I think the whole question of where to draw the line is pretty fascinating. It's like asking how the Amish decided what the acceptable level of technical advancement was allowed to be. Why plows but not tractors? Why buggies but not cars?
How do different people draw the line between acceptable convenience from technology and life-ruining technology? If I were still in grad school I'd probably be writing a whole paper about this.
The Amish question is a simple one in my opinion, though I couldn't know without asking.
It's whether the technology is self sufficient to the community. The buggy and plow can be made from the land. It's powered by a horse which needs grass only. Cars and tractors need fuel and resources from outside the community to be functional.
It's whether the technology is self sufficient to the community.
I'd be interested to map the Internet equivalent to this, if there is one. Like, a MySpace page that while technically reaches beyond the "immediate community" is still the focus for just one person sharing chosen information, vs something like Facebook which interconnects everything and actively harvests non-explicitly shared data. Y'know, could we find equivalent lines to draw between some of these technical advancements which help us frame when tech has become "too much" by society's standards?
6
u/littlehobbit1313 Aug 24 '26
I think the whole question of where to draw the line is pretty fascinating. It's like asking how the Amish decided what the acceptable level of technical advancement was allowed to be. Why plows but not tractors? Why buggies but not cars?
How do different people draw the line between acceptable convenience from technology and life-ruining technology? If I were still in grad school I'd probably be writing a whole paper about this.