields to replace human work is becoming more and more common.
Harari mentioned that the same thing will happen in the political world next, that is, there may be a “digital dictatorship ” in which artificial intelligence decides everything.
People in ancient times always listened to oracles or scriptures, and these are things that must not be reversed.
At some point, however, the human mind began to override the oracle — I think the dividing line was around a thousand BC, Harari said centuries ago.
No matter when the demarcation point is, in Harari ’ s argument, humanity has advanced into the era of artificial intelligence as the new oracle.
In my opinion, the problems arising from digital dictatorships will be much more serious than human dictatorships, and perhaps the most frightening is that communities are about to collapse.
Because the need for consensus has diminished, from national governments to local assemblies, people no longer have to gather to decide anything.
The existential value of all communities can be shaken, and people will act in accordance with sound decisions made by AI.
Further, the differing legal concepts of Europe and China alone may be clearly projected in the direction of digital authoritarianism.
Europe has followed the tradition of the Roman law: first, rules are made to outlaw those who violate the rules and do bad things; in China, the opposite is true: people tend to think that "bad is why they should be punished."
Lu Xun's "The True Story of Ah Q" is a symbol of the above Chinese thinking: Ah Q was sentenced to death at the end of the story, and the current public opinion is actually that "Ah Q is bad, and being shot is evidence of his bad: How can he be shot if he is not bad?"
When the "digital dictatorship" style of values comes, if the idea of "punishment for bad" is used to respond, I am afraid that there will be many problems: for example, whether there will be a judgment basis that "failure to comply with the judgment of artificial intelligence is bad and should be punished" is a rather profound but disturbing question.
Lessons to learn from history at this moment
It is indeed possible to make fairly correct judgements by practicing a “digital dictatorship ” with AI.
In this way, some people may think that “digital dictatorships are better ”, just as Plato affirmed the philosopher kings in the past.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, one of the characteristics of dictatorships is that each person does not have to make his own decisions, which in a sense is more “relaxed ”.
If the accuracy of AI judgments is high enough, it is undeniable that people will naturally move in the direction of comfort.
The history to date has tended to emphasize the bad side of the dictator, especially the cases of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao Zedong in the 20th century, which have led to much criticism of the dictatorship.
If there is a digital dictatorship, how will people judge it?
This could be a serious problem in the future, and Harari himself seems pessimistic about it.
But Harari also makes the point that if artificial intelligence can replace human work, people will have more time.
And I think it ’ s very important to spend this time on parenting, hobbies, etc., and to create new communities, so that even in the age of artificial intelligence, it doesn ’ t lose the connection between people.
The development of digitization and the popularization of artificial intelligence has allowed people to exchange more time to create new communities, which actually coincides with the ideal of communism.
The ideal state of communism is that people can work in the morning and pursue their interests in the afternoon when they are more productive.
From the history of the 20th century, we can see that the attempts of socialism and communism have failed.
However, this refers to the failure of socialism and communism based on “equality ”. If we take“ freedom ” as the benchmark of socialism and communism, there may be other possibilities, and it may be pushed in the direction of digital dictatorship.
Think about it, the “civil society ” of ancient Greece and Rome was founded on the premise that slaves served as the working class.
With slaves in charge of labor, wealthy people were able to immerse themselves in their interests and pleasures.
It may be possible to do this now with the use of technologies such as digitalization, artificial intelligence, and robotics.
Is it really possible? Or, what are the problems that will arise when we actually achieve that state?
In fact, the study of ancient Greece and ancient Rome is an unexpected shortcut.
In the previous book, Harari used the flood of the Nile River in ancient society to compare the great changes that will come in the future.
The Nile River flood is not something that a single tribe can do to stop, so it requires a collective response from all tribes.
That is, from now on, our thinking is no longer confined to one country, but on a global scale.
His point of view is profound, and the lessons of ancient history should teach us how to explore related problems and challenges.
History can provide great wisdom as we explore the future.
Based on this, we should not do this foolish thing, even if there are some opinions within the education administration that despise ancient history, pre-modern history.
In order to cope with the inevitable social changes of digitization, artificial intelligence, and the spread of robots, we must learn the history of dictatorships, democracies, republics — that ’ s what I want to emphasize, and this book concludes with that.
The Dissent of Dictatorship: Why did Plato reject democracy and instead advocate the “dictatorship ” of the philosopher king?
Book Introduction
Dissent from Dictatorship: From Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic to Modern Dictatorship, Eight Flags Culture Publishing
Author: The Village Ling II (Hangul, Japanese:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Translator: Li Weilu
• momo online bookstore
• Enter TNL83 at Pubu E-Bookstore checkout to enjoy 83% off sitewide (excluding some items, such as physical, adult and designated items, cannot be combined with other offers)
• If you purchase the book through the links above, Key Review Network will receive a score profit from it.
Dictatorship, not so bad as you think!
Democracy is not as good as you think!
Democratic dictatorship, on both sides, the President of the United States and the leader of North Korea say they serve the people!
The key is not to choose one or two, but to distinguish between what is a false democracy and what is a true dictatorship!
Let ’ s look back at history and think about how democracy has controlled dictatorships, or why it has become a slave to dictators.
This book will show you that the good or bad choice between democracy and dictatorship is actually a fake issue!
An in-depth history of political philosophy.
Taiwan ’ s Deepening of Democracy Must Read Common Sense
• Ancient Athens overthrew autocracy and established democracy, why did it decline and despotism return in less than a hundred years?
Why did the Roman Republic allow the existence of autocratic power?
How can we prevent the dictator from taking control of the government?
• Since dictatorship cannot be eradicated, Plato believes that it is only through elite education that good dictators can be produced?
• Democracy needs checks and balances, so no matter how good the dictator is, the people will still be dissatisfied?
From the moment that democracy was born two thousand years ago, it was in a difficult relationship with dictatorship.
Whether it is ancient Athens or Rome, or today, the most important task of a democratic society is to think about the dissent of dictatorship!
In the era of democracy, it is even more necessary to understand what dictatorship is!
Today is an era of democracy, with the United States, China, and even North Korea claiming to be a democracy.
Although the US president is elected by the people, his power is greater than that of any dictator in history and in the past. Although the North Korean leader is a dictator with absolute power, he still has to retain various public opinion organs that symbolize democracy to prove the legitimacy of the dictatorship.
Democracy and dictatorship, whether in the United States, North Korea or anywhere in the world, are two sides of the same coin.
Therefore, looking back at history, it is often found that dictatorship is the “dissent ” of democracy, creating a dark side of democracy that seems unreliable and dangerous.
It is no wonder that former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of politics – except in the worst ways we have tried it. ”
Will the “bad ” of democracy never change, and will the future once again fall into the depths of populism and dictatorship?
Dictatorship is not a question of right or wrong!
How did dictators rise in Athenian democracy? Why did the Roman Republic allow the existence of dictators? Why did the President of the United States have the power to veto Congress?
This book with in-depth and simple text, a brief but brief review of the history of the evolution of dictatorship, from ancient Athens to Rome, to the rise of totalitarian politics in modern Europe, all the way to the digital technology of today.
The Athenian and Roman republics are two of the most representative forms of government in history against the tyranny of dictatorship, but it is worth considering that while they overthrew the dictators, they did not deny the virtues of dictatorship — its decisiveness and efficiency in times of crisis — and they preserved them and used them cautiously.
However, the weakness of dictatorship – the concentration of power in the hands of a few or a single person – is thus preserved in the DNA of a democratic republic, which can trigger populist tyranny at certain moments (such as war, natural disasters, and plague) and lead to political failure.
This is even more evident in modern European politics after the French Revolution.
Democracy – especially in modern times, can be said to be a breeding ground for dictators.
Therefore, the book believes that modern people living in a democratic society need to review the history of dictatorship and further consider the relationship between dictatorship and modern democracy, which is the best way to prevent the deterioration of democracy.
Democracy and dictatorship, in the actual political operation, has never been a good or bad "right and wrong" issue.
However, the rise of populism often leads the people to fall into the absolute standard of good and evil, leading to the deterioration of democracy, and ultimately the absolute power to judge good and evil is in the hands of the dictator.
Throughout history, the overthrow of dictatorships by the people has often been the beginning, not the end, of the story.
Let ’ s go back to the moment when democracy was born two thousand years ago and start thinking about how democracy coexisted with a dictator and why it became a slave to a dictator.
Editor-in-Chief: Weng Shihang
Editor-in-chief: Wang Zupeng
Tags:

"Some individuals may resist new technologies due to concerns about the erosion of individual autonomy and the concentration of power in the hands of a centralized authority or technocracy."

"Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of AI technology, which has the potential to replace human labor in various tasks such as document processing, email management, and content generation."

"Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of generative artificial intelligence, a modern technology."

Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of artificial intelligence (AI) due to concerns about its potential dangers, and this includes prominent figures like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking.

Some people are labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of modern technology, particularly AI, due to its potential impact on jobs and society.

"Some people in the 21st century may be labeled as Luddites for being skeptical of modern technologies such as automation, cybernization, unmanned vehicles, chatbots, and neural networks, due to concerns about job loss or replacement."

The opposition to new technologies in the 21st century may be driven by concerns about job security, as automation and AI tools can potentially replace human workers, making it less likely for them to be hired.

The opposition to new technologies can be driven by concerns such as job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and perceived threats to livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites.

People may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security and the potential for automation to replace their jobs or lead to lower salaries.