Hindsight · review build · data not yet validated
As with earlier Luddite movements, its influence is limited by the level of prosperity made possible by new technology.
Grader A: miss
The claim presumes the movement of claim 101 exists and has limited influence. Neo-Luddites had little influence in 2009, but the cause given (general prosperity) failed: 2009 was a deep recession with rising poverty. The described situation (a movement held back by prosperity) did not exist.
Test: Presupposition test: no significant movement, and no general prosperity in 2009 (poverty rose from 11.3% in 2000 to 14.3% in 2009).
Grader B: unfalsifiable
The claim depends on the neo-Luddite movement of kurzweil-1999-101, which did not appear in a measurable form. One reading (the movement had little influence) is trivially true. The other reading (a real movement exists, and prosperity caps its influence) fails because there was no movement and prosperity fell in 2008-2009. Neither reading dominated, and the causal mechanism cannot be tested.
Test: No adoption test applies. The premise movement was not measurable in 2009 (see 101).