Technophobia in the left and broader society

We must realise that we are talking about two different issues -- technophobia and technoscepticism aren't the same (even though the same individual may have both 'problems').

I think technophobia is a problem that divides the left, and primarily certain types of anarchists. It is linked to a generally biocentric pov. They think that technology is inherently negative and dangerous.

The type of technoscepticism you are describing, on the other hand, is a wider problem. Especially some dogmatic marxist-leninists who cannot see beyond Marx, Lenin's etc teachings seem determined that human labor will always exist.

I'm not sure how to effectively tackle these issues other than by educating and propagandising however tedious it feels at times. With time the benefits of technology will become increasingly obvious, though.

Sentinel pretty much nailed it.

I would add that our kind of ideologies are at a very embryonic stage - I consider the utopianism of HG Wells et al to be the mere birth cries (if that, even!) of a potentially grander scheme - and because of that we just haven't yet had the chance to prove ourselves on any historically significant scale. So skepticism is to be expected.

But I believe there are reasons to be hopeful - science is one of the human species' most powerful and successful tools to date, and ideologies which not only merely approve of science, but actively embrace the changes wrought by it, have a bright future in a rapidly more and more technological world.

Technophobia (as opposed to just skepticism) on the other hand, is utterly irrational, and it completely mystifies me why any sensible person would hold to it. Anyone have any ideas?

"Technophobia (as opposed to just skepticism) on the other hand, is utterly irrational, and it completely mystifies me why any sensible person would hold to it. Anyone have any ideas?" - NoXion

I think it's because of the Terminator films

But really people don't like change it may be as simple as that.

I don't think rejection of technology is a resistance to change, but an expression of alienated labour. Capital itself has been forged through the capitalist mode of production. This has created a specific type of technology whose purpose is the maximisation of profit with no care for the affect on humans.

Capitalism also creates a disaster of the improvement of efficiency in the form of periodic crisis and avoidance of complete automation. As we approach total automation, marxian theory dictates that according to the labour theory of value, the value of the product approaches zero. At total automation, capitalism can make no profit as there is no labour surplus to appropriate. In fact, in neo-classical economic theory we reach the same conclusion. The supply of a fully automated good quickly saturates the market. Capitalism is in direct opposition to full automation and/or durability.

These factors, since capitalism is completely hegemonic, lead many to conclude that the problems they experience are the fault of technology. This analysis is less complex than the economic arguments and more widely expressed and therefor has more currency.

We can combat this through descriptions of positive visions of directions of technology that are more simple than the economic arguments. As the primitivists and eco-pastoralists have a backward looking golden age, we need a forward looking one. Of course the forward looking one is possible, the backward looking one is purely nostalgia.

A lot of peak oil or environmental types create a false dichotomy that goes something like this: The misuse of Technology has wrecked the planet. Either we get rid of technology, or the planet dies.

Obviously this ignores other choices, like the proper use of Technology for the benefit of people, which is what Technocracy is about.

Most people prefer simple explanations. That may have something to do with it.

I think a big hinderance in the technocratic case is that people are widely sceptical of society run on the basis of automated production. Not necessarilly because they feel it is impossible, but out of an irrational knee jerk mentality that 'we arent at that stage yet and arent likely to be soon so there's no point'.

All you need to do in this case is point out that Tech, Inc. started way back before the great depression, with an original plan for a transition to the Technate before the 1950s. Such people just need to be educated that not only is a post-scarcity society possible right now with today's technology, it has been possible for decades.

Part of the problem is fear of take over. This is the anthropomorphization of any potential computer system that runs automated production. They assume it will have human desires like a desire for power or an aversion to being used. These things don't need to be programmed into it, and shouldn't. It's main desire and pleasure should be to serve us. If we program that in it won't have the motivation to take over or do anything destructive.

Capitalism also creates a disaster of the improvement of efficiency in the form of periodic crisis and avoidance of complete automation. As we approach total automation, marxian theory dictates that according to the labour theory of value, the value of the product approaches zero. At total automation, capitalism can make no profit as there is no labour surplus to appropriate. In fact, in neo-classical economic theory we reach the same conclusion. The supply of a fully automated good quickly saturates the market. Capitalism is in direct opposition to full automation and/or durability.

It would mean the end of capitalism, but it wouldn't hurt capitalists, since a fully automated system would be able to produce even more than their current lifestyle gives them just that everyone else would get that too. If you can have even more wealth by sacrificing ownership of the means of production you might go for it. With capitalist support the government might even support this and sponsor a project to fully automate the economy.

So far, in my opinion, "technophobia", from the viewpoint of Marxian class theory is a petty-bourgeoisie problem. Petty-bourgeoisie is "no class" in a class. The petty-bourgeoisie, though may compile the most of the population, is just a bunch of individuals and "lack of class consciousness" is in their very nature. The fear both the capitalist and the workers, because both are organized classes, which the petty-bourgeoisie itself can not become. It either has to be under one of the classes, but it itself can not become the ruling class.
Technophobia is actually originated in the minds of petty bourgeoisie class. It is actually the fear of the losing their own identity as a class and a clear indication that they (the petty-bourgeoisie) in the long run, will be abolished and at present they have to go under either the capitalists or the workers, who can have the power to control the scientific progress. Mechanization and industrial progress in one hand means less labor and therefor more leisure time for workers and the mankind, but on the other hand, it also means end of individualism which is a great point of identity of the petty-bourgeoisie class. As more and more leisure time will be allotted to the working class, the sooner that will end the difference between physical and mental labor and THAT MEAN THE END OF PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CLASS.
Those "leftists(!)", which have technophobia, are actually petty-bourgeoisie leftists, not working class leftists. Yes, petty-bourgeoisie can also become leftists, because the oppose the capitalists which stand in the way of they themselves become capitalists.

I would be careful how you phrase the statement I bolded. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but I doubt anyone is out to turn everyone into Borgs a la Star Trek. A certain degree of individualism should be fine - both extremes (total selfishness and the "hive mind") are detrimental to society. Plus, if we will have more leisure time, what good would it be if "individualism" was destroyed?

Anyways, my view on technophobia in the left is this: I don't know many communist leftists that are technophobes, and if they are, they're usually primmos who no one really takes seriously anyway. However, primmos tend to get a lot of sympathy from the liberal-green-left crowd who would rather have 1000 sq. ft of "urban garden" than housing for the working class and homeless, or who pine for the "wholesomeness" and "uncomplicatedness" of remote native tribes, or some other romanticized, reactionary bullshit.

I think the problem stems from (of course) a capitalist-system mentality. Of course automating work in an economic system where we need a wage to survive will negatively impact humans; having technology produced for profit will result in slow, shoddy development and damage the environment (as the costs can run too high, and things can't be made "to last"); technology makes our lives "too complicated" and "demanding," with more "job accountability." Liberal-leftists will use talking points like these to decry the advancement of technology. The answer is NOT having a capitalist system. Of course this is fairly reductionist and would require a greater explanation of communism and why capitalism cannot provide the technological advancements we need, but IMO people really need to understand this.