# Neo‑Luddism Neo-Luddism is a slightly pejorative label for a contemporary revival of the Luddite critique of the early 19th century, updated for an era of AI, biotechnology and hyper-automation. Its adherents challenge not only the "move fast and break things" ethos of Silicon Valley, but also the broader assumption that all technological progress is inherently good. They warn that unchecked AI risks massive job displacement, deepening inequality and concentrating power in the hands of a few tech elites. At the same time, neo-Luddites oppose genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine, arguing that GMOs pose unknown ecological dangers and increase corporate control over seeds and health. Many embrace a vision of technological degrowth, insisting on democratic limits to the expansion of the economy, imposing controls to avoid depleting resources and destabilising ecosystems as a way of countering climate crises. In more extreme corners, this view overlaps with neo-Malthusian concerns about overpopulation and the need for strict "limits to growth". But by and large, neo-Luddism is fuelled by a romantic idealisation of nature as a fragile, untouchable realm (which modern machines threaten to desecrate) and by a deep suspicion of the influence of global technology corporations on society. --- ## Entries **10/04/2025**: Read today “_Where Has the Left’s Technological Audacity Gone?(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2025/mar/11/democrats-liberal-technology-innovation)_” by [[Leigh Phillips]] (The Guardian, 11 Mar 2025). Phillips argues that the left must forge a third way, rejecting Silicon Valley’s accelerationist “[[Tech Right]]” and the neo‑Luddism of some progressives, by championing publicly funded innovation and an industrial policy under democratic oversight. He highlights that historically the left has been positive about technological development even while critical of its deployment under capitalist production logics, and he points to contemporary successes like Operation Warp Speed as a model for how government should guide technological advances for the common good. He also urges cautious support for new technologies (GM crops and gene therapies) arguing that the progressive agenda should place them under public scrutiny and apply them to improve the lives of the poorest people, rather than impose blanket prohibitions. Reflecting the skepticism about the "abundance agenda" expressed on his Twitter account, Phillips appears inspired by [[Institutional Paralysis#^why-nothing-works|Marc J. Dunkelman's Why Nothing Works]]. Dunkelman's book points to a division among American progressives: Hamiltonians (who favor a capable, centralized state) versus Jeffersonians (who are skeptical of state power and favor distributed checks and balances). Phillips views this framework as a more useful way to understand why the left struggles to agree on a techno-optimist agenda. Consequently, he suggests a new optimistic left agenda should include a robust industrial policy for green energy, citizen-led review boards for AI research priorities, and a renewed techno-optimism rooted in collective well-being rather than private profit. The article is valuable because it critically examines what Phillips terms a "renewed positivism" on technology from the right. Furthermore, it shows how this dynamic helps cement an anti-growth, anti-development sentiment within the left, and highlights serious cases where environmental activism, for instance, can do more harm than good for those most in need: the poor in the world's poorest countries.