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

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#61

Post by delwin »

scarmig wrote: post #37

I see this and look forward to it, but I'd argue it's not anti-tech. Indeed, for it to come to pass you have to be very pro-tech. "Facebook" and "Google" aren't the archetypes of tech, it's important to remind ourselves, though marketing would have you believe they are. Tech is (or should be) about applying human ingenuity to solve real human problems in a way that expands our appreciation of existence and respects o…

Read a little further into the article and you will see I very much agree with you.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#62

Post by delwin »

dnissley wrote: post #54
lutusp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ab…

I agree with that. Read the end of the article and you'll see I define the culture as not anti-tech but critically judgemental and cautious towards it. And while that is not be a totally new idea, I'm bringing it to attention because I think it is growing rapidly and will explode soon. Countercultures impact the mainstream heavily by definition, and I think this one has yet to make a big splash.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#63

Post by kawera »

onezeno wrote: post #30
beatpanda wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And I think people who work in tech are more aware of the problems "bad" technology creates and are more likely to avoid it, even as the rest of society starts "coming online" in the sense that they have some kind of a personal web presence.

Reminds me of an article I read (maybe here) that described how doctors are less likely to pursue aggressive treatments for themselves when faced with late term cancer or similar diseases.

Maybe this: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2011/11/30/how-doctors-die...

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#64

Post by lutusp »

clavalle wrote: post #56
lutusp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?

Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods.

> I just don't see how your argument makes any sense.

Yes, I can see that. You also think Facebook is an application, like Excel. It isn't, it's a company.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#65

Post by lutusp »

freehunter wrote: post #58
lutusp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Face…

> Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company.

So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company?

> It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company.

That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software application. It's a company that uses applications -- software -- to accomplish its purposes.

> My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself.

So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules.

> If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.

No, actually, if you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe in an absurd way. Companies and software applications aren't the same thing -- unless you think a chestnut horse is the same as a horse chestnut. And why not? They're described using the same words.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#67

Post by delwin »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #48

Is there a difference between being "counter-culture" and "privacy-aware"? There's a difference between protecting your online identity and not wanting intrusive technology in your life and actually being a part of something which is "counter" to what is considered "mainstream". I'm not sure what he's describing fits what I think of as counter cultures. The hippies in the 60's, graffiti artists, punks, and the beat c…

I don't think it is a counterculture yet. I think it will happen in 10-20 years, maybe more. Just a humble prediction. So no, it's not a counterculture right now. It's a bunch of vague ideas and random people who don't feel totally comfortable using Facebook or putting on Google Glasses. I think once tech begins to infiltrate further into our social lives (even further than it already has), _then_ the counterculture will coalesce.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#68

Post by delwin »

oconnore wrote: post #55
blhack wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hipsters are SO into Facebook. And even _more_ into Instagram. They define pop culture by positioning themselves against a "phantom" pop culture that is even more pop.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#69

Post by snogglethorpe »

blhack wrote: post #22

The coming anti-tech counterculture? My girlfriend is adamant about keeping her old crusty flip phone with a broken hinge that doesn't have a real keyboard on it, or even the internet! The majority of my friends almost refuse to own televisions. I own a kindle, but almost never use it in favor of paper. I also own several prosumer digital SLRs, but favor my old vivitar 35mm camera from high school. etc. etc. The list…

Wait, what does being anti-facebook have to do with being anti-tech?

People dislike facebook for many reasons, and I can't say I've ever noticed an anti-tech vibe to them. Mostly it seems to be disgust with FB actions (privacy etc), with the shallowness of interactions there, or simply with the amount of time and mental energy it takes to "be involved" in FB.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#70

Post by snogglethorpe »

earthgal wrote: post #43

With Lit Motors C1, cars have become 'unnecessary evil'. http://litmotors.com/c-1/ I am not a paid blogger or something like that for Lit Motors, I just hope to see a faster adoption of these and other bikes like them. This will make my five mile commute to work take less than 10 minutes rather than the usual 20-45 minutes. MPG is just one benefit of these bikes, reduction in congestion, denser communities due to les…

> benefit [is] reduction in congestion, denser communities due to less parking space ... Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger

Er, of course, the same is true even without the "Lit Motors C1"...

Denser communities, walking, biking, and good public transit FTW.

Post reply on HN