Just a few weeks ago, I read an interesting article on the Festival of Ludd, the world’s first-ever festival dedicated to ‘Neo Luddism’ — a place where technology is openly eschewed, in layman’s terms.
I found it interesting that a loose, somewhat broad collection of thoughts and notions around techno-pessimism seems to be coalescing into something more mainstream. We’ve heard TED talks and read articles on Neo Luddism well before the Summer of Ludd was a thing, but this feels new to me — something being swept into a wider generational zeitgeist.
Of course, wariness around technology isn’t exactly exclusive to Gen Z, but there is evidence to suggest that younger people are increasingly turning away. Quoted in the above article is a 2025 Pew Research study that reported that 48 per cent of teenage respondents asked said social media had a negative effect on people of their age group. That’s up from 32 per cent in 2022.
Latest Videos FromTechRadar
This somewhat correlates to a decline in social media usage. As reported by the Financial Times, overall usage is down in all adults from a historical peak back in 2022.
What’s interesting to me, however, is how younger audiences are becoming more vocal in their skepticism. Before, you could argue that skepticism was mostly associated with an older generation that was resistant to change. Now, one of the first truly digital generations is leading the call online.
I do have a few niggling doubts, though, which I’ll cover shortly.
What exactly is a Neo Luddite?
The original Luddites were a group that fought against industrialisation, and as the name suggests, Neo-Luddism is a movement that looks to reject the encroaching influence of technology on our lives in the twenty-first century.
If that sounds like a vague cause, that’s because the movement encompasses everything from a simple affinity for older, single-use, and analog technology to more hardline stances on de-industrialization. It’s not a new term or a new movement, but it’s gaining traction recently within the wider sense of technology fatigue and growing fears around AI.
The Festival of Ludd, in my eyes, is the clearest example of the latest version of the wider movement. I’ve written about Gen Z eschewing technology before, but this really feels like a natural progression — an actual event that is dedicated to things like ‘dumbphones’, combating the attention economy, and in-person networking.
At a surface level, it could be seen as a simple protest or gathering of disaffected tech workers, but the festival does appear to attempt to answer the big questions and problems. At the very least, the diagnosis of the issues raised is completely valid.
So what’s the issue?
A significant number of the population, including Gen Z, will be employed in services, media, or tech-adjacent roles.
While I’m broadly sympathetic to the overall movement, one thing that struck me about the Festival of Ludd in particular is that the movement seems to be coalescing around people who are effectively able to shut themselves out. I want to get fully on board, but there’s a kind of idealism that always clashes with reality when I wrestle with this issue in my head.
This isn’t as simple as being an indicator of class or someone’s background, but to be able to ‘turn off’ in the first place suggests a certain level of privilege. I think if you can choose to turn off your phone, laptop, or smartwatch, then you’re luckier than a lot of people right now.
There’s nothing to suggest here that the movement is intentionally exclusive (in fact, it seems incredibly inclusive), but to walk away from all technology — even for a few days — is something that many cannot simply partake in.
That may sound like an excuse, but a simple analogy to make here is gas-powered cars. We know the effect of these vehicles on the environment. We know they cause harm. However, to simply opt out of these cars is not an option for some people — especially lower-income folk, in some cases.
Am I an advocate of gas-powered cars? Of course not, but the realist in me knows that people need infrastructure and affordable alternatives before they can switch to electric vehicles. In an ideal world, public transport and city infrastructure would be so good we wouldn’t even need cars.
I see a similar situation unfolding for many in terms of technology. A significant number of the population, including Gen Z, will be employed in services, media, or tech-adjacent roles that require interfacing with at least some facet of potentially harmful technology.
To simply opt out, however, can severely limit your options in today’s world. At best, it can be a healthy sacrifice of convenience. At worst, it can mean not having a decent job that can put food on your table.
Escaping technology
The Festival of Ludd reminds me a lot of my own experience of going to week-long festivals in my twenties. These festivals didn’t outwardly eschew technology, but I see them as very much analogous to the viewpoints conveyed by those at the Festival of Ludd. Phone use was discouraged, social media was commonly derided, and you’d be bombarded with messages encouraging human connection. All good things, of course.
Now, in my thirties, however, I know I simply cannot afford to switch my phone off for a week. I have elderly parents for one, and my job requires a certain level of connection.
I wouldn’t call myself perpetually online, but I obviously need to be informed about the comings and goings in my field. It would be nice to spend less time online, but I’m realistic about my uses — I am a technology journalist, after all.
You could argue that I would be able to do all of the above with a ‘dumb phone’ or a similar Luddite-friendly device. To an extent, that is true, and I’m certainly no advocate for AI features or similar bloat on modern smartphones.
Realistically, however, I admit that a smartphone does have several uses — a calendar, maps, emails, and so on. It effectively reduces the number of things I need to do my job dramatically. Again, it’s a clash of idealism versus realism for me. I enjoy the romantic notion of throwing my smartphone away, but I know that it would just mean more devices and paperwork.
Turning off is a privilege?
I see a clash of idealism versus the reality of the situation here.
Interestingly, as a millennial, I do know people who have essentially escaped the grip of technology. People who have essentially retrained, emigrated, or even gone fully ‘off-grid ‘. Some who have talked about a more disconnected life have effectively made it a reality.
The issue with their path, however, is that they’ve needed significant capital to break away. Some have even spent over a decade working in tech-adjacent roles to get to that point.
Again, I see a clash of idealism versus the reality of the situation here. These are examples where people have had to work within the wider system before they’re privileged enough to make a choice whether to partake or not.
Bleakly, I can almost foresee a future where the choice of whether to ‘turn off’ or not is solely the reserve of the privileged. I’m somehow reminded of this report of Silicon Valley bosses sending their children to schools without computers. Most people don’t have the option to send their kids to schools like this. Likewise, most people won’t get to be that picky about work.
I strongly suspect that most Gen Z Neo-Luddites will face a similar path to mine in the next few decades. Some will dream of an unconnected world, but the reality may be different. The genie is unfortunately out of the bottle now, and it could take several years to actually attain a state of unconnectedness, if it is indeed possible.
Where to go from here?
So, am I against the Gen Z Neo Luddites? Not at all; I think their scepticism is absolutely valid and healthy. They’ve correctly diagnosed a growing issue and made their frustrations known. The question is, how do they really effect change and make the cause mainstream?
When you look for an answer to this question, you seem to generate even more questions. For one, are you able to effect change when you simply opt out of a system? Doing so seems to immediately cede the floor to the technology companies that the movement rails against. Perhaps it’s more effective to try and build a more collaborative relationship, as idealistic as that sounds.
For what it’s worth, the Festival of Ludd does attempt to tackle many of these questions. Such subjects as offline networking and independent websites are covered, and several attendees did point out the inherent contradiction of using social media to promote the event. They are acutely aware of the contradictions and issues raised in this article, so none of this will be news to them.
Hopefully, as the festival and wider movement grow, the option to ‘turn off’ becomes more of a choice, rather than a sacrifice.
Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/SVTt29fPViMuBTXaywuLaX-2000-80.jpg
Source link
alex.whitelock@futurenet.com (Alex Whitelock)
