gbaji wrote:
Yes and no. While the assumption of anti-technology that the term has come to mean isn't wholly correct, what would the world be like today if we'd adopted the position of the luddites? If we'd decided not to adopt labor saving technology on the grounds that it would cost people jobs, would we all be better or worse off? The primary counter argument to the luddite position is that by creating more efficient ways to do things, we free up that labor to do yet other things, which ultimately improve all of our lives. I think it's hard to look at the world we live in and not see abundant evidence that this counter turned out to be right and the luddites turned out to be wrong.
How does this relate to modern labor movements? Is job protection a valid argument given the pretty darn apparent benefits we've all reaped by *not* adopting this philosophy back then? I think the lesson of the luddite is to show how wrong-headed that argument is. Labor is *not* hurt in the long run by the introduction of technology which removes or reduces the need for that labour. Rather, it appears that the exact opposite is true...
THANK YOU Gbaji. I totally agree. Given the improvement of individual and community well-being that occurs when improved technology takes over old technology, and makes old jobs redundant, I think that it is fair and beneficial to all that monetary welfare is given to those who lose their jobs. Monetary welfare that will provide a minimal standard of living, and pay the rent. Eventually the jobs lost to old technology will be replaced by jobs in the new technology.
I think that the taxpayer has a place to fund educational training in the new technology for people who are out of work for any length of time, in order to hasten the provision of the new technology, reaping the rewards of it.
Secondly, when an old technology is found to be harmful to people, to health, or to a sustainable eco-system, then we need to reverse the technological process of cause and effect. Instead of a new, beneficial technology coming into existence, making an old technology redundant, and taking over from the old technology, we need to declare our existing harmful technology to be redundant, and mandate a swap-over period. We slowly close down permission for the old technology to operate. Entrepreneurs and researchers will rush in to fill the gap, the new market.
Again, jobs will be lost from the old technology, and the old businesses will go out of businesses. The old technology business owners will go broke if they have not diversified their income and savings, as any properly educated person will do as soon as is practicable. But protecting old jobs and old businesses and old technology simply because they were there first is lunacy. Welfare should be there for old technology business owners/shareholders if their income goes bust. And the benefits of the new technology will be there for all.
Edited, Mar 20th 2010 3:35am by Aripyanfar 
