3 ms·

> But, structuring the a whole life around arbitrary restrictions (can use pneumatic tools but not electrical, can use a car but have to paint it black, can't o

by peeters 13y ago

> But, structuring the a whole life around arbitrary restrictions (can use pneumatic tools but not electrical, can use a car but have to paint it black, can't own a car but oh, you can hire a taxi, can own a tractor but has to have metal wheels, can't use electricity for light but can use it for power tools in the shop) Arbitrary? The entire article was about showing the nuances and reasoning for the very things you cite. Electricity is not OK if it's on the grid, because it creates dependencies on the outside world. If you're dismissing the "handicaps" as arbitrary, I fear you've missed the entire point of the article. And it's never been about handicapping anyway. These people want to be as productive as possible. Do some reading about Mennonites (similar philosophies) in Russia; they were some of the most industrious and cutting edge farmers in the nation. It's always been about preventing harm to the community from new technology, not about deliberately making their work more difficult.

rdtsc 13y ago
> Electricity is not OK if it's on the grid, because it creates dependencies on the outside world. So do cell phones, taxi drivers to take your kids to school every morning, and half million dollar computerized precision CNC machines. GMO corn? > These people want to be as productive as possible. They are taking regular Chinese mass produced blenders and sticking hand crafted pneumatic motors in them. Or tractors and then cut their tires out and replace with metal wheels. I can't see how that makes them more productive. If anything that makes them less productive, no? Isn't that the other justification for their way of life -- don't become too productive, it will hurt you, and ruin your way of life? > It's always been about preventing harm to the community from new technology, Unless preventing harm from technology becomes the main identity and the main occupation of the community then well, one can ask, why have the community? > Do some reading about Mennonites (similar philosophies) in Russia; they were some of the most industrious and cutting edge farmers in the nation. So were many German and Dutch farmers if you talk about the turn of the century and before. At least compared to many British immigrant farmers. I would also agree that in extreme conditions (far north, in Siberia, mountains) technology might not be reliable or as usable and sometimes just using dog sleds or simpler methods can work better.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Actually the rationale is simpler: it's more efficient to buy something up front for them and manufacture spare parts. You adapt the items straight away so you know immediately how to repair them, not when a tyre bursts or a motor burns out. From my readings, one problem they had was engineering large permanent magnets which are usually magnetised using induction which is a bastard off the grid. This pretty knocks motor production on the head. You manufacture compressed air equipment with a lathe/mill easily (I've done it and I'm a shit engineer). While I think the religious side is batshit (I'm a rampant atheist), the self-sufficiency model is pretty spot on.
- peeters 13y ago
  > Or tractors and then cut their tires out and replace with metal wheels. I can't see how that makes them more productive. If anything that makes them less productive, no? Of course it makes them less productive. I'm not saying that these restrictions don't make them less productive. They massively do. I'm saying that making themselves less productive is not their goal. They evaluate a technology based on its moral and societal impact, not on how productive it will make them. A more accessible parallel might be 18th-19th century America. Slave labor made cotton farms overwhelmingly productive. If a farmer decided not to use slaves, would you accuse him of not wanting to be productive? Or is it possible that for this farmer, slavery was a non-starter on moral grounds? > Isn't that the other justification for their way of life -- don't become too productive, it will hurt you, and ruin your way of life? I've never seen evidence of that. I know more about Mennonite history, but Mennonites were just fine about being some of the most productive farmers in Russia. The difference is that "living off the land" and "being the most productive" were not as hard to reconcile back then as they were after the industrial revolution.
manmal 13y ago
They seem to rely a lot on gas, how is that not a major dependency on the outside world? Not as immediate as electricity, which can be gone in split seconds, but still it could be gone within weeks/months.

by peeters 13y ago

rdtsc 13y ago

> Electricity is not OK if it's on the grid, because it creates dependencies on the outside world. So do cell phones, taxi drivers to take your kids to school every morning, and half million dollar computerized precision CNC machines. GMO corn? > These people want to be as productive as possible. They are taking regular Chinese mass produced blenders and sticking hand crafted pneumatic motors in them. Or tractors and then cut their tires out and replace with metal wheels. I can't see how that makes them more productive. If anything that makes them less productive, no? Isn't that the other justification for their way of life -- don't become too productive, it will hurt you, and ruin your way of life? > It's always been about preventing harm to the community from new technology, Unless preventing harm from technology becomes the main identity and the main occupation of the community then well, one can ask, why have the community? > Do some reading about Mennonites (similar philosophies) in Russia; they were some of the most industrious and cutting edge farmers in the nation. So were many German and Dutch farmers if you talk about the turn of the century and before. At least compared to many British immigrant farmers. I would also agree that in extreme conditions (far north, in Siberia, mountains) technology might not be reliable or as usable and sometimes just using dog sleds or simpler methods can work better.

harrytuttle 13y ago
Actually the rationale is simpler: it's more efficient to buy something up front for them and manufacture spare parts. You adapt the items straight away so you know immediately how to repair them, not when a tyre bursts or a motor burns out. From my readings, one problem they had was engineering large permanent magnets which are usually magnetised using induction which is a bastard off the grid. This pretty knocks motor production on the head. You manufacture compressed air equipment with a lathe/mill easily (I've done it and I'm a shit engineer). While I think the religious side is batshit (I'm a rampant atheist), the self-sufficiency model is pretty spot on.
peeters 13y ago
> Or tractors and then cut their tires out and replace with metal wheels. I can't see how that makes them more productive. If anything that makes them less productive, no? Of course it makes them less productive. I'm not saying that these restrictions don't make them less productive. They massively do. I'm saying that making themselves less productive is not their goal. They evaluate a technology based on its moral and societal impact, not on how productive it will make them. A more accessible parallel might be 18th-19th century America. Slave labor made cotton farms overwhelmingly productive. If a farmer decided not to use slaves, would you accuse him of not wanting to be productive? Or is it possible that for this farmer, slavery was a non-starter on moral grounds? > Isn't that the other justification for their way of life -- don't become too productive, it will hurt you, and ruin your way of life? I've never seen evidence of that. I know more about Mennonite history, but Mennonites were just fine about being some of the most productive farmers in Russia. The difference is that "living off the land" and "being the most productive" were not as hard to reconcile back then as they were after the industrial revolution.

manmal 13y ago

They seem to rely a lot on gas, how is that not a major dependency on the outside world? Not as immediate as electricity, which can be gone in split seconds, but still it could be gone within weeks/months.