You describe Luddism precisely in the first sentence, then say in the second nobody wants a return to it?People here are fine with automation they just want the automation to be done in a ethical and fair manner that keeps society intact or perhaps even betters it.
No here in thread has argued for a return to Luddism.
Luddites didn't break people's stuff because they hated technology, they broke it because they were protesting. They were concerned about automation putting people out of work and possible reductions in their standard of living.The idea that Luddites wanted to shun technology is just wrong. They wanted technology, but wanted to make sure they were the beneficiaries.
The charitable view is that, much like today, they weren't able to understand that production has primacy and automation would bring greater wealth to all, not lesser. The less charitable (and IMO wrong) view is that they knew but would rather have the world be worse to avoid being knocked out of their comfort zone. You'd be crazy to claim life was better in the Luddites' early 1800s when production was poor than it is today when production is immense, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. It's much harder to sit here today and project that history into the future because the nature of prediction is imprecise. Nonetheless, the same basic economic principles that led from then to now will continue on and lead to better things in a more productive future.
I don't. I suppose you could call it an ad hominem if you have a beef with Luddites, but it's definitely not a strawman. Most of the sentiments expressed in this thread are the exact same sentiments the Luddites had in their day. Read their writings - it's exactly this thread.This is a weak ad hominem strawman and you should feel bad.