What Do We Want, Really?

I disagree. The Amish are engaged in a constant, ongoing negotiation with the technological world, and pneumatic power is one of many remarkably clever compromises.

Using "Amish electricity" provides you with the labour-saving benefits of domestic appliances, but without the temptation of entertainment technologies like TV that the Amish see as a threat to family life. Pneumatic power serves their social goals more effectively than electricity; It is very good at providing useful work, and very poor at providing idle distraction.

Many Amish people now have mobile phones, but they are kept in a shed some distance from the house so that they are only used when absolutely necessary rather than being a constant distraction. It is common for Amish communities to use non-Amish drivers to transport groups of them to work by van, which provides the economic benefits of commuting while avoiding many of the negative effects that private car ownership would have on community life.

>Think about the brainpower and time spent into doing that.

For the Amish, that's the whole point. They're not anti-technology, but they believe in engaging with technology on their own terms, in a careful and planned manner. Many of the prohibitions and taboos that seem arbitrary are arbitrary like a speed bump - they're designed to slow down the rate of progress and force you to think about what you're doing. These social constraints are a countervailing force to the natural tendency Schamus describes towards the easy and self-indulgent path.

Americans occupied Japan for years, not to mention first destroying her military, and razing a few cities with fire bombs and then nukes. Mongolia's GDP (PPP) per capita is less than $10k. On average, a Mongolian is four times poorer than a French. The same is true for Russia which has immense natural resources, dwarfing those of Europe. Their ability to manipulate natural gas supplies hangs over the EU to this day. Soviets used to control what was once the breadbasket of Europe. Didn't do them much good. Actually, they managed to induce a famine there.

Europe is rich because of industrial revolution and stable governments (more stable than elsewhere anyway). Invading other places was largely made possible by the technological advances rather than causing them. Before, Europe was nearly conquered by Muslisms[1]. Twice[2]. It was regularly raided for slaves (in 16-17th century[3], no ancient history), and starved of precious metals for much of its history.

What kind of prosperity is that?

The kind billions of people living in poverty today would take in heartbeat. They do whenever given a chance. Going as far as risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean or Florida Straits.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

[3] http://www.jstor.org/discover/25818051

Okay, so? Not sure what you're trying to get at here.

And then (minor spoilers) when someone finally does make a bold stance against the lifestyle they've created, they convince him to just bottle up that passion and sell it chunks to other drones, so that he can afford a bigger shoebox and do less menial labor.

I couldn't make sense of the role of the bicycling though. Why would someone benefit from people turning the wheels? In what economic equilibrium is that the best use for humans? Any energy source is better applied directly to generation rather than running through a human first as (packaged) food.