[textor]

> I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either.

Well that's totally unreasonable. Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, it's just that the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer. Look at how well gatekeeping works in drug production. Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business. Certainly this may not hold forever, and sure some things slip through. But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.

[int_19h]

When one society stops its technological process, it gets pwned by other societies which do not - and then it still needs to catch up to survive, except now all that tech progression is crammed into a much shorter period of time, and disrupts society even more than regular progression. Japan is a textbook example of that.

The "benefit your children" analysis also doesn't account for longer-term beneficial effects of technology, such as cheaper goods.

[themacguffinman]

> Of course you can stop technology by violence and prohibition, the other party is generally much better at those things by virtue of being richer

Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

> Look at how tax preparation companies can lobby against the IRS destroying their pointless business.

Complicated taxes is much more of a political problem than it is a pure efficiency problem that technology can adequately tackle. If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation.

> Certainly this may not hold forever (...) But you can improve your and your children's life by stifling progress where it benefits you.

Yeah sure you can, there are lucky and savvy survivors in every situation. But I think it's more likely that you not only lose, you worsen your and your children's life by having wasted time fighting when you could have been pursuing more effective ways of surviving by adapting to technology.

[TeMPOraL]

> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

By exploiting the poorer party in the previous round of this game. Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating - the more you have, the easier it is for you to get even more.

[TheOtherHobbes]

And technology accelerates that process.

[themacguffinman]

> Wealth is pretty much self-perpetuating

No it isn't, it just gives you an advantage. The idea that money makes money implicitly makes the assumption that you're investing in modern technology that drives growth. You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.

[TeMPOraL]

> You won't keep that wealth if you don't invest in technology that enriches your competitors.

Competitors, who are part of the rich group, not the poor group.

[themacguffinman]

Technology enriches any group that uses it, it doesn't only enrich already-rich groups.

[textor]

> If a technology that was much better at doing taxes came along, that would be a more comparable situation.

There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.

https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-fre...

There's no technology-in-general that "the Luddites" fight againtst, nor are there Luddites-in-general. It's risk-benefit calculation in every case, with different parties and different interests. You don't need luck to profit off lobbying against the development of your undoers, this is the norm, not the exception.

> Okay, how does the other party get richer? It usually isn't because they fight against more efficient technologies.

What is an "efficient technology" and what is an "unapproved and criminal enterprise" can be decided by lobbying. Luddite is the one who loses, because he gets labeled Luddite by the victor; the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.

[themacguffinman]

> There's no need for it, technology already is good enough.

"Free tax filing" is not a technology, try again.

> the loss itself had little to do with vague attitudes towards technological progress. You're just stubbornly missing the point.

And you didn't even make a point. Lobbying requires power, and efficient technology gives you that power. It's no accident that those who embrace technology always have more power than those who don't.