Ranting to /dev/null

i'm not sure i caught the connection between "Rousseauian" and "neo-Luddite" (particularly in the article). i'd more closely associate "neo-Luddite" with folks who want to return to an agricultural past, not a pre-agricultural past. (which isn't really to say that what you were saying was wrong, just that i think there's a finer distinction that could be made there).

I guess I would forge the linkage by observing that both believe that there was some point in the past where everything was okay (which is true as far as it goes), and that the thing that made us not okay was social or technological progress (which is bullshit). The Rousseauian says that the problem with people is society, the neo-Luddite says the problem with society is technology, but both harken back to an idyllic, largely fictitious past.

Reasonable enough. Though the article would probably do very little to dissuade the neo-luddite of his beliefs (and not simply because the neo-luddite is unlikely to be persuaded to begin with; in fact, you might actually be able to argue that it would (unintentionally and perhaps irrationally, but that's how most things work) bolster the beliefs of the neo-luddite, as it argues for agrarianism as an improved state of affairs).

An interesting take. I read it as arguing that regardless of how bad the current situation seems to be, we must remember that the current problems were viewed as entirely preferable to the problems they replaced by the people who had to make that choice. Looking back, a rural society may seem idyllic, especially compared to the problems of cities, but if you went back and asked anyone living in such a society which they'd rather have, they'd pick the urban one, as evidenced by the fact that they did pick the urban one. What makes us think that we know better than the people who actually had to make the choice?

No, you're completely right about the author's intention (based on my reading of two key paragraphs which seem pretty clear) -- I was only noting that an alternate, illogical reading was possible (and even probable, based on the way folks tend to read, filtering out things that don't agree with the notions they began with).

I guess my point was that the neo-luddite would be unlikely to be convinced by the leap the author makes from A. agrarian society was, in fact, an improvement over pre-agrarian society to B. similarly, our contemporary problems in technological society are preferable to the problems faced by agrarian society. If you already believe both A and B, then seeing evidence for A will tend to bolster your belief in B (as it seems to have done for the author); after all, A + B do have a number of similarities, as you have since pointed out. However, the neo-luddite is unlikely to see things this way -- he will have no trouble agreeing to A, but I suggest that he will be more likely to seeing evidence of A as additional evidence of the superiority of the agrarian society, not as evidence that bolsters B.

Oh, and, yes, the hypothetical neo-luddite's reading requires ignoring several pieces of evidence the author presents for B; but I think the neo-luddite is likely to do that.

And, finally, I will note that now the connection is more clear to me than it was when I first commented (probably because the first time I sped through the article and the second time around I read it more carefully).