[clavalle]

The anti-technology counter-culture is pretty widespread already.

I don't have a facebook page because of their policies and attitude toward privacy.

And that is 'anti-technology lite'. I know a guy who bought a goat and honey farm and literally lived in a hole in the ground for a few years until he could get his mud hut built.

But, ultimately, technology is useful and those that don't utilize it will be at a disadvantage.

I, for example, promised my wife I would go ahead and re-activate my facebook account soon so she could stop relaying messages to me. Utility conquers all.

[lutusp]

> The anti-technology counter-culture is pretty widespread already.

Your anti-technology example isn't really an anti-technology example.

> I don't have a facebook page because of their policies and attitude toward privacy.

But your not having a Facebook page isn't an objection to technology, it's an objection to Facebook's privacy policies, which isn't a technological issue.

> And that is 'anti-technology lite'.

Not really. If you were unwilling to have an airplane-style black box in your car that recorded your every move, would that choice be based on your attitude toward privacy, or your attitude toward technology?

If you were the leader of an Al-Qaeda cell in Pakistan, would you refuse to use a satellite telephone because (a) you didn't want to be blown up by a drone strike, or (b) you were against modern technology?

Not all rejections of technology are based on a rejection of the technology itself -- there are other equally valid reasons.

[dnissley]

Exactly, it's silly to call this culture "anti-technology." I really like the guy he linked to (Ran Prieur). He would laugh at being called an "anti-technologist". From one of his essays:

I love technology! A fungophobe is someone who fears all mushrooms, who assumes they're all deadly poisonous and isn't interested in learning about them. A fungophile is someone who is intensely interested in mushrooms, who reads about them, samples them, and learns which ones are poisonous, which ones taste good, which ones are medicinal and for what, which ones are allied to which trees or plants or animals. This is precisely my attitude toward technology. I am a technophile!

Now, what would you call someone who runs through the woods indiscriminately eating every mushroom, because they believe "mushrooms are neutral," so there are no bad ones and it's OK to use any of them as long as it's for good uses like eating and not bad uses like conking someone over the head? You would call this person dangerously stupid. But this is almost the modern attitude toward "technology." Actually it's even worse. Because of the core values of civilization, that conquest and control and forceful transformation are good, because civilization "grows" by dominating and exploiting and killing, and by numbing its members to the perspectives of their victims, it has been choosing and developing the most poisonous technologies, and ignoring or excluding tools allied to awareness, aliveness, and equal participation in power. It's as if we're in a world where the very definition of "mushroom" has been twisted to include little other than death caps and destroying angels and deadly galerinas, and we wonder why health care is so expensive.

[delwin]

I agree with that. Read the end of the article and you'll see I define the culture as not anti-tech but critically judgemental and cautious towards it. And while that is not be a totally new idea, I'm bringing it to attention because I think it is growing rapidly and will explode soon. Countercultures impact the mainstream heavily by definition, and I think this one has yet to make a big splash.

[clavalle]

Your objections apply just as well to the article.

The author is a bit all over the map, but seems to say the counter-culture will reject, not any particular piece of technology because it is technology, but because of how it influences your life or because of how a particular company that controls that technology operates.

[betterunix]

I am not sure it is accurate to call Facebook a "technology," any more than it is accurate to call driving from your house to work a "technology." Facebook is built on technology, but you are using that same technology when you post a comment on HN. Not using Facebook is kind of like only driving to pick up groceries, and riding a bicycle to work.

[clavalle]

Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.

[betterunix]

Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.

[freehunter]

Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electrons aren't a technology because it requires a universe. But the universe isn't a technology because...

[lutusp]

> Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP?

Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals.

In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal.

> But the universe isn't a technology because...

Do try to think this through.

[freehunter]

Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product.

My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.

[clavalle]

Limiting technology to refer only to things not built on top of other technology is defining the term too narrowly.

Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.

[lutusp]

> Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.

Facebook's purpose (sell social connections) and its method (networking) are distinct and separate. Facebook could accomplish its objectives in any number of ways -- networking is coincidental to the company's purpose.

[clavalle]

So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?

A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other?

I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.