E-conomy / Paul Andrews
Yes, we've met the neo-Luddites, and they are us

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

You don't hear much today about neo-Luddism, which took its name from the Luddite rebellion in Britain against the Industrial Revolution nearly two centuries ago.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the new version fell into hibernation. A funny thing happened on the way to technological enlightenment: Neo-Luddites got absorbed into the cultural mainstream.

Initially, the first big wave of the dot-com boom swamped neo-Luddism. By the latter 1990s, the Web was becoming so integral to information, commerce and society that potential drawbacks of the Internet bubble were drowned in a tsunami of growth, opportunity and wealth.

It may have been true, as the Luddites warned, that e-mail and Web surfing were undermining the roles of relationships, family and nature in our lives. But in all the frenzy, the trade-offs of a global nervous system recasting communications, commerce and even personal connections somehow seemed worth the sacrifice.

I can remember appearing on a panel with Stoll, a Berkeley, Calif., astronomer who warned that computers were inhibiting rather than facilitating the educational process. The audience might have been expected to align with Stoll, but questioners pointed out that computers in many respects were simply tools to be used properly or abused.

Moreover, it hardly seemed worth dwelling on technology's pitfalls when there was no getting around its necessity to human existence. By the late 1990s, you pretty much had to have an inbox and Internet access simply to function in American society.

With the dot-bust, Luddites might have been expected to resurface, crowing victory and warning of new traumas to come. But it hasn't happened.

Stoll's home page says he's busy with astronomy projects and adds, "Most of my time, I'm a stay-at-home Daddy."

A Google search on the term neo-Luddite yields few results dated after the mid-to-latter 1990s.

What happened? Ironically, much of the Luddite message is so accepted today that it hardly requires categorization. Unlike the tenor of the 1990s, just about any conversation touching on technology today involves more Luddite-tinged negativism than enthusiastic promise.
 
When we talk about cellphones, it's seldom the latest and greatest but rather why don't the *&%@# things work. E-mail may have revolutionized communications, but we think of it mostly in terms of endless, time-wasting spam.

Despite all the wonders of the Web, our focus is more on identity theft, spyware and pop-up ads than the boon of "any time, anywhere" communication. The only thing that saves us from unplugging our PCs for good is our undeniable dependence on the danged things.

Even Bill Gates, the ultimate techno-visionary, spends far more time these days talking about the woes of spam, security holes, digital theft and Windows flaws than extolling a 21st-century version of "Information at Your Fingertips."

It's almost as though the roles have flipped. So much effort is spent complaining about technology's hassles that its benefits, long ago taken for granted, have been forgotten. When titans of the industry make fixing what's broke their top priority, you don't need a neo-Luddite to tell you what's wrong.

In a way, it's not surprising that neo-Luddism faded. We've all become neo-Luddites.

An incurable optimist, I have every faith that technology will rid itself of its maladies and go on to create a better world. And while neo-Luddites will be partly to thank for their Cassandran vigilance, one can hope we never need to have their voices raised again.

Paul Andrews is a freelance technology writer and co-author of "Gates." He can be reached at pandrews@seattletimes.com.