Toward a Luddite Pedagogy in the "Age of AI"

Speaker 1 2022 was a system reboot. 2023 broke the doom loop. This year is all about turning vision into reality. Conference to Restore Humanity twenty twenty four is an invitation for k 12 and college educators to build your joyful reimagined classroom. Our conference is designed around the accessibility and sustainability of virtual learning while engaging participants in an environment that models the same progressive pedagogy we value with students. Instead of long Zoom presentations with a brief q and a, our flipped keynotes let the learning community listen and learn on their own time, then engage in a one hour Q and A with our speakers. Doctor. Mary Helen Immordino Yang makes the neurobiological case for progressive education rooted in her groundbreaking work in affective neuroscience. Doctor Carla Shalabee demonstrates the power of education as the practice of freedom, honoring young people's rights to full human being. Doctor Sousan Jabber elevates the voices of Arab and Muslim students as an advocate for global equity and justice. And Orchard View School's Innovative Learning Center showcases healthy, sustainable community learning spaces for teenagers and adult learners alike. Beyond our flipped keynotes, participants will be invited to join week long learning journeys. Join Trevor Elio on a journey to learn interdisciplinary inquiry based methods to equip students as knowledge producers, communicating with zines, podcasts, and more, and understand the ripple effects of modern imperialism with a focus on Palestinian resilience and classroom tools for fostering global solidarity in our second workshop led by Abir Ramadan Shanawi. We're also featuring virtual school tours so you can see progressive practice in action at the NOVA Lab, Olin Tanji STEM Academy, Community Lab School, and more. The mission of reshaping education systems, of turning vision into reality is vital for a sustainable and just future. Conference to Restore Humanity runs July 22 through the twenty fifth. And as of recording, early bird tickets are still available. It's a $150 for four days with discounts available, group rates, and parity pricing. Plus, we'll award certificates for teacher training and continuing education credits. See our website, humanrestorationproject.org, for more information, and let's restore humanity together. Hello, and welcome to episode 150 of the Human Restoration Project podcast. My name is Nick Covington. Before we get started, I wanted to let you know that this episode is brought to you by our supporters. Three of whom are Kimberly Baker, Simeon Frank, and Corinne Greenblatt. You can learn more about Human Restoration Project on our website, humanrestorationproject.org, and connect connect with us anywhere on social media. Website, Were we required to characterize this age of ours by any single epithet, we should be tempted to call it not an heroical, devotional, philosophical, or moral age, but above all others, the mechanical age. It is the age of machinery in every outward and inward sense of that word. The age which with its whole undivided might forwards, teaches, and practices the great art of adapting means to ends. Nothing is now done directly or by hand, all is by rule and calculated contrivance. For the simplest operation, some helps and accompaniments, some cunning abbreviating process is in readiness. Our old modes of exertion are all discredited and thrown aside. On every hand, the living artisan is driven from his workshop to make room for a speedier, inanimate one. The shuttle drops from the fingers of the weaver and falls into iron fingers that ply it faster. This is how Scottish historian and writer Thomas Carlyle characterized Great Britain's mechanized steam powered industrial era in 1829. These changes in the human relationship to production rippled through the world economy with profound social, political, and environmental implications. One loosely organized group, the Luddites, emerged early on to smash the new machines and resist mechanization of the mills. Two hundred years after Carlisle's age of machinery, we find ourselves sold a new age, the age of automation and AI, which promises another transformation in the way we live, work, and learn with similar social, political, and environmental consequences. At least the AI hype cycle is real. Sal Khan's new book, for example, Brave How AI Will Revolutionize Education and Why That's a Good Thing, promises to be, quote, required reading for everyone who cares about education, end quote. But what should be the relationship of education, automation, and artificial intelligence? Should there be one at all? How much power, not to mention student data, should educators seed to the new machine in the age of AI? Or should the answer be a twenty first century Luddite revival and mass resistance to the vision of the future offered by Google, OpenAI, and Microsoft? That, anyway, I suspect will be the argument of my guest today, Charles Logan, a learning sciences PhD candidate at Northwestern University, writing earlier this year for the Los Angeles Review of Books. Ultimately, the Luddites' militancy and commitment to resistance might be a necessary entry point for how laborers and teachers, students, and caregivers can take an antagonistic stance towards AI and automation and create a new commons. Thank you so much, Charles, for joining me today. Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be chatting with you all today. So I think in the popular imagination, a Luddite is like an octogenarian congressperson who doesn't use email or someone who's, like, entirely technophobic, perhaps even culturally conservative. Right? Preserving the old ways against progress. One of the earliest pieces that you shared with me is from hybrid pedagogy, and it was written in 2014, fully a decade ago. Right? And by an author going by torn halves called toward a luddite pedagogy. And I was reading back through that and saw that it makes no mention of AI. So it's clearly an idea that existed alongside tech for at least that long. So help us understand who the luddites were. What were they about? And what can we learn from how they approached technological change in their own time?

Speaker 2 Sure thing. Yeah. I will do my best to sort of situate the Luddites in in history and working on a piece right now with Phil Nichols and and Terrell Garcia that tries to track what we've come up with three different waves of Luddites, but I think it's important to start with the the OGs, the the original, Luddites. So as you mentioned, it's the early nineteenth century, in England, and you have the long history of different sorts of cloth workers who all of a sudden are faced with, automation. And so you have early industrial capitalists who are building factories, who are shifting the nature of labor because of these technologies that, are displacing people, are allowing capitalists to depress wages, and that are having these rippling effects on on workers themselves, but also their communities. And so these automating technologies are threats to both the the livelihood of these laborers, but also the dignity in which they they conceive of themselves and and the work and the great sort of traditions that have brought them to the this place in history. And so the Luddites are are actually named after a fictional character, Ned Ludd, who, the story goes, was was punished by one of his, bosses, essentially, and then decided to destroy the automating machine as a spinning Jenny or or, you know, one other kind of, like, mill. And so, emerges, as this folk hero, again, in a part of the world where they were not strangers to folk heroes like Robin Hood. And then you have, as you mentioned, this loose, but also connected set of political projects that go under the name of the Luddites across England in the early nineteenth century, and you have folks who are strategically, under the the cover of darkness, breaking into factories, breaking into, factory owners' homes, and destroying, what they called, right, the the obnoxious machines, the machines that were threats to their livelihood, to their dignity. And so, again, I I will emphasize it is strategic sabotage. It is not haphazard. And so as you mentioned, the you know, over the last 200, what I has become a pejorative, you know, think I was looking at, you know, like, what a dictionary.com has those words of the day and a corresponding image. And the corresponding image was, as you said, you know, an octogenarian looking at her phone as if it were a fish. And so, you know, we've seen these these sort of projects then to rehabilitate and sort of reframe the Luddites over, you know, the last two hundred fifty plus years. And so that happened with historians in the early to mid twentieth century. And then you have moving into the the nineteen seventies, what Phil and Antero and I have called the second wave of Luddism. And that is a is a different group of people. You have folks like Kirkpatrick Sale is is one of the leaders of these new Luddites who are questioning, you know, technology at a time of the Cold War, and sort of the growth of nuclear energies and and weapons and sort of environmentalists and pacifists, Quakers. And so there there's a more of a sort of this motley crew and and this big tent. But unlike their predecessors, were often avowed pacifists, as I mentioned. And so they're, moving away from that original tactic of of physical destruction of infrastructure and more of a kind of set of beliefs to to organize around. And then the, you know, the the term kind of falls out of favor again, and and it's only been in, I would say, in the last sort of, you know, what you mentioned, Tornhav's piece from 2014 and Audrey Waters picks up on on that work from a few years ago. And then you also have this sort of growth in, a lot of tech critics like Brian Merchant and Paris Marx and others who are reclaiming the name, and the identity of of a Luddite. It is it's a very fluid term. I think that that is it is something to acknowledge that, and it has changed over the course of time. Now, think as you mentioned, as we have the Saul Cons of the world who are doing their best to infuse our classrooms with their proprietary chatbots, you know, I think we can look to the Luddites again and think about, well, what would it mean to practice, this Luddite practice and what kinds of interventions, what kind of tactics, what kind of sabotage, or what side of what kind of organizing can be done and inspired by the Luddites here, in the year 2024?

Speaker 1 Well, let's go ahead and bring in, since we had since you mentioned Sal Khan, since we're kind of transitioning into talking about that, what would be considered the third wave in your take on on third wave Luddism here. So you've been skeptical of announcements from OpenAI's Sam Altman, Microsoft's Bill Gates, and kind of working in tandem here. And you've been sharing your criticism of Sal Khan's newest book on social media, which I've which I've enjoyed reading there too. So what even is that transformation that they're promising? What tactics of the new, modern industrial capitalists are the third wave Luddites reacting to? Can you outline that for us?

Speaker 2 Yeah. I mean, a lot of it comes down to the same dog and pony show that Saw Khan has been selling for a long time, and that is personalized learning. And he has this real sort of superpower to forget any sort of history. Maybe he never learned it in the first place. It's been strategic about his his own ignorance. And, again, as an avowed Audrey Waters fanboy, she's written about the the history of personalized learning and begins her book, which is, I believe the title is, you know, the history of personalized learning or teaching machines, the history of personalized learning. MIT press, go buy it now. And she starts with an anecdote about Salkant and how he, you know, is is sort of makes his entree into education after having been, a hedge fund analyst, which, you know, again, I don't want to discount the possibility that someone could move from the business world into education and, you know, bring with them, and develop a critical pedagogy. Are you still con is not that person. And so it is, again, I think the story of of personalized learning of we can all of a sudden, you know, flip on this chatbot or open up the chatbot, and here you have a personalized tutor who is capable of getting to to know you, providing, right, real time feedback, and all of a sudden, you can, you know, achieve greatness. Reading the book, as as painful it is as it is, you know, I think that that that sense of automation of what it's like to be a student, what it's like to be a teacher, I think has the the echo of early industrialists who are pushing similar sorts of automating technologies. And again, I mean, you see who's blurbed the book. You mentioned Bill Gates, the, current CEO, of Microsoft blurbed the book. Wendy Kopp blurbed the blurb the book, who's the, founder of Teach For America and is very sort of problematic approach, to sustainable teaching, in our most vulnerable and under sourced communities. And, again, technology being turned to as a as a kind of panacea, which, again, there's a precedent for that, and that's BF Skinner and his teaching machines who, you know, sought to bring these teaching machines into Harlem, and other, under resourced communities as, again, answers for complex social problems that date back decades, if not centuries. And so this techno solutionism as, again, the kind of panacea that Khan is pushing in conjunction with folks like, you know, he refers to Sam Altman as Sam, and you go went to go see Bill Gates right after he saw Sam. And so there's this very sort of, like, chummy group. And so, you know, reading this and thinking about Audrey Waters' work and and others have been very influential in thinking about, well, this turn to to Luddism, what does that offer us? Because I think it's important to acknowledge that, and this is something that, you know, I've wrestled with and thinking about, well, what are potential shortcomings of Ledism is, you know, you can't easily smash a chatbot. You know, you could smash the the Chromebook, that, you know, you're using, you know, and then have to turn around and probably pay your school. And so there's a real kind of limitation to what Lutism looks like in the twenty first century that I that I don't think enough folks who who have claimed that as an identity acknowledge. And yet, I think that that spirit of sabotage of a more militaristic stance towards the technology and more, you know, intentionally, aggressive stance is helpful because there are, right, these, emerging technologies, Nightshade, I think, one of them where you can upload images that, essentially, will poison a dataset. And so there there are these tools that exist that, again, I would argue are Luddite tools. Their makers may not claim them as as Luddite, but I think we can view them through that lens. And then I also think, right, that that skepticism that organizing was a a I think an important piece of the Luddites. You know, the original Luddites are organizing under the cover of darkness and these sort of backroom, you know, taverns, and trying to figure out, like, what do we do about this technology? How do we how do we counter it? And so I think there's a lesson there for for teachers, for students who are all of a sudden facing these technologies, and being told that this is the future of education and that that organizing is an important piece to to pull out from from the Luddites as well as those tactics of sabotage, as well as the playfulness of, Luddites. So, you know, they're writing poems. They are inspiring poems, by Lord Byron is, I think, the most famous, poet who kind of came to the Luddite cause. They're sending these, you know, missives to various political leaders and, you know, nailing these threatening notes to to doors. They're dressing in drag. And so I think there's this sense of deadly seriousness alongside that playfulness. And, you know, I think there's a lot to be said about about that playfulness and as sort of a, like, a public a public pedagogy, that we see in education. And we see, I think, also, you know, folks who I'm thinking of, like, Emily Bender and Alex Hanna have a wonderful, podcast. It's like a livestream. It's called a, Mystery AI Hype Theater 3,000, something like that. And they basically just, like I don't know if I can say this on the show shit talk. These, like, latest, like, AI hype, like, article or or whatever it might be and across different disciplines, including education. And I think it's a profoundly, like, educative act to, like, have this show that they then put out in, you know, in a in a in a podcast, in a newsletter, you know, the video. And it's hosted not on YouTube, like, you know, so, you know, you're not putting money in Alphabet's pocket. And so, again, I think there are those tactics of sabotage, of organizing, of playfulness, and also acknowledging that even with the the historical Luddites, the Luddites and their kind of projects were connected, but they were also hyper local to the different regions. And so acknowledging that, like, what we as educators are doing with our students is always contingent on context. It's always contingent on the people in the room and the the constraints that we're facing given who we are and where we are. And so I think that's an important piece to to uplift from the original Luddites as well is that a lot of the Luddite, these different projects while while loosely connected around, know, sabotage and and organizing to protect their their livelihood and dignity against the incursion of these automating technologies that did not have, you know, uniform sets of beliefs or uniform goals. And I think that's something that we can also hold on to as we think about the own our own kind of, like, heterogeneity, in the '20, you know, 2024 and thinking about what would it look like to, you know, practice a Luddite practice in response to, you know, this this age of generative AI that we find ourselves in. And I don't even, you know, I don't even like calling it the age of generative AI. That that make that, like, I feel like puts it up on a pedestal that that it should not be we don't need to see that ground to them. You know, it's this flash point of, this sizzle of AI in education that will more than likely burn out, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Speaker 1 And I think that's a great way to get into the obfuscation that the AI hype cycle it's it's the age of the a of AI hype if it's not the age of generative AI. Right? It's the age of the AI salesman or, you know, lump cryptocurrency somewhere in there too. But, you know, as I'm looking at the the blurbs for Sal Khan's book, right, from Arnie Duncan, Tony Blair, you mentioned Wendy Kopp, formerly of Teach For America, now of Teach For All. Again, Sam Altman, Adam Grant, Bill Gates, right, all of these people. And in their blurbs, obfuscating something that's a little bit deeper. And I think it's something that you really had elaborated on in some work that you shared with me about understanding an ecological framework that actually helps us see past that hype cycle and understand the relationships between generative AI and how it's entwined with so many other aspects of life. And I think as far as a a third wave letism go, I think those ecologies are really important to recruiting people to see past, you know, that obfuscation and that veil of, hey. Here's how it's gonna transform education. But, hey. How is that gonna impact the environment or human labor or any of those other features? Could you explain what you mean by that ecological framework and why that matters?

Speaker 2 Yeah. I'd be happy to. And so let me start by contrasting it, I think, with the more common framework that I've encountered when working with young people and teachers about AI and learning with AI, and that's AI literacy. And so I think, right, AI literacy one of the critiques of literacy as a framework that I'm familiar with is that literacy tends to, focus on representative forms. And so I think that's where you can see, you know, the let's develop an AI literacy curriculum that is gonna be based on the the the assumption that these technologies should be used, but let's be careful about how we use them because the technology they're they're bullshit machines and they're just, you know, mathy math that is gonna spit out, like, predictive text and that text is biased. And so let's attend to the bias and let's be careful not to just take whatever comes out of a of a chatbot as the truth. So there's like that conversation. Obviously, there's the whole plagiarism conversation, and those are important conversations to have, but I but I don't think they do the work that we need to really understand how these technologies are operating and and then also don't open up enough space for interrogating and intervening in the technologies. So I'm all for an AI literacy that, is expansive in its approach that pushes back against, the assumption that AI should be used in schools. I'll also note that, and this is work that Phil Nichols has done and others around what they call the capture of AI literacy and the notion that literacy as a project is a speculative one of of sort of thinking about what the world could be, and and a hopeful place. And and so that's when, you know, literacy is at its best. But that, big tech companies are able to use these literacy frameworks as a means of, what Lucy Pongratio calls her soft power of governance and framing the technologies as necessary, again, with some caveats of, like, we know they're biased and we know they're potentially discriminatory. But, you know, that's for you all to figure out, here's this curriculum you can use to figure it out. So that, you know, AI literacy, I've got a a complicated relationship with. The ecological framework, I think, is something that, I find more compelling in part because it it moves beyond just, you know, the interface of a platform on your, you know, device, and it takes into account these I just mentioned these obfuscated systems of of labor. So you have, right, folks often in the global South doing, you know, ghost work is is often what's referred to, the notion of unseen labor where they're training the data, that makes AI AI and and, right, AI is people all the way down. So they're doing this really gruesome work of of labeling toxic material, traumatizing material. And so I think that's one, dimension of, the ecological framework that's important to to note labor. You know, I've said it's people all the way down, AI is, but it's all the way down into the the very, you know, waters and earth and soil and water that make up our planet. And, you know, from the the mining that goes into, producing the computer chips, the the materials for the data centers in which, you know, the infrastructure of AI is is rapidly, you know, being spread throughout the world. And again, the amount of water required to cool data centers, to cool the servers that make the not just AI, but the Internet possible. So there's like a real material aspect to the technology that I think is important for students to interrogate, especially because, right, these are the young people who are going to bear the brunt of climate change. And so I find it, increasingly difficult to square the narrative that technology AI technology, specifically, is going to revolutionize education at a time when that same technology is increasing the effects of climate change, is further entrenching the power of fossil fuel companies. There's a headline today about The US, continuing coal production because we need, you know, for energy consumption for AI production. So it is this, I think, hypocrisy and a real set of compromises that I think folks need to to confront. And this is what I try to do with my own students is, like, if you're gonna use these technologies, there there are real material harms that they're doing to people, to to planet, to to humans, to more than humans. And, you know, you have alluded to this, but we also see, right, the ideological and financial benefits that go to people like Bill Gates and Sam Altman. There's been writing about, what's called the test realist bundle from people like Emile, Torres and to Nick Garou. And this sort of set of ideologies essentially is, like, Eugenics and, like, the notion of, like, AI as some sort of superhuman, you know, project that is going to, I'm doing this a very slapdash version of of the test realist bundle. We'll we'll add some notes in the the show notes, I suppose. In short, I think what an ecological framework offers is a more expansive set of questions, a more expansive set of sort of lines of inquiry than these kind of traditional corporate AI literacy curricula offer.

Speaker 1 Yeah. I was just going back and reading your, your your tweet in response to the plan to or to unretire coal fired plants as power demand from AI surges. And he wrote, AI is supposedly revolutionizing the future of education while making the actual future increasingly bleak. I don't know if there's, like, a sci fi analogy or a monkey's paw or something like that, but it's literally as, you know, we're revolutionizing one space and amiserating the future in another one. It's just like there's a direct cost related to all of those things. I think perhaps, like, a criticism that I I've seen of this Luddism, when I had kinda posted a preview of our conversation that came up was, about its potential to help with assistive technologies, the the possibility to be a huge boon for disabled people, or to even be assistive in the sense of providing accurate translation services or transcription services. And I think I'll I'll mix my literary analogies a little bit more. My brain is kind of thinking in the sci fi space, but I went to almost kind of like this William Gibson Neuromancer, cyberpunk space in the sense where, right, you have this overarching corporate structure and evil technology sort of predominates, but you have these niches of DIY mutual aid and the like kind of coexisting alongside that. Like, that's invisible to the mainstream. I suppose that's not ideal. Or is it like the one ring? Should it be should AI be buried deep in a mountain or thrown into Mount Doom because simply interacting with it has such a profoundly negative and transformative consequence for users and the environment as a whole, as you said, like embedding these ideologies, at the cost of this invisible human labor. And it's a miseration of the environment. So I wonder, like, I just don't know how this is the question that I grapple with. Right? Like, how do we oh gosh. I don't wanna say take the good, but, you know, like, use it for where it could be, like, for more humane, pro human purposes. Or is it radioactive in the sense that it's better off just not to touch it, develop some other technologies? I don't know how to resolve this. I'm hoping you'll help me out.

Speaker 2 What do we do? I'm here for you to figure out my problems, not for me to figure out your problems. Yeah. So, I mean, again, I I would think, you know, what is the what are the the historical Luddites from, you know, the early nineteenth century tell us? And one of the things, again, to emphasize is that they're not they're not anti technology, but they're anti the concentration of power into the hands of a very few, you know, white men and corporations. And flash forward, and we look at, you know, one example, that I think can provide a a kind of blueprint for for assistive technologies that you're talking about is, there's an an organization, Tehuku Media, and they, are based in New Zealand, and they, which is the the westernized name of the indigenous lands. And they produce, Maori chatbots and other AI for, like, language acquisition and language revitalization. And I just saw, one of their like, the chief information or chief technology officer came and spoke at university recently, and there's a great episode featuring him on the podcast, tech won't save us. And, so, you know, a few attributes of this company and the technology that stand in stark contrast to the OpenAI's of the world is that they take data sovereignty very seriously. And so they have these from, like, cassette tapes to, like, CDs to, you know, digitized audio of several generations of Maori people, speaking and telling stories. And they've approached these people and received their consent to use the to use these stories to train these models to to revitalize and maintain their language and to teach people, peyote people their language. And so that to me is one example of care for people, for their stories, for their data. It is not an attempt to scale. I think that notion of scale is so problematic in so many ways, especially when it comes to AI. But it is a, you know, a community based project where, yes, there's there there are compute consequences and and, you know, that I think they're wrestling with, you know, how can they use solar, how can they use other renewable energies for their projects, but it is done in conjunction with the community. And so, you know, they've been approached by, I think, OpenAI and Google and others to kind of hand over their model or to help them train their other models, these these, automatic, like, speech technologies. And they've said no. And so I think, again, if we're thinking about assistive technologies in schools or in other spaces, you know, how are and, again, you mentioned these these sort of DIY let's fund the DIY groups and, you know, learn from one another in a more decentralized way rather than concentrate the funding and the compute power in the hands of, like, three companies. Or, like, NVIDIA is the only company who's making the the, you know, the chips to run these these these technologies. So that, again, I think it is in the spirit of the historic Luddites. And and I think and again, they may not call themselves these these Maori folks doing this work. They may not call themselves Luddites. I think that's something to acknowledge too that if these sets of ideas are are helpful, I think that's one of the arguments we make, then great. But we also, you know, the Luddites predominantly the people who have claimed that are are white men. And so that is something to acknowledge and something to grapple with. And even today, I mean, I think, you know, that the group has become more expansive over time. So I think there there that's important to acknowledge. But I think that those tactics, that the notion of playfulness of organizing of sort of community based solutions to technology that embrace technology and work with people on the ground to think about what are problems that we as a as a group face and how can we use our traditional knowledge to, address these problems without then, you know, having to rely on the Googles and and, you know, the metas of the world. That I think is a promising example. It's the best example that I've come across that that I can point to to say it it's not it's not either we have AI or we don't. But it's, again, these sorts of very grounded projects in community that I think offer a a third way forward that I think also is in the spirit of of Vladism.

Speaker 1 I think that's a great point to bring it back to not the notion of technology, but the notion of power, really situated in the the work of the Luddites in really all perhaps each of those waves. So I I'm wondering if you have you've mentioned a whole bunch of different authors, podcasts, anything else. Are there, some highlights or are there, like, your top tier, hits for people to go find out and learn more, about these ideas? Where where would you point people who wanna kind of learn more perhaps join the third wave, Luddism?

Speaker 2 Yeah. So someone who's been writing about Luddites for a while, is Zachary Loeb, and he publishes under the name of Librarian Shipwreck. And that is on social media, and he has a blog. So and he's got a few posts where he also, you know, has, like, a top 15, you know, readings on Luddites because I'm not an expert. Let me let's be clear. Like, I've done some light reading, and and so, hopefully, if any lot of experts out there are listening to this, please take anything I say, you know, with an asterisk next to it. Brian Merchant's book that that came out that Phil and Taro and I reviewed for the LA Review of Books is called Blood and Machine. I have it here in front of me, the origins of the rebellion against big tech. That one's that one's great, and that gives you, again, sort of on the ground historical edicts, but then he he fast forwards to contemporary times and looks at different sort of, like, the gig work economy and and draws parallels between the kinds of, organizing and resistance that, contemporary gig workers are doing. Gavin Mueller has a book that came out a few user a few years ago called, breaking things at work, and that's another one. So I'd say, start with those three and and, you know, if you really wanna do deep dives, folks like David Noble, who's a historian and tech critic and and others, there's there's no shortage of work on the Luddites. And I think that it's in part because they've become a source of interest. Again, really only in the last a hundred years as our historians have sought to kind of rethink and reframe who the Luddites were and the kinds of political projects that they were, engaged in. Because there there is, I think, some debate about how organized and how much of like a political project around unionizing and as like a political class. And so you can, if you're if you're into that kind of stuff, there's there's certainly a reading for you to find.

Speaker 1 Thanks so much Charles for joining me today.

Speaker 2 Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Nick. I really appreciate it.

Speaker 3 Thank you again for listening to our podcast at Human Restoration Project. I hope this conversation leaves you inspired and ready to start making change. If you enjoyed listening, please consider leaving us a review on your favorite podcast player. Plus, find a whole host of free resources, writings, and other podcasts all for free on our website, humanrestorationproject.org. Thank you.