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.

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job displacement, loss of traditional skills, and the potential negative impact on society, similar to the historical Luddite movement.

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.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about its impact on their jobs and working conditions, rather than being opposed to technology and progress itself.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to job insecurity, opposition to the wealthy elite, or a desire to challenge the status quo, similar to the historical Luddites who rebelled against machinery that threatened their jobs.

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 in the 21st century may be due to the perceived threat of job loss and unemployment, as well as the complexity and uncertainty of new technologies.

People may resist new technologies due to concerns about job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and perceived threats to their livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites.

"Some people may resist new technologies due to concerns about job security and the need for adaptability in a rapidly changing work environment."

Some individuals may resist new technologies due to concerns about the potential negative consequences, such as job loss, decreased human interaction, and increased reliance on machines, reflecting similar concerns held by historical Luddites.

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be driven by a fear of loss of control, disruption of traditional ways of life, or the potential for technology to outpace human wisdom.

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 fear of job loss due to automation, as they believe that new technology threatens their employment.

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.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the recognition of how certain technologies can be used against workers in their context, leading to labor movements against poverty and poor working conditions.

The 21st century Luddites, including my supervisor, may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security and the devaluation of traditional skills, as illustrated by the impact of AI tools on job availability and the shift towards more efficient and cost-effective operations.

People who are opposed to new technologies in the 21st century, referred to as Luddites, may be resistant due to concerns about job security and the impact of automation on their livelihoods, similar to the historical context of the British textile industry in the 19th century.

People who are opposed to new technologies in the 21st century may do so because they fear job displacement and obsolescence of their skills due to automation and AI.

Individuals who may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century are likely those who are concerned about the potential risks and unintended consequences of technological advancement, such as job insecurity, loss of human connection, and increased control by algorithms.

Some individuals in the 21st century may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about their potential consequences, such as job loss or loss of control, similar to the historical Luddites.

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job displacement and the struggle to adapt to new ways of working, as AI tools have made certain tasks quicker and more cost-effective.

"Some individuals may be resistant to new technologies due to fear of job loss, difficulty in adapting to new skills, or a lack of flexibility in learning new information, which can lead to negative consequences such as lower-paying jobs or unemployment."

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be due to concerns about job security, loss of control, and the rapid pace of change, as high-tech development continues to advance and impact various industries.

Understanding the historical context of the Luddites and their opposition to technological progress can provide insights into addressing resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, and understanding this historical context can help address resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

Some people oppose new technology due to the fear of job loss or replacement by automation, a concern that is still relevant today as AI tools increasingly take over tasks previously done by humans.

Some people may oppose new technology due to concerns about job loss and replacement by automation, a fear that is still relevant today with the increasing use of AI and automation in various industries.

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 fear of its potential to control people's lives, exacerbate social problems, and lead to job loss or loss of personal autonomy, as seen in the concerns surrounding the metaverse and its impact on society."

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 a resistance movement against technological change that threatened jobs, and this historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day opposition 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.

"21st century Luddites fear a society where artificial intelligence and digital technologies undermine human autonomy, community cohesion, and decision-making, potentially leading to digital authoritarianism and the collapse of communities."

"21st century Luddites likely fear a society where technological advancements lead to widespread job loss and significant changes in the workforce, echoing the concerns of historical Luddites who opposed the automation of textile mills during the Industrial Revolution."

"21st century Luddites fear a society where technology, such as the metaverse, dominates and isolates individuals, leading to alienation, loss of autonomy, and potentially threatening job security and human connections."

21st century Luddites fear a society where technology has surpassed human control, dictating the direction of human life and leaving individuals without control or a voice.

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.

The fear and resistance to change can be driven by concerns about job security and the impact of technological innovation on one's livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites and their opposition to the automation of textile mills.

People may be resistant to new technologies due to fear of loss of control and disruption to their way of life, similar to the historical Luddites who opposed machinery that threatened their jobs.

"The 21st century Luddites may be opposed to new technologies due to a fear of losing control or being overwhelmed by the rapid pace of technological progress, as well as concerns about the potential negative consequences of unchecked technological advancement."

Fear and resistance to change can arise from a strong sense of loyalty and identity, leading individuals to prioritize their beliefs over rational thinking and reject new ideas or technologies.

People may be opposed to new technologies due to fear of job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and skepticism towards the benefits of new technologies, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and their resistance to technological change.

An example of a new technology that may be opposed is the concept of digital dictatorship, where artificial intelligence replaces human decision-making in the political world.

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.

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job displacement, loss of traditional skills, and the potential negative impact on society, similar to the historical Luddite movement.

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

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.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to concerns about its impact on their jobs and working conditions, rather than being opposed to technology and progress itself.

21st century Luddites may resist new technology due to job insecurity, opposition to the wealthy elite, or a desire to challenge the status quo, similar to the historical Luddites who rebelled against machinery that threatened their jobs.

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 in the 21st century may be due to the perceived threat of job loss and unemployment, as well as the complexity and uncertainty of new technologies.

People may resist new technologies due to concerns about job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and perceived threats to their livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites.

"Some people may resist new technologies due to concerns about job security and the need for adaptability in a rapidly changing work environment."

Some individuals may resist new technologies due to concerns about the potential negative consequences, such as job loss, decreased human interaction, and increased reliance on machines, reflecting similar concerns held by historical Luddites.

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

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be driven by a fear of loss of control, disruption of traditional ways of life, or the potential for technology to outpace human wisdom.

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 fear of job loss due to automation, as they believe that new technology threatens their employment.

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.

A common reason for Luddite opposition to new technology is the recognition of how certain technologies can be used against workers in their context, leading to labor movements against poverty and poor working conditions.

The 21st century Luddites, including my supervisor, may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about job security and the devaluation of traditional skills, as illustrated by the impact of AI tools on job availability and the shift towards more efficient and cost-effective operations.

People who are opposed to new technologies in the 21st century, referred to as Luddites, may be resistant due to concerns about job security and the impact of automation on their livelihoods, similar to the historical context of the British textile industry in the 19th century.

People who are opposed to new technologies in the 21st century may do so because they fear job displacement and obsolescence of their skills due to automation and AI.

Individuals who may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century are likely those who are concerned about the potential risks and unintended consequences of technological advancement, such as job insecurity, loss of human connection, and increased control by algorithms.

Some individuals in the 21st century may be opposed to new technologies due to concerns about their potential consequences, such as job loss or loss of control, similar to the historical Luddites.

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job displacement and the struggle to adapt to new ways of working, as AI tools have made certain tasks quicker and more cost-effective.

"Some individuals may be resistant to new technologies due to fear of job loss, difficulty in adapting to new skills, or a lack of flexibility in learning new information, which can lead to negative consequences such as lower-paying jobs or unemployment."

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be due to concerns about job security, loss of control, and the rapid pace of change, as high-tech development continues to advance and impact various industries.

Understanding the historical context of the Luddites and their opposition to technological progress can provide insights into addressing resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, and understanding this historical context can help address resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

Some people oppose new technology due to the fear of job loss or replacement by automation, a concern that is still relevant today as AI tools increasingly take over tasks previously done by humans.

Some people may oppose new technology due to concerns about job loss and replacement by automation, a fear that is still relevant today with the increasing use of AI and automation in various industries.

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 fear of its potential to control people's lives, exacerbate social problems, and lead to job loss or loss of personal autonomy, as seen in the concerns surrounding the metaverse and its impact on society."

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 a resistance movement against technological change that threatened jobs, and this historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day opposition 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.

"21st century Luddites fear a society where artificial intelligence and digital technologies undermine human autonomy, community cohesion, and decision-making, potentially leading to digital authoritarianism and the collapse of communities."

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:

"21st century Luddites likely fear a society where technological advancements lead to widespread job loss and significant changes in the workforce, echoing the concerns of historical Luddites who opposed the automation of textile mills during the Industrial Revolution."

"21st century Luddites fear a society where technology, such as the metaverse, dominates and isolates individuals, leading to alienation, loss of autonomy, and potentially threatening job security and human connections."

21st century Luddites fear a society where technology has surpassed human control, dictating the direction of human life and leaving individuals without control or a voice.

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.

The fear and resistance to change can be driven by concerns about job security and the impact of technological innovation on one's livelihood, as seen in the historical example of the Luddites and their opposition to the automation of textile mills.

People may be resistant to new technologies due to fear of loss of control and disruption to their way of life, similar to the historical Luddites who opposed machinery that threatened their jobs.

"The 21st century Luddites may be opposed to new technologies due to a fear of losing control or being overwhelmed by the rapid pace of technological progress, as well as concerns about the potential negative consequences of unchecked technological advancement."

Fear and resistance to change can arise from a strong sense of loyalty and identity, leading individuals to prioritize their beliefs over rational thinking and reject new ideas or technologies.

Title:

Content: Freedom Square is your freedom.
* by John
After the Internet entered the era of social platforms, the content is almost entirely generated by users, and individual creators can also compete with corporate brand content on the platform. Even because of more specific settings and humanization, personal creators have more loyal fans than corporate brands, so that individual creators can establish a business model.
Recently, one of the millions of subscription-level influencers who started popularizing science, selling courses on an online fundraising platform, sharing their experiences after receiving 100 hours of psychological counseling, stating that the content is not psychological counseling, but "if you decide to step into counseling, you also hope to serve as a pre-counseling course to help you better clarify and explain your own situation."
The fundraising case was launched less than two weeks ago, and the original target of raising 100,000 yuan has actually reached 3 million.
However, it received 100 hours of psychological counseling experience, and was questioned whether it was able to conduct classes as a precursor to avoid the reality of medical-related legal acts, which formed the latest mystique.
The media also compared the online course of another Internet celebrity, the self-media course, which caused controversy by the use of the "liver and gallbladder stone removal method" and which had originally raised NT $60,000 but sold for more than NT $20 million, is it a double standard of treatment for critics?
In fact, just as the Internet celebrity who opened a psychological counseling class responded to critics, and it is not online, how do you know that there is a problem with the content?
Therefore, the author does not intend to discuss the content of the course, but how to promote the course can make more than 2,000 people pay out.
Fund-raising platform users are willing to buy a single, buy a personal brand, and it is a trusted commodity, that is, according to the brand image or past consumption experience to accumulate a high degree of trust in the brand, the higher the degree of loyalty, the closer the consumer behavior is to the dedication of believers, every consumption is to express loyalty to the brand again.
Therefore, the "100 hours" controversy is meaningless to users who have already paid for it, but it strengthens their self-identity as loyal users.
This behavior pattern is familiar, right? In fact, all kinds of ideological fundamentalists can find behavior patterns.
As I said earlier, I was blind.
Replacing rational thinking with positions and loyalty, the stronger the criticism from the outside world, the stronger the cohesion.
In other words, blindness is the freedom of expression of the individual, is also guaranteed.
However, the freedom to stand up does not mean that you do not have to bear the consequences, and may even have to bear the burden of others, so it is also appropriate to accept criticism from others.
"One hundred hours" controversy, let the Internet celebrities fight, we just look at it, do not have to dance.
(The author is a PhD in Communication from Shihsin University)
No need to smoke, no need to grab, now use the APP to watch the news, guarantee the daily winning point I download the APP
I've added friends, thank you.
Welcome to [Free Commentary]
It's a compliment. Good.
It has been praised, thank you.
Editor 's Choice

People may be opposed to new technologies due to fear of job loss, disruption of traditional ways of working, and skepticism towards the benefits of new technologies, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and their resistance to technological change.

An example of a new technology that may be opposed is the concept of digital dictatorship, where artificial intelligence replaces human decision-making in the political world.