Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

Archae

(46,809 posts) Sat Sep 14, 2013, 08:53 AM Sep 2013

Today's Luddites...

Couple hundred years ago a group led by a fanatic named Ludd decided that they would stop improvemnets in technology, by smashing automated looms.

They failed. Totally.

Luddite

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Although the origin of the name Luddite (/ˈlʌd.aɪt/) is uncertain, a popular theory is that the movement was named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers.[1][2][3] The name evolved into the imaginary General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.[4][a]

(snip)

In modern usage, "Luddite" is a term describing those opposed to, or slow to adopt or incorporate into their lifestyle, industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Today, there are people who want to stop technological improvements, with hysteria about GMO agriculture.

They will fail too.

Science is on our side.
Hysteria and woo is the only thing they have.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's Luddites... (Original Post) Archae Sep 2013 OP

When I google monsanto..... catnhatnh Sep 2013 #1

So Google hits equates to good science? HuckleB Sep 2013 #3

And scientists think neonicotinids are a possible culprit - but Monsanto doesn't make them muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #4

The Luddites were an outgrowth of throwing people to the wolves JHB Sep 2013 #2

While Monsanto may be going to far to protect it's patents... Archae Sep 2013 #5

Yes, but since the larger problem is law, politics, and lack of trust of self-interested promoters.. JHB Sep 2013 #8

This Lordquinton Sep 2013 #6

Also, those mechanical looms were not labor savers Warpy Sep 2013 #7

I've worked in high tech R&D for years IDemo Sep 2013 #9

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)

1. When I google monsanto.....

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 10:54 AM

Sep 2013

and dead bees I get 785K hits but I guess that's all woo to you too......

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)

3. So Google hits equates to good science?

Reply to catnhatnh (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:53 PM

Sep 2013

Hmm....

PS: http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf

muriel_volestrangler

(102,483 posts)

4. And scientists think neonicotinids are a possible culprit - but Monsanto doesn't make them

Reply to catnhatnh (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 02:53 PM

Sep 2013

Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically similar to nicotine. The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer.[1] The neonicotinoids were developed in large part because they show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.[2] Neonicotinoids are the first new class of insecticides introduced in the last 50 years, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.[3] The neonicotinoids include acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam.

The use of some members of this class has been restricted in some countries due to some evidence of a connection to honey-bee colony collapse disorder.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] In January 2013, the European Food Safety Authority stated that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies' claims of safety have relied may be flawed.

In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.[12] Also in March 2013, the US EPA was sued by a coalition of beekeepers, as well as conservation and sustainable agriculture advocates who accused the agency of performing inadequate toxicity evaluations and allowing registration of the pesticides to stand on insufficient industry studies.[13]

On May 24, 2013, the European Commission imposed a number of use restrictions on neonicotinoid insecticides, which are suspected to be a contributing factor of bee colony collapse disorder.[14][15]
...
Seven neonicotinoids from different companies are currently on the market.[16]
Name Company Products Turnover in million US$ (2009)
Imidacloprid Bayer CropScience Confidor, Admire, Gaucho 1,091
Thiamethoxam Syngenta Actara, Platinum, Cruiser 627
Clothianidin Sumitomo Chemical/Bayer CropScience Poncho, Dantosu, Dantop 439
Acetamiprid Nippon Soda Mospilan, Assail, ChipcoTristar 276
Thiacloprid Bayer CropScience Calypso 112
Dinotefuran Mitsui Chemicals Starkle, Safari, Venom 79
Nitenpyram Sumitomo Chemical Capstar, Bestguard 8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

Monsanto is not in that list.

So, how exactly are you tying Monsanto and dead bees? Something made you google them together. What? Was it, perhaps, Monsanto's purchase of a company that is working on a way to kill the Varroa mite? Would you rather they left the bees to die?

JHB

(37,417 posts)

2. The Luddites were an outgrowth of throwing people to the wolves

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 12:14 PM

Sep 2013

The mechanization was destroying their livelihoods, with no viable alternatives. The owners reaped benefits, and the people they had formerly depended on were either tossed away or were still employed but saw how things were going. The only safety net was begging for alms, or having to start from scratch -- if they could find someone who'd take on a middle-aged apprentice. Smashing the machines wasn't the best option, but all the good options were out of their reach.

The Luddites are better understood as a labor issue than as cartoon anti-technology fanatics. Their radicalization was a warning about what can happen when there is a failure to address consequences for displaced workers.

As for GMO, it's not just the technology: the legal framework governing its usage and regulation is amply concerned with the needs and interests of the companies and patent-holders, and considerably less so for everyone else: consumers and simple bystanders. And the companies & patent-holders are pushing for even further deregulation.

So a substantial part of the "hysteria" about GMOs is about the legal aspects and self-interest of promoters. And another portion simply knows its history, remembers PR campaigns about "better living through <fill in the blank>" and wants a regulatory infrastructure in place to avoid new equivalents of the myriad industrial accidents and disasters that were the result of lax or nonexistent concerns for safety.

If you're really worried about Luddites, work against the other factors that so warp the situation that the genuine fringe of zealots can sound reasonable.

Archae

(46,809 posts)

5. While Monsanto may be going to far to protect it's patents...

Reply to JHB (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:04 PM

Sep 2013

This "All those GMO are killing us and destroying all the bees!" is Luddite hysteria.

All the *CREDIBLE* evidence shows that GMO crops do not kill us, do not kill off bees.

http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html

JHB

(37,417 posts)

8. Yes, but since the larger problem is law, politics, and lack of trust of self-interested promoters..

Reply to Archae (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 06:31 PM

Sep 2013

...that is where the fight is.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)

6. This

Reply to JHB (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:10 PM

Sep 2013

GMO troubles are less scientific trouble and massively legal trouble.

Warpy

(113,130 posts)

7. Also, those mechanical looms were not labor savers

Reply to JHB (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 14, 2013, 04:27 PM

Sep 2013

For the people who worked them, they were labor intensifiers, forcing people to adapt to the speed of the machine instead of having a home based weaving business that would adapt to the weaver. While a few skilled weavers were put to work designing textiles, most ended up (if they were lucky) doing the backbreaking work of threading those old machines and being completely disconnected from either the planning or the final result. The effect was dehumanizing to the weavers even as it drove down the price of high quality cloth for everybody else.

The Luddites had a few valid points, in other words. There should have been room for cheap cloth from the machines and luxury cloth from master weavers but the latter only happened for the aristocracy and there weren't enough aristocrats to keep them all employed.

IDemo

(16,926 posts)

9. I've worked in high tech R&D for years

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Thu Sep 19, 2013, 06:40 PM

Sep 2013

And I would likely qualify under the modern definition - "slow to adopt or incorporate into their lifestyle..new technologies in general". We have no cable or dish TV and are still using our ancient tube sets. No smartphones or other mobile devices, and..gasp! no GPS in our 20 year old vehicles. OK, I am using an SSD in my home built PC, but only because it was a freebie.

Reply to this discussion