This, of course, is why further technological advancement in certain fields should be banned, and certain areas of current technology actually scaled back. Both are, of course, largely impossible, thus the only things that can actually stop this are a devastating pandemic or a nuclear catastrophe (or some other disastrous event). These are not very palatable, so it appears that humanity is screwed just about anyway you slice it. Either we'll be butchered by the robots, or we'll be butchered by the natural world. Ah well, there's still Heaven to look forward to.
Wouldn't it be preferable to implement policies such as an earlier retirement age rather than luddism?
Maybe, but, on the other hand, that assumes that such things as a 'retirement age' or an 'income' won't be swept aside by technological development. Of course, Luddism, as an ideology,
cannot work. The only way that it could ever be made to work was if there was a sophisticated, powerful, international government which had the power to block further technological development. Of course, that would be in conflict with its Luddite ideology, since such an organisation would obviously have to be very sophisticated technologically. Anyway, such an institution could never arise, and indeed its rise would be very unwelcome.
Another reason why Luddism cannot work is because, as my first objection hints at, it would require universal global adherence by
every nation, which obviously isn't going to work. Take, for example, the Chinese Empire, or the Tokugawa Shogunate, both of which attempted to prevent the spread of western technologies to their respective countries (not neccessarily because their rulers were Luddites per se, but because these technologies had the potential to threaten the survival of their states). They failed, disastrously so, because, obviously, western powers could use their infinitely superior technology to force their way in. To take another, more modern, example, nuclear disarmament could be seen as a form of Luddism, and yet nobody's going to unilaterally abandon their independent nuclear deterrant, due to the risk that a rival or a rogue state would retain their's and use it as a tool for conquest or blackmail or something like that. Abandoning cutting edge technology simply puts you at risk from those have not done so.
So, you're right in the sense that Luddism is totally unworkable as an ideology; but, I would argue that attempts to ameliorate rapid technological change (and the social dislocation that it causes) are likely to fail this time, unlike on previous occasions in human history. I mean, to implement an earlier retirement age, a basic mimimum income and other such regulations requires the continued existence of the state, something which I am not entirely sure is a given, assuming that technology continues to develop as quickly as it is now.
My basic fear is that technological development will render humanity itself obsolescent. You might say 'that's pure science fiction'. Whilst it is true to say that there have been many laughable predictions of the consequences of developing technology with a mind of its own (from Skynet to I Robot), it is also true that there were many laughable predictions about the development of aircraft, or phones, or computers, and yet that did not mean that such sophisticated devices did not get developed in the end. Machines, not being human, are not constrained by our many human weaknesses. Now, if we combine that with some degree of independent thought, as we have already begun to do, I believe that that presents a very serious threat, not just to human society, but to the human race as a whole. But, as I explained earlier, there is very little that we can do about ourselves, and thus the only possible 'salvation' (although it would be an extremely depressing form of 'salvation') for us, in this life, from rapid technological development, is the 'hand of God', so to speak
.
