Talk:Neo-Luddism
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-luddism
Archives: 1 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 548 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Anti-singularity/gray-goo motivations
[edit]I've run across neo-luddite sympathies motivated by fear of a singularity or gray-goo type event. This is mostly just the logical extreme of the standard anti-techonology arguments, but it might be worth a mention, as some people are opposed not to specific technological improvements but utimately a sudden and pronounced loss of our control over them.
- I think we should not pour the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of tech that is useful and harmless. The problem starts where access to bank accounts is concerned. All events in tech can be faked and that includes transfers, payments, and invoices. Stick with cash in normal day to day activities. The IT architecture is very costly in terms of money, time, and cyber insurance. We should not be hoodwinked by the software vendors who are the main beneficiaries. No doubt we need to wind it back, but not all. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8862:E45A:8668:6185 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Ted Kaczinsky
[edit]The content of this article seems overly focused on the Unabomber, clearly a figure that does not highlight the positive qualities a neo-Luddite might have. While Ted was most certainly anti-technology, why is he the most prominent “philosopher” of neo-Luddism in this article. While I agree he should be mentioned and discussed, the quantity of Ted focused content in this article would make the casual reader think that all neo-luddites share an affinity with Kaczinsky. Patdmulroy99 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Luddites
[edit]The article currently says that Luddism "opposes all forms of technology." This contrasts with the Wikipedia article on the movement, which says, " movement of English textile workers which opposed the use of certain types of cost-saving machinery...." Our article should be changed.Kdammers (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Neo-Luddism page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Neo-Luddism" page.
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class ethics articles
- Low-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- Low-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles