Talk:Neo-luddism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Too few people use the term "Cyborg Luddite" for it to be here

This is a truly obscure strain of thought. Some people who advocate becoming cyborgs may do so partially out of a fear of becoming obsolete when completely artificial intelligences exist, but this is hardly a separate movement. Also, this cannot be characterized as luddism or neo-luddism, as these belief systems are specifically against technology interfering with human lives.

The term is not used much at all... google "cyborg luddite" in quotes... most references point to a single person, Steve Mann.

If no one can respond to this with some justification for its inclusion in the next week, I will edit it out of this article.

SpaceTycoon 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above -- especially, even if it were a well-known movement, it would not be a Luddite movement whatever it chooses to call itself, since it fundamentally embraces technology --Quaestor23 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, there is a movement

So just 'cos you can't find an officially funded movement, or some self-recognized movement that promulgates a set of coherent beliefs, the 'neo-luddite' movement doesn't exist? Dudes... just 'cos you can't find something on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I mean, for goodness sakes, do you really think a true 'neo-luddite' is going to put up a website? C'mon... think about the silliness of that position.

And I, my friends, consider myself a 'neo-luddite', at least to some extent.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.247.64 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Neither a left nor right wing fantasy!

There are people who have a fundamental critique of technology, often with anti-authoritarian and insurrectionary overtones and intentions, and express it through both words and actions, just like the original Luddites of the 19th century. This is not a "fantasy" of the right or left wing! It is simply true; five minutes with the links I've provided establish this. Thus the inclusion of references to John Zerzan, Derrick Jensen, the ELF, and so on are appropriate and relevant.

[edit] New Edit

You are obvioulsy a left wing proponent. Since this is most likely true, how are we supposed to know that this paper is not left wing propaganda after you "fixed" it? I reworked most of the article. Let me know what you think. One note: I deleted the "affiliations" since none of them had "Luddite" referenced on any of their pages, plus they were pretty much all of one political persuasion. To me they were only so much advertisement with no applicability. If you have a problem with this or anything else, please discuss here. Amicuspublilius 19:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I "fixed" this entry, removing a bunch of propaganda from right wing sources. Frankly, this article shouldn't even exist, because there is simply no self-identified "neo-luddite" movement. This entry is an attempt by right wingers to establish that such a mythical movement exists. The stuff about Teresa Heniz Kerry funding this so-called movement is the dead giveaway that this entry has no factual basis.

How do people go about removing article from Wikipedia that have no factual basis? This "neo-luddite" movement is a right wing fantasy.

Chuck Munson. (Infoshop.org).

These "left" and "right wing" designations are corporate fantasies designed to control you. In actual fact, outside of the machine language of computers, reality doesn't reduce to many either-or dilemmas. There is certainly such a phenomenon as neo-Luddism, and it isn't just purported left wing types who engage in it, not by a long shot. The so-called "right wing" is very much anti-technology (eg stem cell research, cloning, and many aspects of transhumanism); Republican Christian groups, usually pigeonholed as "right wing", have been some of the most vehement espousers of new Luddism, much of it connected to 'mark of the Beast' prophecies in the Revelations of St. John; it's really only the specific concretes where differences lie between the two supposed polar opposites, but the abstract principle is actually the same: Government should have the right to restrict or ban technology, based on a phantom "what if" nightmare scenario. If you're "left wing", the nightmare is GM crops and global warming, if you're "right wing" it's human chimeras and RFID tracking. Claiming this primitive, fear-based, anti-technology emotionalism is in any way connected to political orientation, especially the ridiculous "left/right" paradigm (which means virtually nothing in terms of policymaking) is absurd.
On the contrary, the very fact that the opposing ends of the spectrum focus on separate anti-technology issues demonstrates that there are two separate movements with similar goals.Mlorrey 16:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or it might demonstrate that the spectrum you have been led to believe exists is actually nothing more than a false meme. Let Occam's razor decide.
Here is Wikipedia's deletion policy. The term "neo-luddite" is in common usage, and I doubt you will find much community consensus for deletion. While few would identify themselves as "neo-luddites", there certainly is a diverse movement advocating everything from a critical analysis of modern technologies to the elimination of such technologies. ElBenevolente 22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I concur that this article is still POV-heavy; the list of "prominent neo-luddites" is particularly suspicious for the reasons cited by Munson above. Specifically, I removed Gretel Ehlrich from the list after reviewing a number of interviews (i.e. Library Journal 129:18 [84] 15 Nov 2004) with Ehlrich as well as biographical overviews of her life and writings (see Contemporary Authors and Dictionary of Literary Biography) which showed no evidence of the positions, beliefs or activities described by the article. Lukethelibrarian 21:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur that Gretel Ehrlich doesn't belong there, someone modified the earlier reference to Paul R Ehrlich, who is a noted neo-malthusian/neo-luddite. I have done extensive research on the movement and am working on this article. I do not have time to complete it at once. However, Munson is a member of one group involved in the network, so his opinions here amount to non-NPOV revisionism and disinformation. Mlorrey 20:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with disparaging comments made above about the article. I don't understand why they don't correct the article. I think there is enough room in Wikipedia for ideas and this is one of them.--Mea 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mea. Also, I have seen the term "neo-luddite" used by a person to describe their beliefs regarding technology more than once. Repku 05:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Fukuyama

"Fukuyama is famously wrong for predicting the end of history with the fall of the U.S.S.R". Yet the The End of History says "Fukuyama's thesis is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. For example, it is frequently claimed that Fukuyama believes that history ended in 1989 (with the fall of the Berlin Wall)."

Fukuyama says, "What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of History?", 1989) What is clear to most is that liberal democracy is not the end-state of human ideological evolution, despite its continuing attempts to retain the idea of the social-welfare semi-free market nation-state through hook, crook, or force of arms. Fukuyama is famously wrong because the promise of transhuman advancement and the future technological singularity indicate a future stage of punctuated equilibrium in human affairs, the results of which are impossible to predict. See Ray Kurzweil's books for further elucidation on these ideas. It is for this reason that Fukuyama now calls transhumanism, "the world's most dangerous idea", if only because it will further demonstrate how wrong he was. Transhumanism is dangerous to his future royalty stream... Mlorrey 16:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific POV concerns

It seems to me that this topic is covered more thoroughly and with better NPOV in Primitivism. Could this topic be redirected there?

Neo-primitivism advocates a return to a hunter-gatherer or pre-historical agricultural level of existence (without admitting that 90%+ of the human race would need to die for such an inefficient lifestyle to be sustainable). Neo-Luddites generally are stasists, in that they don't want technology to advance beyond a mid-20th century Rockwellian vision of America, or they want to turn things back to a form of neo-feudalism along socialist lines, or somewhere in between, such as a 19th century frontier American lifestyle. It generally depends on the individual and the group one is speaking of. Mlorrey

My specific reasons for adding the NPOV dispute tag are the following.

NOTE: I added the dispute notice to this talk page first. I am more concerned about vandals interfering in the documentation process.Mlorrey 05:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Understood. However, I am concerned about the end-users of the article, which in its current state contains far too many unsupported allegations. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: It should be noted that Mlorrey (http://nh.sevatech.com/wiki/index.cgi/Mike_20Lorrey) is a know transhumanist and a self proclaimed enemy of neo-luddism, "In 2001 he founded the Center for Transhuman Development, a group to confront bio-luddism and help build transhumanist society." Just in case you are wondering about the distorted POV....From Mlorrey's user profile..."Hidden agendas and POV masquerading as NPOV annoy me." ;)


The article fails to provide evidence to support/document:

  • ...under "Network Structure"...
    • "significant ties and support between dedicated neo-luddite groups" -- no evidence of ties between any of the groups listed
Not yet.
I would suggest that you consider providing documentation & references to support the allegations you already have made in this article before adding additional material. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "providing shelter outside the US to terrorist fugitives" [The Anarchist Organization]
This allegation is from personal experience with that group, so until I am able to document it, I will change it to 'alleged'. Mlorrey 16:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "providing... anonymous website hosting and encrypted email communications for various ad hoc sabotage groups or campaigns" [the associated link does not support this claim -- it appears to include links to 3rd party tools and educational material, no indication of providing named services]
It is not a 3rd party site, TAO.ca treats those sites as subsidiary sites providing products and services to its members.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let's take email. On this page they provide links to SSH instructions, PGP/GPG, anonymous remailers, and other free 3rd party services. "Linking to" a third party or "educating about" a procedure is far different than "providing" a service. Please provide specific links to back up your allegation that TAO is "providing... anonymous website hosting and encrypted email communications" for anyone, let alone "ad hoc sabotage groups or campaigns." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
security.resist.ca is a subsidiary organization website that, last I checked, was having its site hosted on tao.ca servers. That resist.ca provides third party links is irrelevant. This: https://webmail.tao.ca/src/login.php is tao.ca's secure encrypted email server, while this: http://oat.tao.ca/manual is a manual for groups to establish their own autonomous secure telecomms. This: http://ssh.oat.tao.ca/ is an encrypted chatroom that requires a key, called an OAT, to access. This link: http://oat.tao.ca/book/view/9 clearly describes that they network with other groups, and in point 10 of their revision of the Black Panther Party's principles, their opposition to genetic engineering and other technologies as 'pollution'.Mlorrey 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Alleged funding sources for Ruckus Society, and relevance of that funding allegation to the remainder of the article
Already referenced. Relevance is that the neo-luddite movement has significant funding channelled to it from wealthy individuals. I will have more names to name in the future on this.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The links you provided fall short of the original sources of the data. I think this might be the link you were looking for. However, this also fails to support your tie-in with Heinz -- Heinz's grants to Tides ran from 1994 to 1998, and Tides' funding of Ruckus runs from 1999-2003. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Alleged operations of IWW and activities of "Project Underground" (moles.org link is dead, but whois indicates it is registered to Project Underground in Berkeley CA)
And what is the address? A bookshop. An IWW related bookshop. At least it was last time I checked. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact that a web domain is registered to the address of a bookshop does not support the following allegations: "help clandestinely move fugitives and contraband around the country, as a manpower transportation and logistics system to support insurgency attack operations at any location in the US." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Alleged "entryism" campaign of WWP; alleged relationship between WWP and other named groups
Entryist campaign is well documented both in the US and Britain.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...under "Use of Ad Hoc Fronts"...
    • alleged coordination/adoption of a uniform strategy employing decentralized ad-hoc fronts. Occam's Razor: without evidence of coordination, incidents should be considered separate.


  • ...under "Violence"...
    • allegation that 2 specific incidents and 2 categorical groupings of incidents are "successful neo-luddite attacks".
Offhand, the burning of the Deer Valley ski lodge was confessed to by a self-admitted member of a neo-luddite cell, as was the NYC apartment building. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then please provide specific dates, names, links, documents, references, or citations to support. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...under "Politics: Stem cells"...
    • relevance of Bush policy to article, relationship between "neo-luddite movement" and Bush actions
As Bush policy was written by Kass and Fukuyama, self-declared 'bio-luddites', the relevance is clear.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be if you would better establish the relationship between Kass, Fukuyama and the rest of the "network" or "movement" that you are alleging. So far, that's not present in the article. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There never was any allegation that Kass or Fukuyama were associated with the network movement, which is the left wing movement. The right wing movement is separate, as stated. There were numerous articles after the Seattle riots of how right wing and left wing groups started networking over common issues.Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
    • relevance of EU GMO policy to article, relationship between "neo-luddite movement" and EU government actions.
Clear lobbying actions of neo-luddites, like Prince Charles, Jeremy Rifkin, WWF, Greenpeace, among others, in lobbying for limits on GMO. These will be documented.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...under "Prominent neo-luddites"...
    • relationship of Paul R. Ehrlich, Fritjof Capra and Donella Meadows to the activities or organizations described in the article
Primarily propaganda oriented relationship, although Meadows' Institute has some operational links to the active movement.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article.
    • relationship of Mike Roselle, Kirkpatrick Sale, Howie Wolk, Bill Joy, or Bill McKibben to activities or organizations described in the article
All exist and will be documented.
    • relevance of Fukuyama's predictions on fall of USSR to content of article.
Goes to his credibility as a social scientist.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
His credibility as a social scientist has nothing to do with the relationships you are alleging with other persons, groups, or activities. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've alleged no relationships between him and other persons or groups, so it is your allegation that I am that needs supporting.Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

The article includes the following POV language unsupported by evidence:

  • ...under "Network Structure"...
    • "Ruckus Society operates several boot camps for... neo-luddite saboteurs"

I have already provided several references which document this as a fact.

You have provided references that document that the Ruckus Society operates boot camps to train activists. You have not established that those activits merit the label neo-luddite saboteurs.
    • Comparison between infoshop.org and Sinn Fein
This was a comparison of tactics/strategy and not policy. Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party that acts as a PR front for the IRA. This is documented and proven, yet they have always maintained public claims to not have control of any kind over. Infoshop.org's various cells and committees and sites operate in a similar fashion to arms-length neo-luddite operations groups. Should I instead compare them as Al jazeera relates to al Quaeda?Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should avoid comparisons to groups with dissimilar policies, and simply provide more thorough documentation of the tactics/strategy you allege. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "In this [antecedent unclear], WWP is using luddism to push its goal..."

WWP's entryist campaign and its goals are well documented in many other sites, which I will provide links to.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ...under "Violence"...
    • "widespread embarrassment and half-hearted disavowal by mainstream members of the movement"

Many movement members are against violence, but tend to express their disapproval in the same sort of rationalizing way that anti-abortion protesters who cherish life disapprove of but excuse the actions of those who kill abortionists.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some specific references, citations, links, or support in your article. Also, please avoid weasel terms: "Many movement members..." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Look, you need to decide what you want: straight facts that you will dismiss as POV, or softened sanitized text that you will dismiss as "weasel words". One way or the other...Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)
  • ...under "Right-wing Neo-Luddism"...
    • "no transhumanist has ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything, while luddites do so as a matter of right."
There is a complete lack of any documented evidence that transhumanists, who tend to be openness fetishists to varying degrees, have ever attacked, sabotaged, or otherwise initiated agression against any luddite individual, organization, asset, or demonstration. You can't prove a negative other than by lack of evidence. Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"ever attacked, sabotaged, or otherwise initiated aggression against any luddite individual, organization, asset, or demonstration" (above) is different than "ever attacked or sabotaged anyone or anything" (article). You may not be able to prove a negative other than by lack of evidence, however, you should back up your claim that "luddites do so as a matter of right." Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Luddites do so as a matter of right, in that their public pronouncements always proclaim they are taking their action on behalf of humanity, or of the cute fuzzy animals, etc.Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

The article uses the following excessively vague and/or "weasel terms":

  • ...under "Network Structure"...
    • ..."to what many consider to be a rather extreme degree"
  • ...under "Violence"...
    • "destruction of genetically modified organisms in a number of locations"
Once again, decide which way you want it: straight facts you will dismiss as POV, or softened sanitized text you will dismiss as "weasel words". One way or the other.Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

Well documented vandalism and destruction of GMO plants and animals at farms and labs across the US, Canada, and Europe since the late 1990's.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then please cite them specifically: names, dates, places, citations, references. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "attacks on prominent researchers and technology executives beyond the highly publicized serial bombings of the Unabomber."

All valid and documented elsewhere, which i will link to later.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • ...under "Politics: GMO"...
    • "A number of countries..."

Documented fact, the Precautionary Principle is a part of the EU constitution, for instance.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please provide some citations and references to back up that relationship. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ...under "Right-wing Neo-Luddism"...
    • "...members of the right wing acting in opposition to technology are primarily at the level of..."

As stated, other than anti-abortion terrorists, there is a complete dearth of violence oriented right-wing luddites. They all seem to prefer to work through political channels at this point. If this changes I will be sure to note it.Mlorrey 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your statement above is far better than the "weasel terms" in the article -- please consider replacing the article's text with the text you have added above.
I don't see how there is any difference between the two statements.Mlorrey 8 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)


Please review WP:NPOV and add your comments here. Thanks. Lukethelibrarian 21:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns over this. As previously stated several times, I am gradually putting up references to everything, but don't have a lot of time every day to put into this, so I would appreciate some forebearance in finishing the documentation. The allegations are very serious, however I highly doubt you would demand similar documentation of every action committed by other terrorist organizations, like, say, the IRA, etc.. I intend to cover all sides of the issue, which is why I'm also including the right-wing luddism as well. I think it is important that this movement be documented as extensively as possible and I am welcoming other contributors in this effort (I have already enlisted support from others who have investigated this movement), but I object to being held to a higher standard than is accepted with those documenting other subversive/secretive insurgency/guerilla/terrorist organizations which normally require a sophisticated intelligence service to find out extensive information about. I also appreciate those who have restored edits in the past that have been erased by some I suspect of either sympathy for or involvement in the neo-luddite movement. They have a vested interest in keeping their organization and activities secret from the general public in order to invent the false public perception of a 'grass roots' uprising. I guarantee you that everything here will be either documented or removed/edited by myself. Part of the problem is that these groups have been sanitizing themselves lately, eliminating a lot of material that used to exist on the web.Mlorrey 05:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The allegations are very serious, however I highly doubt you would demand similar documentation of every action committed by other terrorist organizations, like, say, the IRA, etc." Actually, I would. I just haven't worked on that article. Part of the problem here is that this article is categorized under "Social Philosophy" but you are alleging an organized movement. As a social philosophy, can you explain to me the difference between "neo-luddism" and anarcho-primitivism? If what you are describing is a political movement instead of a social philosophy, then this article should be re-categorized. Lukethelibrarian 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the trouble is that the author is conflating a few issues some of which fall under the anarcho-primitivism and others that don't. Francis Fukuyama is not into anarcho-primitivism or anything near it. He is simply concerned with over stepping the bounds of technology. These bounds are constantly changing taboos of society and it is generally considered that the scientist is playing with God or forces not meant to be meddled with by pitiful humans. In modern times these issues are Life (GMO and other biotech) and Intelligence (Fukuyamas worrying about Ritalin and other neuro-pharmaceuticals) as such Neo-luddisms teaches the same message as Shelleys Frankenstein. The section of what Mlorrey is talking about that doesn't fall under anarcho-primitivism is more conservative than radical in that it doesn't have a problem with the way things are at the moment. In the entry there should really be some way of distinguishing between the groups that want to put on the brakes (Neo-luddites) and those that want to go put it in reverse anarcho-primatives.--Agent101 00:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just found this site. So many things are astonishingly inaccurate it's insane. The tone and way in which much of this article is written certainly suggests it was written by a right-winger. Example: Labeling almost everything a front for something else. The IWW is a front for bookstores and the undergroud railroad??? What? What the hell was this guy smoking when he wrote this? The IWW was formed at the beginning of the 20th century, and is a long-standing anarcho-syndicalist union that welcomes all workers from any industry. Infoshop.org has never once given any official stance on any ideology or philosophy other than it being anarchist. To say that all of infoshop.org is somehow linked to a non-existant neo-luddite trend is silly. I don't even know what "the anarchist organization" means, given that all it links to is a list of some anarchist organizations, followed by an amazingly blazenly obvious POV comment about them being related or not related. AND THAT'S JUST THE FIRST FEW LINES OF THE ARTICLE! I didn't even finish reading the rest of it! This entire article should be deleted, because there isn't even such a label as "neo-luddism". --Fatal 01:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Prominent Neo-Luddites"

I removed this section because it was unsourced POV. No evidence or citations were given to indicate that these individuals consider themselves neo-Luddites. George W. Bush has been called a fascist by many; would it therefore be appropriate to include him on a List of fascists? Of course not. "Neo-luddite" is just a political epithet, and it is highly POV to use the encyclopedic voice to refer to an individual or group as such unless they self-identify. Now, if you want to make a list of "individuals accused of being neo-Luddites", and provide actual sources (preferably somewhat mainstream), then that's fine. Firebug 03:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firebug lacks standing to do so as he is currently engaged in a fraudulent action against me. Wiki protocol precludes him from reverting any of my edits until the dispute is resolved.Mlorrey 18:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you'll identify the fraudulent action you refer to and the Wikipedia policy that precludes reverting edits while that action is in process, I'd be happy to restore that list. However, I will restore it under section header "Prominent individuals named as neo-luddites" and give folks a chance to provide sources to support the inclusion of the people in that list. Lukethelibrarian 20:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Eco-terrorism

This article really needs to move half its information to the eco-terrorism page and then reference it. It would make a lot more sense. For example the spiking of forests is not really about the fear of new technologies and so has little to say about luddism. --Agent101 00:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Green Party ref in "Reasoning"

I've changed "members of the Green Party" to "those" in the following paragraph:

Accusations of "neo-luddism" on the left are usually directed at members of the Green Party who oppose technology on the grounds that may contribute to any or all of the following: environmental degradation, consumerism, sexism, cruelty to animals, social decay, the collapse of tribal ways of life, or the separation of the worker from the means of production.

For one thing, it's inaccurate to talk about the Green Party as if only one such thing exists. Many countries and regions have a political party by this name, as the Worldwide green parties article that Green Party redirects to makes clear. Aside from this, I don't think there's any practical way to determine what proportion of "accusations of "neo-luddism" on the left" being made worldwide are directed at members of some Green Party or another. If someone were to claim more narrowly that "x percent of print media references to "neo-luddism" in country xyz were directed at members of the xyz Green Party", I'd be more likely to believe that the claim was based on some sort of research, and not just pulled out of thin air. --Eloil 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought the article was enlightening.

It seems to me that when you enter the realm of philosophy, it gets more difficult to present a neutral point of view. Do the article's critics want a better article, or do they want to suppress it? I admit I feel much in common with the ideas of neo-luddism, and I was very interested to find out a)it exists, and b)the information presented about it. Since I and probably other people believe it exists, why can't these critics correct the non-neutral parts?

[edit] Seriously in need of references

I've added an {{unreferenced}} tag. It is not enough to present cases that could be seen as neo-ludduism; sources must verify that these are regarded as such by a notable source, or perhaps by a segment of the population. Either way, statements must be verifiable.

My own inclination is to remove much of the material in this article to the talk page, until it is appropriately sourced. But I'll just add the tag for now, and wait a few days. --Singkong2005 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In order for Neo-luddism to be classified as a political movement there would have to be a group that identifies itself as such. I think a lot of the semantic confusion going on here can be traced to the fact that most have encountered the term as a slur tossed at one political party or another. Not only does "Neo-luddism" fail any intelligent criteria for what a political movement is, I believe it fails even as a possible philosophical stance. What we seem to be describing here is a tendency, to be more specific, a tendency for a "negative" emotional reaction to technology. If this is so, Neo-luddism is not a philosophical stance for much the same reasons as "bigotry" is not a philosophical stance, although either can be supported by philosophical arguments.

As described in the current (phenomenally poorly written) article, "Neo-luddism" can be neither a political movement nor a philosophy. I recommend a complete overhauling of the article with these points in mind. Perhaps approach defining the term as a particular facet of human fear. Then charting its usage. Who is using this word, and for what purpose (read Wittegenstein kids...)? (BIG HINT: political dialogue)

[edit] Popular Culture

I think Fight Club deserves a mention, Tyler Durden explicitly makes reference to neo-luddism.

Definitely. And the "popular culture" section is the place to put it. I will see if I can start a reference and perhaps some of you can help me finish it.Maziotis 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-dite

What kind of a neo-Luddite is writing an article on wikipedia?

Someone who cares.Maziotis 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stem Cells

Stem cell and Bush - That whole section is muddled. It doesn't say what it has to do with neo-luddism, just what it doesn't have to do with it. And the last sentence is not only not germane to neo-luddism, it's not even germane to the rest of the paragraph. Should be either deleted or redone. Methinks. 03:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The section on stem cells is puzzling in it's location and it's unclear what it has to do with neo-luddism. It also seems quite slanted in it's opinion and for these reasons should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob322 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Agree the above. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bush government's opposition to embryonic stem cell research originates from Christian fundamentalist views about the sanctity of embryos, not from any anti-technology or "bio-luddite" stance (other forms of stem cell research are not affected AIUI). Seems little point in this paragraph being here, except maybe in much shortened form as a counter-example/refutation of such claims. --Quaestor23 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeo-luddism_237f.html"