Those who object to a new technological choice can be criticized as being against progress. While I don’t seek out these debates, the kinds of arguments around who is or is not against progress tend to oversimplify the issues underlying the diffusion and/or use of new technology. But being anti-progress, at least to me, does not yet have the negative connotations that have been attached to the denier label common to arguments over science.
That hasn’t stopped some from trying. On the Ideas Lab blog Robert Atkinson and Stephen Ezell of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation resurrect one of Atkinson’s favorite jibes – neo-Luddite. Named after the 19th century English labor movement that objected to new machines displacing skilled labor, neo-Luddites would argue against technology – some of them violently – based on the negative impacts of new technology.
Atkinson seems incapable of conceiving any possible negative impacts of new technology. Unfortunately, his arguments are consistent with many from his organization, favoring demeaning of the opposition and dismissal of their arguments by simple assertion. “Scare quotes” seem to be a particular favorite tactic. For an organization that often produces analyses with substantive research behind it, the laziness of the ad hominem is a disappointment. Especially when they target the Postal Service.
In this particular instance, the arguments are little more than citing examples of authors, arguments and laws that they consider to be bad for business and/or new technology. They include California’s Proposition 37 (labeling genetically modified organisms – GMOs – in food), European privacy laws, and whatever they think net neutrality means as anti-technology stances that are bad for innovation. I guess the authors are really upset that Whole Foods decided to label GMOs in its food. The neo-Luddites they seem to see everywhere appear to me as full of straw. Continue reading
Pasco Phronesis 