@volkris This suggests that you and the Luddites might have common ground: would they modify your closing sentences to, "The advancement is going to happen. We're going to ensure that we reap advantages"?

[ii/N]

@volkris One way that society ensures that it reaps advantages is to develop good governance: we benefit from the internal combustion engine because society has a series of sanctions for e.g. driving on the wrong side of the road, not respecting road signs...

The Atomic Energy Act wasn't designed to prevent nuclear weapons research. Instead, it seemed to recognise that allowing every VC funded startup to build their own nukes might make it harder for society to "reap advantages".

[iii/iii]

@rowat_c Oh we definitely benefit from internal combustion engines regardless of road signs and governance.

Really you're more referring to the benefit of the public road, not the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

The government makes the road so it can make the rules to govern its own roads. It's a completely different matter.

@rowat_c Oh it's not bait.

I think it's clear that the Luddites were wrong in the end, and it's funny that where I'm from that's the general consensus. It wasn't even until recently that I realized there was a difference of opinion on that.

It's like coming across actual flat earthers.

Luddites were afraid of technological advancement being bad for humanity, and we've seen that it instead was a tremendous boon for humanity. They were on the wrong side with their shortsighted viewpoints.

@volkris Happy to be corrected with better sources if you think that Historic UK (my source) is misinformed about the Luddites; am less convinced by _ad hominem_.

Fully agreed that the conventional wisdom is that the Luddites opposed progress. To use your example, I grew up thinking that the conventional wisdom at the time of Columbus was 'flat earth', that he risked falling off. Turns out not to be so, but that that was a narrative device cooked up in Washington Irving's bio to add spice.

@rowat_c what ad hominem?

@volkris you've made an assertion about the beliefs of Luddites; rather than presenting evidence for your assertion, you've compared them to flat earthers, thus just lobbing an insult. That's what I'd described as an _ad hominem_.

I'm happy to drop that, and remain happy to stand corrected with a better source. Otherwise, I propose we agree to disagree: I've enjoyed this - thank you!

@rowat_c I have no idea what you're on about.

You miss frame something I said as ad hominem, whether through your own misunderstanding of what I said or your misunderstanding of what an ad hominem is, I'm actually not sure, but apparently you enjoyed that?

Anyway, no I adopted your own description of Luddites. They were wrong, though, as your own description of what they believed didn't pan out.

I agree with you about what they thought. Just as I would agree with you, probably, about what flat earthers believe.

But in both cases they were simply wrong.