Luddites, Neo-Luddites, and Technophobes: Confused by Technology :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Luddites, Neo-Luddites, and Technophobes Confused by Technology In todays fast-paced society, in that respect be many who wish we could just go back to the good ol days, a magical time, possibly in the uncivilised cultural memory of the 1950s, where we werent surrounded by computers and pagers and cell phones and each manner of surveillance and recording. Many say that these things add hassle to our lives, and that the digital revolution is simply incompatible with our analog minds and souls. Such people are often condescendingly called old fogies when they are, typically, older, confused by applied science, and fearful of assortment of any sort. There are, though, hearty subcultures which embrace a return to a less complicated time with intelligence and reason, generally cognize as Neo-Luddites, after the early 19th century English protesters who destroyed industrial machinery. This, however, is a misnomer, as the many groups claiming ideological ancestry seldom tint to an ything other than the popular anti-technology belief. And, while the wealthy industrialists put down the Luddite rebellion, their ideals exact survived, and probably will survive as long as technology continues to be so totally complex and separate from nature. The original Luddites were technical guerillas who, from 1811 to 1813, and sporadically in the next three years, broke machines (most often plain machines) throughout Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leistershire, the three Midland counties in England, as well as starting riots and specifically terrorizing machine owners (Bailey 111-114, 18-19). Machine- rift was not a new mixed bag of rebellion, and the Luddites did little to modify it there were many copycat breakings, but there were also many unconnected breakings, in the same time (11). The knob distinguishing characteristic of the Luddites was their tell apart, and that they had one rebelling textile workers in the Midlands and north of England used the invented nam e Ned Ludd-or General Ludd or King Ludd-in place of a leader, becoming known as followers of that name Luddites (x, 139). Sadly, the growing popularity of this name opened up a new area of problems. The Luddites standard machine-breaking eventually inspired others to vow acts of violence in their name, which Luddite purists apparently detested enough to cease their breaking to prove the distinction (144). Although in the thick of the machine-breaking fervor, though, there were many who took the chaotic opportunity to commit unrelated crimes in their name,