Ludd Was Right/Headscratchers

It bugs me when those who advocate the destruction of all advanced technology aren't willing to bite the bullet and show the costs of this. Typically, there's no way vaccinations could be made and distributed, yet nobody ever gets sick; everything's done by manual labor, yet people are never tired out by the work and seemingly only work one hour a day; and nobody ever has to worry about crop failure or other such calamities. The idea seems to be that without our machines we'd have a Utopia. Wouldn't it be more interesting (not to mention readable) to present the trade-offs as they are?
- People who advocate the destruction of all advacd technology generally arn't interested in realistic consequences - they just want their five minutes of smug selfrightiousness before going back to enjoying all the benefits of the modern world. Hypocritical? Yes.
- Less dismissively, people who do advocate the destruction of technology aren't going point out anything that's going to casts their argument in a bad light evening if it means lying by omission. Really who would?
- That might honestly not know there are bad consequences for it. Most suffiently scientifically minded people don't hold this viewpoint.
- Although the few people who aren't in it for the self-righteous thrill just tend to start up a hippie commune or something similar and actually endure the hardships involved.
- People who advocate the destruction of all advanced technology are dumbasses, so you can't expect much from them.
- then there are people like some in my family who consider the mind numbing backbreaking labor, limitations of advancement ect, to BE the good points of eliminating all technology
- People may dislike some things of modern technology but not all. Some people may be very willing to accept the consequences even though it will cause some problems; they are different problems than the ones caused by retaining them. You might also dislike technology that damages the environment or that is used for too much surveillance. Each possibility has its own advantages and disadvantages.

It bugs me how the basis of Ludd Was Right is rarely, if ever, related to a combination effect of Utopia and So What Do We Do Now?, which seems to me the most likely way that advanced technology could go wrong in Real Life . . .
- A cheerfully cynical view (despite the oxymoron): Don't worry, we'll never run out of problems. (because if we DO run out of problems, that'll be a problem!)
It just bugs me that this trope says "lets get rid of technology and live on the Good Old Ways", when once, the good old ways were the new ways. Then they might say "ok, lets live in the ways that were old when these were new", and at their time they were still new. The middle ages were a Crapsack World, Being anti-progress is just aversion to change, but somehow it turns a world into Utopia... how? Why is it that going back to the cavemen's times is a "good idea" through the minds of the users of this trope?
- Because the types of people who hold that viewpoint (*cough* New Agers *cough*) tend to not do the research and think that science is both bad and wrong, never mind the fact that science is the whole reason that they're allowed to live comfortably. It was more excusable in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, back when no one cared about the natural environment and industrialists only cared about making money. However, those days have passed and it has been shown to be perfectly possible to both have advanced technology and workers' rights and living in balance with nature. So Dead Horse Trope, maybe?
  - Your Mileage May Vary. And let's leave it at that.