21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and threats to traditional practices, reflecting a broader opposition to technological change.

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, exemplifying the behavior of 21st century Luddites who resist new technology.

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be attributed to a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, as well as factors such as regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century is driven by the fear of job loss, among other reasons, as they believe that new technologies will replace their jobs or reduce their employment opportunities.

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society, the environment, or the economy, reflecting a broader cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion.

"Government initiatives and institutional support can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting education, awareness, and policies that encourage adoption, while also addressing concerns about job security and other issues."

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century may be driven by a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, with fear of job loss being a common reason.

"The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the replacement of human labor with machinery, and this historical context can help understand modern-day resistance to new technologies."

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology dominates life, leading to a loss of autonomy, privacy, and individuality.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change by contributing to a culture of caution and risk-aversion.

21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and threats to traditional practices, reflecting a broader opposition to technological change.

Title:

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

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

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

No. No he has not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Content

2023 Season Tickets On Sale Now!

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

Advertising

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, exemplifying the behavior of 21st century Luddites who resist new technology.

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century may be attributed to a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, as well as factors such as regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

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.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century is driven by the fear of job loss, among other reasons, as they believe that new technologies will replace their jobs or reduce their employment opportunities.

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society, the environment, or the economy, reflecting a broader cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion.

"Government initiatives and institutional support can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting education, awareness, and policies that encourage adoption, while also addressing concerns about job security and other issues."

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century may be driven by a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, with fear of job loss being a common reason.

"The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the replacement of human labor with machinery, and this historical context can help understand modern-day resistance to new technologies."

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology dominates life, leading to a loss of autonomy, privacy, and individuality.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change by contributing to a culture of caution and risk-aversion.


21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and threats to traditional practices, reflecting a broader opposition to technological change.

"The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology stems from concerns about job replacement, loss of control, and cultural values, which are exacerbated by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and automation, potentially leading to a digital dictatorship."

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job replacement, loss of control and autonomy, and threat to traditional practices, as well as cultural or religious values and concerns about censorship and control.

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.

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job replacement, loss of agency and control, and cultural or religious values, rather than a blanket opposition to technology and progress.

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, exemplifying the behavior of 21st century Luddites who resist new technology.

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 in the 21st century may be attributed to a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, as well as factors such as regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and growing skepticism of technology.

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

"Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and concerns over job security, as evident in the historical context of Luddites and the modern-day regulatory mechanisms that can stifle technological adoption."

The resistance to new technologies can be attributed to various factors, including the desire for comfort and familiarity with older technologies, as well as the need to disconnect from the constant demands of modern technology.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century is driven by the fear of job loss, among other reasons, as they believe that new technologies will replace their jobs or reduce their employment opportunities.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job loss, as artificial intelligence and automation replace human workers in various fields.

The Luddite opposition to new technology is driven by the fear of job loss, a concern that remains relevant in the 21st century as new technologies continue to transform the workforce.

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.

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society, the environment, or the economy, reflecting a broader cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion.

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to skepticism and zero-sum thinking, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to progress and innovation."

Social activists and politicians may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, privacy, and government control.

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about government control, censorship, and the suppression of freedom of speech."

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, freedom of speech, and social inequality, as well as the potential for government control and censorship."

"Government initiatives and institutional support can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting education, awareness, and policies that encourage adoption, while also addressing concerns about job security and other issues."

Government initiatives can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting a culture of progress and innovation, which has been declining in the West over the past 60 years.

Government initiatives can play a crucial role in addressing resistance to new technologies by promoting education, supporting workers, and encouraging innovation.

The Luddites, who historically opposed technological progress, have similarities with current critics of new technologies, and government initiatives can help address resistance to new technologies.

The Luddites' resistance to technology was rooted in their concern about its impact on their jobs and working conditions, and similarly, 21st-century individuals may resist new technologies for the same reasons, highlighting the need for government initiatives to address these concerns.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century may be driven by a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, with fear of job loss being a common reason.

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

A common reason for opposing new technology in the 21st century is the fear of job loss, as people worry that they will be replaced by more efficient machines, such as artificial intelligence and robots.

The opposition to new technology can be driven by the fear of job loss, as people may worry that artificial intelligence or automation could replace their work, even if it brings more comfort or free time.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be compared to the historical Luddite movement, where workers resisted technological changes due to the fear of job loss.

"The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the replacement of human labor with machinery, and this historical context can help understand modern-day resistance to new technologies."

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that opposed labor-saving machinery, and 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 machinery that threatened workers' jobs, and this historical context can help us understand the reasons behind resistance to new technologies 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.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology dominates life, leading to a loss of autonomy, privacy, and individuality.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where artificial intelligence and technology have significant control over decision-making, potentially leading to a digital dictatorship.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where digital technologies and AI dominate, potentially collapsing communities and eroding human autonomy.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology controls decision-making and replaces human jobs, as hinted at by the possibility of a digital dictatorship.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society, where technology has a significant control over the society, and they are opposed to new technologies that they believe threaten their jobs and way of life.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change by contributing to a culture of caution and risk-aversion.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change, as people may worry about job security and the impact of new technologies on their livelihoods.

The Luddites' historical resistance to new technologies is similar to the opposition to new technologies in the 21st century, and economic crises can be a leading cause of fear and resistance to change.

Economic crises, such as the global financial crash in 2008, can lead to fear and resistance to change as people may feel that new technologies or ways of working will threaten their jobs or livelihoods.

Economic crises, such as the coronavirus crisis, can lead to fear and resistance to change as people reassess their careers and may be disillusioned with traditional job opportunities.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, as people's attitudes towards progress and new technologies have shifted towards caution and risk-aversion in recent decades.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed due to growing skepticism of technology and the rise of zero-sum thinking in contemporary society.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may face opposition due to concerns about its impact on society and individual privacy.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed due to concerns about government control and suppression of freedom of speech, similar to the historical Luddites' resistance to technological change.

21st century Luddites resist new technology due to concerns such as job loss, loss of control, and threats to traditional practices, reflecting a broader opposition to technological change.

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

"The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology stems from concerns about job replacement, loss of control, and cultural values, which are exacerbated by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and automation, potentially leading to a digital dictatorship."

Title:

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

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job replacement, loss of control and autonomy, and threat to traditional practices, as well as cultural or religious values and concerns about censorship and control.

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 values, reflecting the historical labor struggle of the original Luddite movement.

The 21st century Luddites' resistance to new technology is driven by concerns about job replacement, loss of agency and control, and cultural or religious values, rather than a blanket opposition to technology and progress.

Andrew Luck prefers flip phones due to personal preference, comfort, and a desire to avoid constant connection, exemplifying the behavior of 21st century Luddites who resist new technology.

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 in the 21st century may be attributed to a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, as well as factors such as regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

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.

The resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and growing skepticism of technology.

Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures and lack of awareness.

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

"Resistance to new technologies in the 21st century can be attributed to various factors, including regulatory pressures, lack of awareness, and concerns over job security, as evident in the historical context of Luddites and the modern-day regulatory mechanisms that can stifle technological adoption."

The resistance to new technologies can be attributed to various factors, including the desire for comfort and familiarity with older technologies, as well as the need to disconnect from the constant demands of modern technology.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century is driven by the fear of job loss, among other reasons, as they believe that new technologies will replace their jobs or reduce their employment opportunities.

The Luddite opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be attributed to the fear of job loss, as artificial intelligence and automation replace human workers in various fields.

The Luddite opposition to new technology is driven by the fear of job loss, a concern that remains relevant in the 21st century as new technologies continue to transform the workforce.

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.

Social activists may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about the impact of technology on society, the environment, or the economy, reflecting a broader cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion.

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to skepticism and zero-sum thinking, highlighting the need for a balanced approach to progress and innovation."

Social activists and politicians may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, privacy, and government control.

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about government control, censorship, and the suppression of freedom of speech."

"Some individuals, including social activists, may be opposed to new technologies in the 21st century due to concerns about job security, freedom of speech, and social inequality, as well as the potential for government control and censorship."

"Government initiatives and institutional support can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting education, awareness, and policies that encourage adoption, while also addressing concerns about job security and other issues."

Government initiatives can help address resistance to new technologies by promoting a culture of progress and innovation, which has been declining in the West over the past 60 years.

Government initiatives can play a crucial role in addressing resistance to new technologies by promoting education, supporting workers, and encouraging innovation.

The Luddites, who historically opposed technological progress, have similarities with current critics of new technologies, and government initiatives can help address resistance to new technologies.

The Luddites' resistance to technology was rooted in their concern about its impact on their jobs and working conditions, and similarly, 21st-century individuals may resist new technologies for the same reasons, highlighting the need for government initiatives to address these concerns.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century may be driven by a cultural shift towards caution and risk-aversion, with fear of job loss being a common reason.

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

A common reason for opposing new technology in the 21st century is the fear of job loss, as people worry that they will be replaced by more efficient machines, such as artificial intelligence and robots.

The opposition to new technology can be driven by the fear of job loss, as people may worry that artificial intelligence or automation could replace their work, even if it brings more comfort or free time.

The opposition to new technology in the 21st century can be compared to the historical Luddite movement, where workers resisted technological changes due to the fear of job loss.

"The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that fought against the replacement of human labor with machinery, and this historical context can help understand modern-day resistance to new technologies."

The Luddite revolt was a labor movement that opposed labor-saving machinery, and 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 machinery that threatened workers' jobs, and this historical context can help us understand the reasons behind resistance to new technologies 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.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology dominates life, leading to a loss of autonomy, privacy, and individuality.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where artificial intelligence and technology have significant control over decision-making, potentially leading to a digital dictatorship.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where digital technologies and AI dominate, potentially collapsing communities and eroding human autonomy.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society where technology controls decision-making and replaces human jobs, as hinted at by the possibility of a digital dictatorship.

21st century Luddites fear a technocratic society, where technology has a significant control over the society, and they are opposed to new technologies that they believe threaten their jobs and way of life.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change by contributing to a culture of caution and risk-aversion.

Economic crises can lead to fear and resistance to change, as people may worry about job security and the impact of new technologies on their livelihoods.

The Luddites' historical resistance to new technologies is similar to the opposition to new technologies in the 21st century, and economic crises can be a leading cause of fear and resistance to change.

Economic crises, such as the global financial crash in 2008, can lead to fear and resistance to change as people may feel that new technologies or ways of working will threaten their jobs or livelihoods.

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

Economic crises, such as the coronavirus crisis, can lead to fear and resistance to change as people reassess their careers and may be disillusioned with traditional job opportunities.

Title:

Content: FINANCIAL TIMES
In America...
Anti-Labor is booming, and millions are quitting their jobs.
Some workers still haven ’ t returned to the workforce despite standard vacancies.
Doreen Ford spent ten years working in retail stores in the Boston area and hated it.
So in 2017, when Ford ’ s grandmother suggested she give up her traditional job altogether and use her love of dogs to cover her expenses, she agreed.
Ford is a part-time dog walker, but other than that she hasn ’ t held a traditional job since, and says she ’ s never been happier.
Ford, 30, said, “Usually, at best, the work was useless, at worst it was humiliating and exploitative. ”
Ford was one of the early pioneers of the "anti-labor" movement, which encouraged its followers to work as little as possible in traditional jobs or give up altogether for self-employment, with the goal of prioritizing leisure time.
Ford also oversees anti-labor, an influential topic on Reddit.
Its membership has grown from 180,000 in October 2020 to 1.6 million this month as the coronavirus crisis pushes many to reassess their careers.
The Labor Department reported on Tuesday that huge numbers of Americans left their jobs last year, including 4.5 million in November.
This was the highest rate of resignations since the ministry began monitoring it in 2001.
The data shows that many employees may have left their jobs after receiving better offers.
But the labor force participation rate has fallen below pre-pandemic levels, suggesting some workers are still not returning to the workforce despite record vacancies.
Many may focus on their caregiving responsibilities, or fear COVID-19.
But at least some seem to have been disillusioned with traditional job opportunities during the pandemic, such as Ford.
Their numbers are large enough to prompt Goldman Sachs to warn in a November research note that the anti-labor movement poses a “long-term risk ” to labor force participation.
Ford said, “I think there are a lot of jobs that don ’ t make sense, and they shouldn ’ t exist.
Just doing paperwork for no good reason.
It doesn ’ t really help anyone. ”
Idlers, as members of the anti-labor movement call themselves, believe that people should strive to work as little as possible and prefer to be self-employed.
Many who have stopped work say they run their own small business, such as Ford, or work as few hours as possible in part-time jobs for a living.
According to Ford, some are taking in roommates or raiding garbage containers to get food to reduce their living costs.
The ideology of the anti-labor movement goes back to Marxist texts that suggest that humanity can develop without having to work for a living.
A similar trend has emerged in the popular “lying down ” trend among Chinese millennials, who swear to quit ambitious jobs for a simpler and less materialistic life.
The anti-labor movement first appeared on Reddit in 2013.
A survey of about 1,600 members of the moderator-run Reddit sub-forums found that most of them were male and based in North America.
Half of the respondents say they are still in full-time jobs.
The sub-forum is full of stories told by workers that prove their bosses don ’ t care about them.
One of the posts, posted by user amethystttt07, pointed to the issue of the salary increase that was promised and instead went to a co-worker without explanation, “Just a nice reminder, unfortunately, it is possible to get rid of all of us and replace us in a flash.
Even if you do your best and spend a lot of hours working, it won ’ t work. ”
Another boasted of working from home during his COVID-19 illness, but “played video games most of the time.
The manager earns a dollar, and I make a dime.
That's why I play video games during work time, my friend. "
But the most well-known publications are screenshots of resignation letters and text messages.
The movement proved so popular that moderators restricted publication to be on Sundays.
Historian Benjamin Honecott, a professor at the University of Iowa, whose books on labor history appear in the Reddit Anti-Labor Forum Library, said, "Perhaps we should consider that there may be an alternative to spending our lives in bondage to the wealthy among us, and profiting for them.
Maybe there are other things we do in our lives than accumulate profits for those rich, take that time, and get it back. ”
Economists say it is almost impossible to measure how changing attitudes about work influence labor market trends, but cultural shifts can help explain some of the characteristics of the market.
Employers from Tyson Food to FedEx complain that they are unable to find enough workers despite high wages.
At the same time, a wave of strikes last fall led many workers to put pressure on employers for better benefits after years of stagnant wages and fear of health risks added to their jobs during the pandemic.
Idlers have even taken part in some of these labor movements, making thousands of fake applications to a job site set up by Kellogg ’ s to replace striking workers in its grain mills.
Thanks to its activity, the anti-action platform has been compared to another prominent subsidiary on Reddit, WallStreetBets.
Last year, retail traders raised the prices of meme stocks such as doomed video game retailer GameStop and movie chain AMC in a concerted effort to penalize hedge funds that short-sell those stocks.
Ford said, “Most of us are just ordinary people. ”
“We have jobs that we don ’ t like, and that ’ s why we ’ re in the movement in the first place. ”
Publish it.
MORE FROM FINANCIAL TIMES

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed, as people's attitudes towards progress and new technologies have shifted towards caution and risk-aversion in recent decades.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed due to growing skepticism of technology and the rise of zero-sum thinking in contemporary society.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may face opposition due to concerns about its impact on society and individual privacy.

The metaverse is an example of a new technology that may be opposed due to concerns about government control and suppression of freedom of speech, similar to the historical Luddites' resistance to technological change.