8 ms·

The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

41 points by delwin 14y ago

lubujackson 14y ago
There already has been some appreciation for the Amish approach (no joke) because despite appearances, the Amish aren't anti-tech and DO discuss and add new technologies to their culture, but the bar is just very high. I would say this has been a trend since around the 50s when plastics were new and no one paid any attention to the consequences. Over time I think as a society we have become a little more cautious about unintended consequences, but there's a way to go. I don't think anyone is (or should be) against new technology for counter-culture's sake. The issue is that the full consequences need to be taken into consideration, and I think that approach will certainly gain ground and eventually be considered common sense.
goldfeld 14y ago
The summary isn't much more than common sense from people who understand technology and the web enough to tell the good from the bad, as opposed to the majority of people (from all walks of life). This is happening today largely through internet freedom activism and the like, as spotlighted recently. I'd think for something to be labeled a next great counterculture it would have to go further, as in a neo neo-Luddite movement, possibly shunning consumerism altogether and having this weird duality of knowing a great deal about technology yet living with as few of it as possible. Though of course it would soon gobble up masses of hipsters following it, with no idea whatsoever of why they're doing so.
clavalle 14y ago
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.
- betterunix 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.
      - clavalle 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        > 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 14y ago
        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.
Apreche 14y ago
It's so hilarious to see people write things like this as if they have discovered or thought of something novel. Have they not read any of the major cyberpunk or sci-fi novels of the past century? Have they not studied any history of technology? The article doesn't mention Luddites even once. Personally I view anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-intellectualism as perhaps the greatest threats to our society. I want to get as close to a Ghost in the Shell-like world as possible in my lifetime, and those forces are directly in the way.
- dljsjr 14y ago
  Jesus. Maybe OP doesn't like sci-fi, and so no he hasn't read any of those books. I'm a nerd and I probably haven't read most of the books that you were bouncing around in your head when you made this comment. And he never claimed to be Socrates. He simply had an insight and chose to share it. Why so angry?
  - hshshzjaj 14y ago
    Because the original author of the post is a moron.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "I want to get as close to a Ghost in the Shell-like world as possible in my lifetime" GITS is not exactly a ringing endorsement of its own universe. We're talking about a universe where indentured servitude is the norm, xenophobia runs rampant, entire people are hacked and puppeteered by blackhats, the class divide is wider than ever, and there are constant, violent clashes between the techno-elite and the have-nothings who rely literally on scrap cybernetic implants to survive. And in all of this, no one is safe - even the rich - everyone is subject to the whims of hackers on both sides of the law.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  For further historical perspective, general edification, and an ounce of insight into the motivation and fears of the people who might oppose your goals, read the science-fiction novel _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis. In presenting the rise of a dystopia it provides a meaningful illustration of public perceptions of technology and progress, and historical anti-technology sentiment. Moreover, if you like sci-fi, you may be interested to learn that the novel is in many ways the prototype version of _1984_ (Orwell himself wrote a book review; he had mixed feelings overall but had glowing praise for the dystopian aspects), just less modern. It's also the last dystopian sci-fi novel written before the atomic bomb (which permanently affected the genre.) Orwell's book review is here: http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/
srf 14y ago
This is much more common than you'd think. The reason you don't hear more about it is that these people don't use the internet, so it's not like they're going to tweet or blog about it.
gyardley 14y ago
I suppose this is one possible counterculture, but I'm not sure why it's more likely than any of a myriad of other possible countercultures. Why this counterculture, apart from what the author would like to see develop? I mean, I'd personally like to see an anti-urban, anti-density counterculture enabled by technology, but I'm not under the illusion that that's going to happen just because it appeals to me.
- ChristianMarks 14y ago
  On the contrary, it has happened, with unexpected consequences: ...in little more than a single generation, this long relationship with nature has withered in a culture that finds Americans giving themselves up to the indoor ease of the technological way of life. Today’s average American spends most of the day indoors or inside an automobile traveling some hellish commuter road between workplace and home. Experience of his own natural habitat comes largely from watching beautifully photographed films on television. In Sterba’s word, he has become “denatured.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/visitors/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/visitor...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- militiaman21 14y ago
  I'd love to see a cultural movement towards anti-urban, anti-density enabled by technology. You're not alone :) In my view we would use technology to empower people to form stronger community bonds. The author mentions food industry tech, and that's a major part of my vision also. I think we need to move towards a locally grown seasonal food source instead of shipping food to all corners of the globe just because we can. That's just one piece to the puzzle though, there's obviously a lot more planning that would need to go into it.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    Though I would expect that from "militiaman21" ;-) However, the local food movement needs to talk more about yield. It doesn't appear that humanity can sustain itself this way - small communities perhaps, but it's a first world luxury. Also, "food miles" is a BS metric, the biggest energy sink is fertilizer (by far!). Ammonium Nitrate is made by fossil fuel + air - you are mostly eating energy from natural gas, not the sun, it would seem.
caseorganic 14y ago
Excellent! So you mean to say that my schoolyard days of being hated for liking computers are going to come back to me as an adult?
sailfast 14y ago
Strangely, I do not see this article as anti-tech at all. In order to be a part of the proposed counter-culture you suggest you must first have an understanding of technology that one could only achieve after working with it for awhile. Reading this, I could not help but thinking "so this is what the next phase of geek will look like." Rather than being counter-tech, it is just more discerning. Now that geek is mainstream, we must segment further. A more natural progression rather than a counter-cultural movement.
JonSkeptic 14y ago
I thought the anti-tech counterculture were called the "Amish"
firefoxman1 14y ago
I think it's much more likely that we'll see tech become more ingrained, yet less apparent, in our culture. There seems to be some truth to this post that we're (somewhat) fed up with tech controlling our lives and our devices/services being so needy/attention-hungry at the same time. It gets old. But things like Pebble, Google Glass, and Nest are fixing this. Tech will be less in-our-face, more useful, and less annoying than ever.
Aloha 14y ago
"For example, Facebook has considerably altered how we interact with our friends. In some ways, it has benefited us — for example, I wouldn’t have been able to have the conversation with Max that prompted this discussion if he hadn’t seen my Facebook status and chatted with me after noticing I was online." I'm a LiveJournaler, and have been since like 2003, and while the community is less busy than it was, I've been having a much higher quality of interactions on there, long before facebook was around doing anything. For me, facebook is just the latest chapter in helping people around the world connect, with more cute pictures of cats however that what came before.
blhack 14y ago
The coming anti-tech counterculture? My girlfriend is adamant about keeping her old crusty flip phone with a broken hinge that doesn't have a real keyboard on it, or even the internet! The majority of my friends almost refuse to own televisions. I own a kindle, but almost never use it in favor of paper. I also own several prosumer digital SLRs, but favor my old vivitar 35mm camera from high school. etc. etc. The list goes on. (For reference, my girlfriend and I are both programmers) Look even here on HN, how many people are actually anti facebook, or how common "I'm staying off the internet for 6 months!" posts are. The anti-tech counterculture is already here.
- beatpanda 14y ago
  Yep. And I think people who work in tech are more aware of the problems "bad" technology creates and are more likely to avoid it, even as the rest of society starts "coming online" in the sense that they have some kind of a personal web presence.
  - onezeno 14y ago
    Reminds me of an article I read (maybe here) that described how doctors are less likely to pursue aggressive treatments for themselves when faced with late term cancer or similar diseases.
    - nickpinkston 14y ago
      There was an NPR Radio Lab (?) about this recently I believe.
      - startupfounder 14y ago
        http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2013/jan/15/bitter-end/ http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2013/jan/15/bitt...
    - kawera 14y ago
      Maybe this: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/ideas/nexus/ http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nextstep 14y ago
The whole premise of this (that America's culture is currently absorbed with technology) is flawed. Are we more enamored with technology now than at other times in history? I would argue that - for the American culture as a whole - we are not. But I can see why a tech blogger who lives in the echo chamber might think this.
motters 14y ago
Based upon this list I might be a member of this future counter-culture. I fit 5 out of the 7 criteria, although I wouldn't characterise myself as being anti-technology.
krenoten 14y ago
"I wouldn’t have been able to have the conversation with Max that prompted this discussion if he hadn’t seen my Facebook status and chatted with me after noticing I was online." Communication is not Facebook. Non-Facebook users have an equal interpersonal experience to that of a user. It is frustrating to see how much of the online English speaking world feels locked into Facebook. No one is locked in. We are free to spend our time seeking satisfaction any way we like, and it is nearly always more efficient to communicate using other tools.
- delwin 14y ago
  that's what I'm saying! of course we're not actually locked in, but it's a pervasive illusion, especially if you are of a particular age/social group.
magice 14y ago
Here is the interesting thing about the US (I almost typed America, but we all know America also includes places like Canada and Mexico and Chile, etc.): everyone believes that s/he is in an counter-culture. By that I meant every single person seems to hold to a belief that s/he belongs to a special clique, or holds on to unique ideology. Reading the article, the things should jump out to you: 1. all of the points are no secret! 2. All of those points are the mainstream. Frankly. Facebook was cool, I don't know, 5, 6 years ago? The crusade against Facebook started 2 years ago already, and the anti industrial food started at least a decade ago. All of these believes are now, surprised!, mainstream. 3. all of the listed end notes are common sense that every single fucking person will agree to. So, what's so "coming" about those things? what's so "counter"-culture about those things? Ah, the US-ian mind. What a wonderfully ignorant thing.
- kscaldef 14y ago
  Downvoted for generalizing from one blog post to a slam against 300 million individuals. Ironically, you appear to be doing exactly the same thing that you're criticizing.
- delwin 14y ago
  Anti-Facebook is not mainstream. It's a popular opinion, but not the MOST popular opinion.
scarmig 14y ago
I see this and look forward to it, but I'd argue it's not anti-tech. Indeed, for it to come to pass you have to be very pro-tech. "Facebook" and "Google" aren't the archetypes of tech, it's important to remind ourselves, though marketing would have you believe they are. Tech is (or should be) about applying human ingenuity to solve real human problems in a way that expands our appreciation of existence and respects our individual autonomy. Clever use of AJAX isn't interesting. A decentralized and open network of self-bootstrapped 3d-printers suited for everything from making electronics to replacement kidneys? That's a different story.
- delwin 14y ago
  Read a little further into the article and you will see I very much agree with you.
Taylorious 14y ago
This is really amusing to me because I was just thinking about this today. I was thinking about it in the context of humanism and how we seem to be living in a culture of antihumanism right now. Over the decades this pendulum swings back and forth. This lead me to think about how this current generations obsession with tech and being connected all of the time will eventually lead to a cultural shift in the next generation that isn't necessarily anti-tech, but much more grounded in the real world. This article makes me believe this even more.
- delwin 14y ago
  Thanks for the term antihumanism. That is more what I'm getting at.
onemorepassword 14y ago
This isn't anti-tech. It's sensible use of technology, and most significant of all, quite common amongst exactly those that understand technology best. It's no coincidence that it's usually techies that protest stuff like voting-machines.
earthgal 14y ago
With Lit Motors C1, cars have become 'unnecessary evil'. http://litmotors.com/c-1/ http://litmotors.com/c-1/ I am not a paid blogger or something like that for Lit Motors, I just hope to see a faster adoption of these and other bikes like them. This will make my five mile commute to work take less than 10 minutes rather than the usual 20-45 minutes. MPG is just one benefit of these bikes, reduction in congestion, denser communities due to less parking space etc are some of the numerous other benefits. Cars may improve their mpg in the future, but with their size, they can never have the other benefits. Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger!
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  > benefit [is] reduction in congestion, denser communities due to less parking space ... Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger Er, of course, the same is true even without the "Lit Motors C1"... Denser communities, walking, biking, and good public transit FTW.
pwan 14y ago
See Wendel Berry "Why I am NOT going to buy a computer" from 1987, especially his standards for technological innovation at the end. http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html
- delwin 14y ago
  This is awesome!! I love this guy.
at-fates-hands 14y ago
Is there a difference between being "counter-culture" and "privacy-aware"? There's a difference between protecting your online identity and not wanting intrusive technology in your life and actually being a part of something which is "counter" to what is considered "mainstream". I'm not sure what he's describing fits what I think of as counter cultures. The hippies in the 60's, graffiti artists, punks, and the beat culture are some of the most notable examples. Also, it this "anti-tech" culture really that big?
- delwin 14y ago
  I don't think it is a counterculture yet. I think it will happen in 10-20 years, maybe more. Just a humble prediction. So no, it's not a counterculture right now. It's a bunch of vague ideas and random people who don't feel totally comfortable using Facebook or putting on Google Glasses. I think once tech begins to infiltrate further into our social lives (even further than it already has), _then_ the counterculture will coalesce.
mlwalla 14y ago
Responsibility and limits are key. Be responsible for what you through into the Internet, and make sure you take time off. Also, read! Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman And theorist Vilem Flusser was an amazing philosopher who forecasted the ways of the Internet before the Internet was mainstrem.
- mlwalla 14y ago
  Recently heard the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" on the Colbert Report. "Citizenville" author Gavin Newsom

41 points by delwin 14y ago

There already has been some appreciation for the Amish approach (no joke) because despite appearances, the Amish aren't anti-tech and DO discuss and add new technologies to their culture, but the bar is just very high. I would say this has been a trend since around the 50s when plastics were new and no one paid any attention to the consequences. Over time I think as a society we have become a little more cautious about unintended consequences, but there's a way to go. I don't think anyone is (or should be) against new technology for counter-culture's sake. The issue is that the full consequences need to be taken into consideration, and I think that approach will certainly gain ground and eventually be considered common sense.

goldfeld 14y ago

The summary isn't much more than common sense from people who understand technology and the web enough to tell the good from the bad, as opposed to the majority of people (from all walks of life). This is happening today largely through internet freedom activism and the like, as spotlighted recently. I'd think for something to be labeled a next great counterculture it would have to go further, as in a neo neo-Luddite movement, possibly shunning consumerism altogether and having this weird duality of knowing a great deal about technology yet living with as few of it as possible. Though of course it would soon gobble up masses of hipsters following it, with no idea whatsoever of why they're doing so.

clavalle 14y ago

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.

betterunix 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.
    - clavalle 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        > 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 14y ago
        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.

Apreche 14y ago

It's so hilarious to see people write things like this as if they have discovered or thought of something novel. Have they not read any of the major cyberpunk or sci-fi novels of the past century? Have they not studied any history of technology? The article doesn't mention Luddites even once. Personally I view anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-intellectualism as perhaps the greatest threats to our society. I want to get as close to a Ghost in the Shell-like world as possible in my lifetime, and those forces are directly in the way.

dljsjr 14y ago
Jesus. Maybe OP doesn't like sci-fi, and so no he hasn't read any of those books. I'm a nerd and I probably haven't read most of the books that you were bouncing around in your head when you made this comment. And he never claimed to be Socrates. He simply had an insight and chose to share it. Why so angry?
- hshshzjaj 14y ago
  Because the original author of the post is a moron.
potatolicious 14y ago
> "I want to get as close to a Ghost in the Shell-like world as possible in my lifetime" GITS is not exactly a ringing endorsement of its own universe. We're talking about a universe where indentured servitude is the norm, xenophobia runs rampant, entire people are hacked and puppeteered by blackhats, the class divide is wider than ever, and there are constant, violent clashes between the techno-elite and the have-nothings who rely literally on scrap cybernetic implants to survive. And in all of this, no one is safe - even the rich - everyone is subject to the whims of hackers on both sides of the law.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
For further historical perspective, general edification, and an ounce of insight into the motivation and fears of the people who might oppose your goals, read the science-fiction novel _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis. In presenting the rise of a dystopia it provides a meaningful illustration of public perceptions of technology and progress, and historical anti-technology sentiment. Moreover, if you like sci-fi, you may be interested to learn that the novel is in many ways the prototype version of _1984_ (Orwell himself wrote a book review; he had mixed feelings overall but had glowing praise for the dystopian aspects), just less modern. It's also the last dystopian sci-fi novel written before the atomic bomb (which permanently affected the genre.) Orwell's book review is here: http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/ http://www.lewisiana.nl/orwell/

srf 14y ago

This is much more common than you'd think. The reason you don't hear more about it is that these people don't use the internet, so it's not like they're going to tweet or blog about it.

gyardley 14y ago

I suppose this is one possible counterculture, but I'm not sure why it's more likely than any of a myriad of other possible countercultures. Why this counterculture, apart from what the author would like to see develop? I mean, I'd personally like to see an anti-urban, anti-density counterculture enabled by technology, but I'm not under the illusion that that's going to happen just because it appeals to me.

ChristianMarks 14y ago
On the contrary, it has happened, with unexpected consequences: ...in little more than a single generation, this long relationship with nature has withered in a culture that finds Americans giving themselves up to the indoor ease of the technological way of life. Today’s average American spends most of the day indoors or inside an automobile traveling some hellish commuter road between workplace and home. Experience of his own natural habitat comes largely from watching beautifully photographed films on television. In Sterba’s word, he has become “denatured.” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/visitors/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/visitor...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
militiaman21 14y ago
I'd love to see a cultural movement towards anti-urban, anti-density enabled by technology. You're not alone :) In my view we would use technology to empower people to form stronger community bonds. The author mentions food industry tech, and that's a major part of my vision also. I think we need to move towards a locally grown seasonal food source instead of shipping food to all corners of the globe just because we can. That's just one piece to the puzzle though, there's obviously a lot more planning that would need to go into it.
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  Though I would expect that from "militiaman21" ;-) However, the local food movement needs to talk more about yield. It doesn't appear that humanity can sustain itself this way - small communities perhaps, but it's a first world luxury. Also, "food miles" is a BS metric, the biggest energy sink is fertilizer (by far!). Ammonium Nitrate is made by fossil fuel + air - you are mostly eating energy from natural gas, not the sun, it would seem.

caseorganic 14y ago

Excellent! So you mean to say that my schoolyard days of being hated for liking computers are going to come back to me as an adult?

sailfast 14y ago

Strangely, I do not see this article as anti-tech at all. In order to be a part of the proposed counter-culture you suggest you must first have an understanding of technology that one could only achieve after working with it for awhile. Reading this, I could not help but thinking "so this is what the next phase of geek will look like." Rather than being counter-tech, it is just more discerning. Now that geek is mainstream, we must segment further. A more natural progression rather than a counter-cultural movement.

JonSkeptic 14y ago

I thought the anti-tech counterculture were called the "Amish"

firefoxman1 14y ago

I think it's much more likely that we'll see tech become more ingrained, yet less apparent, in our culture. There seems to be some truth to this post that we're (somewhat) fed up with tech controlling our lives and our devices/services being so needy/attention-hungry at the same time. It gets old. But things like Pebble, Google Glass, and Nest are fixing this. Tech will be less in-our-face, more useful, and less annoying than ever.

Aloha 14y ago

"For example, Facebook has considerably altered how we interact with our friends. In some ways, it has benefited us — for example, I wouldn’t have been able to have the conversation with Max that prompted this discussion if he hadn’t seen my Facebook status and chatted with me after noticing I was online." I'm a LiveJournaler, and have been since like 2003, and while the community is less busy than it was, I've been having a much higher quality of interactions on there, long before facebook was around doing anything. For me, facebook is just the latest chapter in helping people around the world connect, with more cute pictures of cats however that what came before.

blhack 14y ago

The coming anti-tech counterculture? My girlfriend is adamant about keeping her old crusty flip phone with a broken hinge that doesn't have a real keyboard on it, or even the internet! The majority of my friends almost refuse to own televisions. I own a kindle, but almost never use it in favor of paper. I also own several prosumer digital SLRs, but favor my old vivitar 35mm camera from high school. etc. etc. The list goes on. (For reference, my girlfriend and I are both programmers) Look even here on HN, how many people are actually anti facebook, or how common "I'm staying off the internet for 6 months!" posts are. The anti-tech counterculture is already here.

beatpanda 14y ago
Yep. And I think people who work in tech are more aware of the problems "bad" technology creates and are more likely to avoid it, even as the rest of society starts "coming online" in the sense that they have some kind of a personal web presence.
- onezeno 14y ago
  Reminds me of an article I read (maybe here) that described how doctors are less likely to pursue aggressive treatments for themselves when faced with late term cancer or similar diseases.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    There was an NPR Radio Lab (?) about this recently I believe.
    - startupfounder 14y ago
      http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2013/jan/15/bitter-end/ http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2013/jan/15/bitt...
  - kawera 14y ago
    Maybe this: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die/ideas/nexus/ http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

nextstep 14y ago

The whole premise of this (that America's culture is currently absorbed with technology) is flawed. Are we more enamored with technology now than at other times in history? I would argue that - for the American culture as a whole - we are not. But I can see why a tech blogger who lives in the echo chamber might think this.

motters 14y ago

Based upon this list I might be a member of this future counter-culture. I fit 5 out of the 7 criteria, although I wouldn't characterise myself as being anti-technology.

krenoten 14y ago

"I wouldn’t have been able to have the conversation with Max that prompted this discussion if he hadn’t seen my Facebook status and chatted with me after noticing I was online." Communication is not Facebook. Non-Facebook users have an equal interpersonal experience to that of a user. It is frustrating to see how much of the online English speaking world feels locked into Facebook. No one is locked in. We are free to spend our time seeking satisfaction any way we like, and it is nearly always more efficient to communicate using other tools.

delwin 14y ago
that's what I'm saying! of course we're not actually locked in, but it's a pervasive illusion, especially if you are of a particular age/social group.

magice 14y ago

Here is the interesting thing about the US (I almost typed America, but we all know America also includes places like Canada and Mexico and Chile, etc.): everyone believes that s/he is in an counter-culture. By that I meant every single person seems to hold to a belief that s/he belongs to a special clique, or holds on to unique ideology. Reading the article, the things should jump out to you: 1. all of the points are no secret! 2. All of those points are the mainstream. Frankly. Facebook was cool, I don't know, 5, 6 years ago? The crusade against Facebook started 2 years ago already, and the anti industrial food started at least a decade ago. All of these believes are now, surprised!, mainstream. 3. all of the listed end notes are common sense that every single fucking person will agree to. So, what's so "coming" about those things? what's so "counter"-culture about those things? Ah, the US-ian mind. What a wonderfully ignorant thing.

kscaldef 14y ago
Downvoted for generalizing from one blog post to a slam against 300 million individuals. Ironically, you appear to be doing exactly the same thing that you're criticizing.
delwin 14y ago
Anti-Facebook is not mainstream. It's a popular opinion, but not the MOST popular opinion.

scarmig 14y ago

I see this and look forward to it, but I'd argue it's not anti-tech. Indeed, for it to come to pass you have to be very pro-tech. "Facebook" and "Google" aren't the archetypes of tech, it's important to remind ourselves, though marketing would have you believe they are. Tech is (or should be) about applying human ingenuity to solve real human problems in a way that expands our appreciation of existence and respects our individual autonomy. Clever use of AJAX isn't interesting. A decentralized and open network of self-bootstrapped 3d-printers suited for everything from making electronics to replacement kidneys? That's a different story.

delwin 14y ago
Read a little further into the article and you will see I very much agree with you.

Taylorious 14y ago

This is really amusing to me because I was just thinking about this today. I was thinking about it in the context of humanism and how we seem to be living in a culture of antihumanism right now. Over the decades this pendulum swings back and forth. This lead me to think about how this current generations obsession with tech and being connected all of the time will eventually lead to a cultural shift in the next generation that isn't necessarily anti-tech, but much more grounded in the real world. This article makes me believe this even more.

delwin 14y ago
Thanks for the term antihumanism. That is more what I'm getting at.

onemorepassword 14y ago

This isn't anti-tech. It's sensible use of technology, and most significant of all, quite common amongst exactly those that understand technology best. It's no coincidence that it's usually techies that protest stuff like voting-machines.

earthgal 14y ago

With Lit Motors C1, cars have become 'unnecessary evil'. http://litmotors.com/c-1/ http://litmotors.com/c-1/ I am not a paid blogger or something like that for Lit Motors, I just hope to see a faster adoption of these and other bikes like them. This will make my five mile commute to work take less than 10 minutes rather than the usual 20-45 minutes. MPG is just one benefit of these bikes, reduction in congestion, denser communities due to less parking space etc are some of the numerous other benefits. Cars may improve their mpg in the future, but with their size, they can never have the other benefits. Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger!

snogglethorpe 14y ago
> benefit [is] reduction in congestion, denser communities due to less parking space ... Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger Er, of course, the same is true even without the "Lit Motors C1"... Denser communities, walking, biking, and good public transit FTW.

pwan 14y ago

See Wendel Berry "Why I am NOT going to buy a computer" from 1987, especially his standards for technological innovation at the end. http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html

delwin 14y ago
This is awesome!! I love this guy.

at-fates-hands 14y ago

Is there a difference between being "counter-culture" and "privacy-aware"? There's a difference between protecting your online identity and not wanting intrusive technology in your life and actually being a part of something which is "counter" to what is considered "mainstream". I'm not sure what he's describing fits what I think of as counter cultures. The hippies in the 60's, graffiti artists, punks, and the beat culture are some of the most notable examples. Also, it this "anti-tech" culture really that big?

delwin 14y ago
I don't think it is a counterculture yet. I think it will happen in 10-20 years, maybe more. Just a humble prediction. So no, it's not a counterculture right now. It's a bunch of vague ideas and random people who don't feel totally comfortable using Facebook or putting on Google Glasses. I think once tech begins to infiltrate further into our social lives (even further than it already has), _then_ the counterculture will coalesce.

mlwalla 14y ago

Responsibility and limits are key. Be responsible for what you through into the Internet, and make sure you take time off. Also, read! Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman And theorist Vilem Flusser was an amazing philosopher who forecasted the ways of the Internet before the Internet was mainstrem.

mlwalla 14y ago
Recently heard the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" on the Colbert Report. "Citizenville" author Gavin Newsom