Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

delw.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#51

Post by lutusp »

freehunter wrote: post #50
betterunix wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.

Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electron…

> Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP?

Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals.

In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal.

> But the universe isn't a technology because...

Do try to think this through.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#52

Post by lutusp »

clavalle wrote: post #31
betterunix wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.

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.

> 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.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#53

Post by lutusp »

blhack wrote: post #49
oconnore wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a flip phone, not watching television, reading paper documents, or taking photos in 35mm is not anti-technology, it's using old technology. It's quite possible that smart phones, televisions, and kindles don't make your life any better. But MRI machines, efficient vehicles, green energy, plastic money, RFID toll booths, the GPS satellite constellation, and the internet probably do. Being anti technology means t…

Oh for crying out loud. Language is technology, clothing is technology, vegetables are technology, houses are technology. The author is talking about people usurping modernity , not stretching the definition of technology to the point of absurdity.

> Language is technology, clothing is technology, vegetables are technology, houses are technology.

That argument can be made, but not convincingly. Instead, why not define "technology" as something man-made that most people find incomprehensible?

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#54

Post by dnissley »

lutusp wrote: post #7
clavalle wrote: post #3

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 disadva…

> The anti-technology counter-culture is pretty widespread already. Your anti-technology example isn't really an anti-technology example. > I don't have a facebook page because of their policies and attitude toward privacy. But your not having a Facebook page isn't an objection to technology, it's an objection to Facebook's privacy policies, which isn't a technological issue. > And that is 'anti-technology lite'. Not…

Exactly, it's silly to call this culture "anti-technology." I really like the guy he linked to (Ran Prieur). He would laugh at being called an "anti-technologist". From one of his essays:

I love technology! A fungophobe is someone who fears all mushrooms, who assumes they're all deadly poisonous and isn't interested in learning about them. A fungophile is someone who is intensely interested in mushrooms, who reads about them, samples them, and learns which ones are poisonous, which ones taste good, which ones are medicinal and for what, which ones are allied to which trees or plants or animals. This is precisely my attitude toward technology. I am a technophile!

Now, what would you call someone who runs through the woods indiscriminately eating every mushroom, because they believe "mushrooms are neutral," so there are no bad ones and it's OK to use any of them as long as it's for good uses like eating and not bad uses like conking someone over the head? You would call this person dangerously stupid. But this is almost the modern attitude toward "technology." Actually it's even worse. Because of the core values of civilization, that conquest and control and forceful transformation are good, because civilization "grows" by dominating and exploiting and killing, and by numbing its members to the perspectives of their victims, it has been choosing and developing the most poisonous technologies, and ignoring or excluding tools allied to awareness, aliveness, and equal participation in power. It's as if we're in a world where the very definition of "mushroom" has been twisted to include little other than death caps and destroying angels and deadly galerinas, and we wonder why health care is so expensive.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#55

Post by oconnore »

blhack wrote: post #49
oconnore wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a flip phone, not watching television, reading paper documents, or taking photos in 35mm is not anti-technology, it's using old technology. It's quite possible that smart phones, televisions, and kindles don't make your life any better. But MRI machines, efficient vehicles, green energy, plastic money, RFID toll booths, the GPS satellite constellation, and the internet probably do. Being anti technology means t…

Oh for crying out loud. Language is technology, clothing is technology, vegetables are technology, houses are technology. The author is talking about people usurping modernity , not stretching the definition of technology to the point of absurdity.

How is using the word technology to describe the GPS network and smart phones absurd? You are the only one here talking about vegetables.

Modernity is not Facebook. Facebook is pop culture, and we're already aware of the anti-pop-culture movement: they're called hipsters.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#56

Post by clavalle »

lutusp wrote: post #52
clavalle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#57

Post by delwin »

krenoten wrote: post #32

"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…

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.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#58

Post by freehunter »

lutusp wrote: post #51
freehunter wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electron…

> Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals. In principle, Facebook could accomplish i…

Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product.

My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#59

Post by delwin »

magice wrote: post #35

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 ar…

Anti-Facebook is not mainstream. It's a popular opinion, but not the MOST popular opinion.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#60

Post by delwin »

Taylorious wrote: post #40

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 gener…

Thanks for the term antihumanism. That is more what I'm getting at.
Post reply on HN