20 Jun 2008, 4:11 AM
rowan wrote:
It is an excellent phrase. Look forward to the definition! I am now trying to get my head around all the interesting paradoxes, when I've gazillions of things to do today.
I like to see luddites - well, my personal luddism with historical overtones, as change-resistant, but with a social conscience. From this perspective, a carbon luddite might be someone who resists technologial progress, in order to keep their carbon footprint five-toed. Kinda like me, not driving a car - IF I was so doing on principle, and not just out of fear.
On the flipside, a carbon luddite could be someone who resists change via a refusal to reduce their emissions: thus retaining a status quo, but with poor longterm prospects all-round, whoever is in control of the means of production.
Interesting.
I liked the historical Luddites. On a highway to nothing,of course, but worth doffing one's cap to.
21 Jun 2008, 11:12 AM
WryMouth wrote:
Y'see; that's the dilemma. Should it be applied to those on my side, or theirs? Does it apply to those who would retard Technical Progress to Save the Planet (at the expense of people), or to those who want to retard the Effort to Save the Planet?
It's all very mixed up right now, with the self-appointed "Progressives" advocating burning food for fuel, and replacing efficient fuel sources with very inefficient ones. It's as if they think solar cells and wind turbines and capacitors are created -- excuse me, EVOLVE -- ex nihilo, with no environmental impact on the production / disposal ends.
Well. I suppose it might be a case of whoever claims it first. So *I* am claiming the phrase, and applying it to *them* -- the Luddites who are using planetary flux as an excuse to restrict progress for people.
Carbon Luddite example #1: Al Gore. Extrapolate from there.
It is an excellent phrase. Look forward to the definition! I am now trying to get my head around all the interesting paradoxes, when I've gazillions of things to do today.
I like to see luddites - well, my personal luddism with historical overtones, as change-resistant, but with a social conscience. From this perspective, a carbon luddite might be someone who resists technologial progress, in order to keep their carbon footprint five-toed. Kinda like me, not driving a car - IF I was so doing on principle, and not just out of fear.
On the flipside, a carbon luddite could be someone who resists change via a refusal to reduce their emissions: thus retaining a status quo, but with poor longterm prospects all-round, whoever is in control of the means of production.
Interesting.
I liked the historical Luddites. On a highway to nothing,of course, but worth doffing one's cap to.
(stepz away fae the internet)
Reply to this
Y'see; that's the dilemma. Should it be applied to those on my side, or theirs? Does it apply to those who would retard Technical Progress to Save the Planet (at the expense of people), or to those who want to retard the Effort to Save the Planet?
It's all very mixed up right now, with the self-appointed "Progressives" advocating burning food for fuel, and replacing efficient fuel sources with very inefficient ones. It's as if they think solar cells and wind turbines and capacitors are created -- excuse me, EVOLVE -- ex nihilo, with no environmental impact on the production / disposal ends.
Well. I suppose it might be a case of whoever claims it first. So *I* am claiming the phrase, and applying it to *them* -- the Luddites who are using planetary flux as an excuse to restrict progress for people.
Carbon Luddite example #1: Al Gore. Extrapolate from there.
Reply to this