3 ms·

Technology disappears when it becomes ubiquitous. It never actually becomes less, because people don't want less. I can't see for example people wanting there t

Technology disappears when it becomes ubiquitous. It never actually becomes less, because people don't want less. I can't see for example people wanting there to be fewer lightbulbs, or even refrigerators (mainly for those in warm areas). Everybody wants safe lighting and their food unspoiled after a day (once exposed to these things), and likely won't consider the means to be "tech". And it only improves over time. AI is just another tech that's in the early stage but also on it's way to ubiquity.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> because people don't want less. I do, the Amish do, and quite a few other people against technology DO want less. In fact, even ordinary people (non-techies) often tell me technology is too entrenched. What about those people ditching smartphones for dumphones. I don't think that tech improves things and I DO want less.
- skeledrew 2y ago
  What do you want less of exactly? A dumbphone is still tech. Perhaps some would rather have just a land line (brings to mind that there are still places in my country without phone lines since the passage of hurricane Beryl)? But back to the primary: is it really tech that some want less of, or the negative effects caused by its overuse/abuse? For example, IIUC the Amish are against modern tech primarily because it's changing their communities in ways they aren't fond of. But they still use tech that's not so modern, such as buggies (as opposed to just riding horses), manual plows for farming, saws and hammers for building, etc. Can anyone even go less than that? And that relative "less" only moves forward over time.
- pizza234 2y ago
  The general form of what you're describing ("I want product X to have less Y", in this case, tech) has been discussed by Joel Spolsky in an article about product design. I can't find the article, but it said something around the lines of "each Microsoft Word user thinks that there are too many functionalities, and wants less". His remark is that each user uses different functionalities, so one can't reduce a product's functionality in a way that satisfies everybody. Everybody would sure love to have a smartphone tailored 100% to their usage, but in real world, either they accept smartphones in toto, or they just use a brick. In generalized form, the same concept applies to tech.
inkcapmushroom 2y ago
I would like fewer lightbulbs. Modern omnipresent light pollution is harmful to ourselves and our environment, and probably doesn't need to be at the level it is now for "safe lighting". It's okay to have some darkness sometimes, inside your house and inside your neighborhood.
- skeledrew 2y ago
  Agreed that some darkness is OK, particularly in unused areas of a home. And there're already solutions for that, such as motion sensors. I doubt you want much dark in a neighborhood though, particularly if there are unsavory elements potentially roaming around. A sliver of light may be the difference between someone being attacked or a home robbed.

vouaobrasil 2y ago

> because people don't want less. I do, the Amish do, and quite a few other people against technology DO want less. In fact, even ordinary people (non-techies) often tell me technology is too entrenched. What about those people ditching smartphones for dumphones. I don't think that tech improves things and I DO want less.

skeledrew 2y ago
What do you want less of exactly? A dumbphone is still tech. Perhaps some would rather have just a land line (brings to mind that there are still places in my country without phone lines since the passage of hurricane Beryl)? But back to the primary: is it really tech that some want less of, or the negative effects caused by its overuse/abuse? For example, IIUC the Amish are against modern tech primarily because it's changing their communities in ways they aren't fond of. But they still use tech that's not so modern, such as buggies (as opposed to just riding horses), manual plows for farming, saws and hammers for building, etc. Can anyone even go less than that? And that relative "less" only moves forward over time.
pizza234 2y ago
The general form of what you're describing ("I want product X to have less Y", in this case, tech) has been discussed by Joel Spolsky in an article about product design. I can't find the article, but it said something around the lines of "each Microsoft Word user thinks that there are too many functionalities, and wants less". His remark is that each user uses different functionalities, so one can't reduce a product's functionality in a way that satisfies everybody. Everybody would sure love to have a smartphone tailored 100% to their usage, but in real world, either they accept smartphones in toto, or they just use a brick. In generalized form, the same concept applies to tech.

inkcapmushroom 2y ago

I would like fewer lightbulbs. Modern omnipresent light pollution is harmful to ourselves and our environment, and probably doesn't need to be at the level it is now for "safe lighting". It's okay to have some darkness sometimes, inside your house and inside your neighborhood.

skeledrew 2y ago
Agreed that some darkness is OK, particularly in unused areas of a home. And there're already solutions for that, such as motion sensors. I doubt you want much dark in a neighborhood though, particularly if there are unsavory elements potentially roaming around. A sliver of light may be the difference between someone being attacked or a home robbed.