21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and cultural values, reflecting the historical labor struggle of the original Luddite movement.

21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and cultural or religious values, as seen in the ultra-Orthodox community's opposition to cell phones.

"The 21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns about job replacement, loss of control, and cultural values, similar to the historical Luddite movement that opposed mass production methods that made their skills obsolete."

"The 21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job replacement, fear of job loss, and loss of control and autonomy, which are exacerbated by the increasing use of AI tools that can perform tasks quickly and efficiently, leading to a reduction in employment opportunities."

Andrew Luck prefers a flip phone due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, highlighting that one doesn't have to be connected 24/7.

Resistance to new technologies can be contributed by regulatory pressures and lack of awareness, as seen in the example of the new law where people are still not aware of its details despite its implementation.

Resistance to new technologies can be driven by regulatory pressures and lack of awareness, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox community's resistance to cell phones, where a committee controls and approves devices, illustrating the complexities of technological adoption.

People may be resistant to new technologies due to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and fear of job replacement, which is consistent with the historical context of the Luddite movement.

The Luddite opposition to new technology is rooted in the fear of job loss and the protection of workers' rights, as evident from the historical context of the Luddite revolt.

The Luddites' opposition to new technology was driven by the potential negative impact on their jobs and working conditions, and this reasoning can be applied to the 21st century context.

Luddite opposition to new technology is often driven by the fear of job loss, as workers may feel threatened by automation and technological change.

The Luddite opposition to new technology was primarily driven by concerns over labor practices, including fear of job loss and the desire for fair wages, rather than a simple reaction to new technologies.

The Luddite opposition to new technology is driven by the fear of job loss, a concern that is still relevant in the 21st century with the rise of automation and technological advancements.

"Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society and the environment."

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about technological unemployment and its potential to create a large population of unskilled and unemployed individuals.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear of job loss or negative impact on working conditions, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job loss, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites, where new technologies and methods of mass production led to the obsolescence of certain skills and jobs.

The fear of job loss is a significant reason for opposing new technology, as it has the potential to replace human workers with automated systems and artificial intelligence.

The fear of job loss is a significant reason for opposing new technology, as it can lead to job displacement and automation.

The fear of job loss is a common reason for opposing new technology, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and still relevant in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was actually a labor movement fighting for workers' rights and jobs, rather than being against technology itself.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the use of technology to exploit workers, rather than being against technology itself. This historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day resistance to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the introduction of new machines, which they believed were threatening their jobs and transferring wealth from workers to employers. Understanding this historical context can help in addressing concerns about new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the introduction of new machinery, which they believed threatened their jobs. This historical context can help understand the reasons behind resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite movement was primarily concerned with labor practices, seeking to ensure that machines produced high-quality goods and employed trained workers with fair wages, rather than simply opposing new technologies.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control and manage people, rather than to improve their lives.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control and manage individuals, serving the interests of a ruling oligarchy rather than the well-being of the individual.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control individuals, and this fear is driven by concerns about the potential for governments and corporations to use technology to exert control and suppress dissent.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society with centralized control and automation, leading to potential loss of individual rights and employment.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology controls human life, as implied by the concept of the 'Great Reset doctrine' and the 'new green technocracy'.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change, causing people to be cautious and hesitant to adopt new technologies or ways of working.

"Economic crises can lead to fear, which is a major driver of resistance to change, and this fear can be exploited by some individuals for their own gain."

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, and its development is part of the larger trend of rapid high-tech advancement that is changing people's lives and potentially threatening human control.

"Famous figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence, highlighting concerns about its impact on society and human well-being."

Famous figures such as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of AI, contributing to a modern neo-Luddist impulse.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes and potential restrictions on freedom of speech, as government departments may attach warnings on subjective judgment.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes, as seen in the case of Sea Rocket and the Ocean City City Council, highlighting the need for careful consideration and planning when implementing new technologies or services.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes, as different parties may have varying interpretations of the rules and regulations governing their use.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to issues like regulatory disputes, stemming from concerns about self-interest or protection of traditional ways of working.

The introduction of new technologies can lead to regulatory disputes and opposition from groups who feel threatened by the changes, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox sector's resistance to certain cell phones.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, recognizing that these changes could be used against them in their context as workers.

"Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as they may perceive these changes as a threat to their jobs or livelihood, similar to the historical Luddites who resisted the introduction of machinery during the Industrial Revolution."

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, fearing that it may threaten their job security or traditional skills, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and modern-day resistance to technological change.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as they may feel that the changes threaten their own interests or status.

Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox community's resistance to a cell phone store that refused to comply with their standards.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, where the culture of growth is declining, and some individuals are resistant to new technology, similar to the historical Luddites.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, with a growing culture of caution, anxiety, and risk-aversion, and a corresponding slowdown in economic growth.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the western world, driven by disruptive forces such as secularization, intellectualism, and mass media, which can be seen as a parallel to the resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, as evident from the decline of Western civilization and the resistance to new technologies.

21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and cultural values, reflecting the historical labor struggle of the original 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 resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and cultural or religious values, as seen in the ultra-Orthodox community's opposition to cell phones.

Title:

Content: In the ultra-Orthodox area of   Jerusalem, a cell phone store caught fire
On the night of Saturday to Sunday, a cell phone store caught fire on Malki Israel Street in the ultra-Orthodox district of Geula in Jerusalem.
The store, which is called Von Kosher, has suffered in the past from a series of demonstrations organized against it by the ultra-Orthodox after the owner of the store refused to buy the kosher certificate of the "Committee of Rabbis for Communications".
Store owner Yitzhak Deri said today that he considers it a deliberate arson and "ultra-Orthodox protection", and added that a representative of the same rabbinical committee recently took his kosher certificate from him.
Damage from the fire was also caused to retail outlets located next to the burnt shop.
The Jerusalem District Fire and Rescue Authority reported: “At about 4: 00 a.m., the Jerusalem Fire Brigade ’ s hotline received a report of a fire in a store in a 2-storey residential complex on Malki Israel Street.
Four brigades and a high-altitude crane from Uma station arrived on the scene.
Arrived at the place of the brigades revealed a fire in the store of cellular communications. "
No people were injured as a result of the fire.
An investigative team was sent to the scene.
Police believe the fire has signs of arson.
The cell phone war on the ultra-Orthodox street has been going on for a long time.
The confrontation involves cell phone shop owners and kosher controllers on behalf of the "Rabbinical Committee for Communications", which must approve every device sold among the ultra-Orthodox sector and manage contacts with companies that want to sell kosher cell phones in the ultra-Orthodox sector.
Recently, there have been many protests in ultra-Orthodox cities against cell phone stores that refused to pay for the kosher products of the "Committee of Rabbis", demonstrations that over time have become violent and aggressive, and led to the personal persecution of various store owners.
SHARE
ALL BY SUBJECT
COMMENTARIES
PARTNER NEWS
Acquaintance
WE ARE ON FACEBOOK

"The 21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns about job replacement, loss of control, and cultural values, similar to the historical Luddite movement that opposed mass production methods that made their skills obsolete."

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 resist new technology due to concerns such as job replacement, fear of job loss, and loss of control and autonomy, which are exacerbated by the increasing use of AI tools that can perform tasks quickly and efficiently, leading to a reduction in employment opportunities."

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.

Andrew Luck prefers a flip phone due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, highlighting that one doesn't have to be connected 24/7.

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

Resistance to new technologies can be contributed by regulatory pressures and lack of awareness, as seen in the example of the new law where people are still not aware of its details despite its implementation.

Title:

Content: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Editors
I'm sorry.
Mohamad Elbaz
Editor-in-Chief
Wael Lotfy
The mascot of the periodic book.
One of the worst things that the recent economic crises have produced is what we might call “fear of the next. ”
The rich of war.
The rich of crises who do not care about the matter of this world except to collect money, and jump on the life of the country and the people found it an opportunity.
A chance that may not be repeated in the new century.
That's their habit.
They will not fill it.
Even in the time of the plague, we found someone who traded in coffins.
These are the facts of history that we have read in previous times, perhaps to entertain us.
And these are everyone we know - not by name a condition - but they appear, and strongly, as an organized team with a head and two men in such situations..
A hundred years ago, exactly eight years ago, when we called it, or the books called it, the time of the Great Depression, they appeared and disappeared after the world economy was recovering, but they soon returned to the days of World War II.
And so it is.
appearance of these.
It drives people to fear.
This is the biggest problem for any government.
It is not important to increase the price of a commodity.
Or the value of a currency goes down.
Or stop working at an institution.
The important thing is that people don ’ t get scared.
Unfortunately, this is what a handful of people around us are doing these days, so that they have the opportunity to collect the spoils because they know no way to do so except by promoting “fear ”.
Fear of the next.
Any sensible government in the world knows that.
In such cases, they are prepared with their mechanisms that restrain them.
Not by repeating false news or promoting false numbers, but by hunting down all that is illegal and illegal and curtailing and deterring those who traffic in people ’ s lives and futures.
What has happened, and is still happening, in Egypt in recent days and in a crude manner in the markets of cars and commodities - some commodities - and gold markets is clear evidence of this war waged by these « mercenaries » for their own benefit only.
And the government did well when it came out to announce to everyone that it knew...
It has mechanisms that can control it.
But does the government have the same speed as they do?
The government has recently introduced an important initiative for workers abroad.
Exceptionally, those of them who have a bank account in the country where they reside have the opportunity to buy a car and bring it to Egypt under a set of conditions.
At the very least, analysts expected that this would contribute to saving a number of millions of dollars needed by the Egyptian market.
At the same time, Egyptians abroad get a visa to bring a car on favorable terms.
However, some of those who set these conditions were unaware that resistance to such initiatives would be substantial.
A lot of people follow this file.
They recommended some amendments, especially regarding the equality of Egyptians abroad.
away from the country in which they live.
In Europe or in the Gulf.
The bank account and the three months, I think, is not impossible.
The purpose is clear and clear.
Contribute first to saving the dollar in the markets, and put a reasonable number of cars so that we can face those who speculate in the prices of cars from the owners of dealerships and others and the owners of the game « overprice » and others.
This story is just a model.
And the most important and biggest model that we fear will be hit by what happened to the car initiative is the law of public shops..
The law, which began to be discussed and detailed more than three years ago, was not sufficiently understood by the people on the street.
Despite the announcement of the start of its implementation a week ago, those we meet in our streets from the owners of shops and establishments are still not aware of the details of the law.
Despite the appearance of MP Mohammed Fayoumi in more than one television program, the law with its branches and details is still vague, and most importantly the law..
How to apply it...
Especially by local officials.
Everyone who has dealt with the locals knows that the employees in most of these places do not recognize the law.
What law...
If you argue that the Flemish law in the Flemish article confirms the Flemish question, he will say to you in a decisive voice: "I am not an invitation to the law.
I am a book owner. ”
In short...
The local masters need, first of all, to know the details of this law.
It is not reasonable to reach them in every resort and village of a periodical book for every detail in a huge law of this size and deals with the lives of people and the movement of markets directly..
The Council of Ministers is quickly required to issue its decisive and categorical orders to those small officials to implement the law strictly without doing so, as people no longer have a chest to accommodate the arguments of those who used to disrupt the boats « Sayrah » for the purpose of the same Jacob sometimes, ignorance and brain magnification in most cases.
What I meant by referring to the law of public places..
Egyptian cars abroad.
The government needs a “double effort ” to confront the current, which seeks its own interests in order to exploit a crisis that affects the whole world.
The government has announced that it will face decisively any "commercial store" that does not announce prices.
Who determines it?
Shops and everyone knows.
Every day you set a different price.
Neither the people nor the shopkeepers know who they are.
Shopping alone won ’ t be enough.
Informing people of the seriousness of non-compliance may help control the situation.
These days will surely pass.
Just like other days before her.
But we need a different consciousness.
Betting on the Egyptian outlook and their ability to control the rhythm of their expenses in the face of these motorists needs someone to support them.
The government and the people together in the face of these people.
Confronting global and local market fluctuations at the same time.
Before all else, knowledge remains.
Information and providing it in real time remains our most important weapon in the confrontation.
Egypt is fine and its people are fine
But those with bad debts will not easily miss the opportunity and besiege them is a necessity.
They are cowardly in any confrontation.
Thieves do not live under the light of the sun, and the next is better with God ’ s help and protection.

Resistance to new technologies can be driven by regulatory pressures and lack of awareness, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox community's resistance to cell phones, where a committee controls and approves devices, illustrating the complexities of technological adoption.

People may be resistant to new technologies due to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and fear of job replacement, which is consistent with the historical context of the Luddite movement.

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

The Luddite opposition to new technology is rooted in the fear of job loss and the protection of workers' rights, as evident from the historical context of the Luddite revolt.

The Luddites' opposition to new technology was driven by the potential negative impact on their jobs and working conditions, and this reasoning can be applied to the 21st century context.

Luddite opposition to new technology is often driven by the fear of job loss, as workers may feel threatened by automation and technological change.

The Luddite opposition to new technology was primarily driven by concerns over labor practices, including fear of job loss and the desire for fair wages, rather than a simple reaction to new technologies.

The Luddite opposition to new technology is driven by the fear of job loss, a concern that is still relevant in the 21st century with the rise of automation and technological advancements.

"Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society and the environment."

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

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about technological unemployment and its potential to create a large population of unskilled and unemployed individuals.

A common reason for opposing new technology is the fear of job loss or negative impact on working conditions, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job loss, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites, where new technologies and methods of mass production led to the obsolescence of certain skills and jobs.

The fear of job loss is a significant reason for opposing new technology, as it has the potential to replace human workers with automated systems and artificial intelligence.

The fear of job loss is a significant reason for opposing new technology, as it can lead to job displacement and automation.

The fear of job loss is a common reason for opposing new technology, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and still relevant in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was actually a labor movement fighting for workers' rights and jobs, rather than being against technology itself.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the use of technology to exploit workers, rather than being against technology itself. This historical context can inform our understanding of modern-day resistance to new technologies.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the introduction of new machines, which they believed were threatening their jobs and transferring wealth from workers to employers. Understanding this historical context can help in addressing concerns about new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the introduction of new machinery, which they believed threatened their jobs. This historical context can help understand the reasons behind resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

The Luddite movement was primarily concerned with labor practices, seeking to ensure that machines produced high-quality goods and employed trained workers with fair wages, rather than simply opposing new technologies.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control and manage people, rather than to improve their lives.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control and manage individuals, serving the interests of a ruling oligarchy rather than the well-being of the individual.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology is used to control individuals, and this fear is driven by concerns about the potential for governments and corporations to use technology to exert control and suppress dissent.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society with centralized control and automation, leading to potential loss of individual rights and employment.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology controls human life, as implied by the concept of the 'Great Reset doctrine' and the 'new green technocracy'.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change, causing people to be cautious and hesitant to adopt new technologies or ways of working.

"Economic crises can lead to fear, which is a major driver of resistance to change, and this fear can be exploited by some individuals for their own gain."

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, and its development is part of the larger trend of rapid high-tech advancement that is changing people's lives and potentially threatening human control.

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

"Famous figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence, highlighting concerns about its impact on society and human well-being."

Famous figures such as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates have been labeled as Luddites for warning about the dangers of AI, contributing to a modern neo-Luddist impulse.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes and potential restrictions on freedom of speech, as government departments may attach warnings on subjective judgment.

Title:

Content: The National Communications and Communication Commission (NCC) yesterday passed the draft Digital Intermediary Services Act, which will include the provision of digital intermediary services into the regulatory target, and control Facebook, YouTube, IG and other five categories of platforms.
In this regard, KMT legislator Lai Shibao bitterly criticized, the NCC will extend the government's hand into the Internet world, just like the practice of the communist country, whistling all unfavorable ruling party speech can be paid on a piece-by-piece basis, harming Zhongliang to report non-members of our clan into the daily public affairs of the net army.
Lai Shibao said that a few days ago, Su Zhenchang gave instructions on the election situation, and various ministries began to tighten the screws and activate the relevant policies for the election.
When the Commissioner of Police was replaced, he declared that it was the main task to prevent foreign forces and funds from interfering in the election, using false information to interfere with the election, and preventing election violence.
In short, everything is tied to the election, that is, in the eyes of the government, there is nothing else except the election. Although the epidemic has not ended, it is more important to get the government.
Lai Shibao pointed out that the NCC is ostensibly an independent agency, in fact, like the affiliated organization of the ruling party, and immediately launched the "Digital Intermediary Services Bill", which is intended to extend the government's hand into the Internet world, much like the practice of Communist countries to control the Internet world's speech and openly suppress freedom of speech.
According to Lai Shibao, the court has the final ruling power, but in fact, as long as someone reports, the platform operators will be examined through a self-regulatory mechanism, and government departments can attach warnings on subjective judgment, which is suspected of clamping down on freedom of speech.
Lai Shibao bitterly criticized the identification of false information, and there is an unequal relationship between the government and the people of respect and inferiority, and the Lord and servant.
Originally all ministries used public money to raise the net army, now through this evil law, let the net army more busy hunting witchcraft report, whistling all unfavorable ruling party speech can be paid by piece, cruel reporting of non-members of our race become the net army's daily public duties, let this society more antagonism and tear, all this is to win the election war, there is already a social maintenance law to regulate it is not enough. Strict punishment for Internet users.
# NCC # NUCLEAR # COMMUNITY # DIGITAL

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes, as seen in the case of Sea Rocket and the Ocean City City Council, highlighting the need for careful consideration and planning when implementing new technologies or services.

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.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to regulatory disputes, as different parties may have varying interpretations of the rules and regulations governing their use.

The introduction of new technologies or services can lead to issues like regulatory disputes, stemming from concerns about self-interest or protection of traditional ways of working.

The introduction of new technologies can lead to regulatory disputes and opposition from groups who feel threatened by the changes, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox sector's resistance to certain cell phones.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, recognizing that these changes could be used against them in their context as workers.

"Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as they may perceive these changes as a threat to their jobs or livelihood, similar to the historical Luddites who resisted the introduction of machinery during the Industrial Revolution."

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, fearing that it may threaten their job security or traditional skills, as seen in the historical context of the Luddites and modern-day resistance to technological change.

Someone might oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as they may feel that the changes threaten their own interests or status.

Some individuals may oppose new technologies or ways of working due to self-interest protection, as seen in the example of the ultra-Orthodox community's resistance to a cell phone store that refused to comply with their standards.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, where the culture of growth is declining, and some individuals are resistant to new technology, similar to the historical Luddites.

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.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, with a growing culture of caution, anxiety, and risk-aversion, and a corresponding slowdown in economic growth.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the western world, driven by disruptive forces such as secularization, intellectualism, and mass media, which can be seen as a parallel to the resistance to new technologies in the 21st century.

There has been a shift away from a culture of progress in the Western world, as evident from the decline of Western civilization and the resistance to new technologies.