Talk:Neo-Luddism

Untitled
For a June 2005 deletion debate over this page see Votes for deletion/Neo-luddism

Anti-singularity/gray-goo motivations
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
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
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)