Technology provides capabilities. Capablities can afford positive utility, as well as destructive power. Even the benign utility, specially if convenient, alters society and societal norms. Changes in society in turn affect the personal and collective mind, from language to philosophy.
Kelly expresses his horror of "no, no, no" when remembering his experiences travelling in technology poor locales in Asia.
'The journey, lasting for the better part of a decade, transformed him. “I was in very remote parts of Asia, parts of which were literally medieval societies in every respect, from the dress, architecture, beliefs, behavior,” he says. “I saw completely vehicle-less cities—people throwing garbage in the streets, no toilets. That's not even to mention the hinterland villages, which were without even metal.” When he returned to the US in 1979, he had a deep appreciation for the technology that made life easier.'
Kelly is focused on convenience. Convenience is reasonably a good thing. And this is the fundamental weakness of his position on the embrace of machine in human society. The mechanised society is clearly far more than just a more "convenient" human society.
There is a fundamental philosophical fork in the road that informs this question: is a human being, as an individual, a complete being, or is species as a whole (and including its civilizational artifacts) the complete being? This can be reworded as: do human beings have souls, or are we mere biological machines?
What Kelly does not consider -- and a cursory grep for "happy"/"happiness" in the Wired article seems to support this -- is what was the individual and social experience of these technology poor societies. Does having "no metal" preclude happiness? Does is possibly promote it?
As hacker news denizens neck deep in technology rich societies, the germinal question is whether we are happier because of technology or not. Obviously we enjoy greater conveniences. Are our societies healthier than before, or not?
Technology comes in two conceptual flavors: as tool, and as garment (immersive environment). It is the latter kind of technology which requires moderation, as it alters our perception and social experiences (whether by extending and/or enhancing senses, or collapsing spatial (transport tech) and temporal (a/v tech) aspects of our reality).
Naturally, those who hold that man is merely a biological machine, should and would argue for unimpeded integrtion of technology into human societies, and in its extremist manifestation, into the very unit organism itself. And it seems entirely reasonable that those of us who reject the notion of a soul-less Human being, to insist that there must be limits to unfettered adoption of technology, for the sake of Human happiness, and well being.