I don't find this suprising. There's always been a spectrum of human behavior. HN readers are one side, these folks are the other and there are tons of people in between. Nothing wrong with it.
The only thing that did bug me is the obvious attitude from the people interviewed. I don't have any problem with how they live their life but let's be honest: Their zealots. People who feel the need to expel technology because they don't think themselves capable of moderation.
That's fine. We live in a free country. But it is a weakness. Not something that justifies their "proud to the point of smug" attitude.
I don't own a TV and after a month with an iPhone, I passed it off to a co-worker and bought a $15 phone off Craiglist.
When I'm not on the computer I want to be fully enjoying the people I'm with, the mountain I'm hiking or the book I'm absorbed in -- not fighting distraction from a computer in my pocket or a TV playing in the background. My passion for technology wouldn't be worth much if it didn't benefit from the inspiration and energy I get from the rest of life.
But, each to his own. I don't judge people just because their tastes are different, or because they have more willpower than I (and can thus keep all the latest gadgets around without getting distracted).
I don't see proud, smug, or weakness. Nor do I see that "HN readers are on one side": I don't use Facebook, Twitter, a cell phone, an iPod, or a TV, and the only electric things in my kitchen are for heating/cooking.
I certainly don't think it's generally true that they "don't think themselves capable of moderation". Obvious counterexample: if she thought that, you wouldn't be carrying a cell phone at all; but she carries a cell phone which she simply never uses.
I see it as simply a natural progression: technology was great, when there wasn't much of it -- like sugar and fat, when your diet had almost none of it. Now that we can have all we want, we have to reconsider what we truly want: is more technology (or fat) really our goal?
Does TV or Facebook make my life better in any way? I tried, and the answer was clearly "no" for me. I fail to see zealotry in not doing something that doesn't benefit me.
Moderation and self-control have nothing to do with it. If there's no point in doing it at all, it doesn't matter how much I do. I don't smoke tobacco, and not because I'm incapable of moderation, but because I see no point in doing it at all.
I agree. This is standard human behavior with regards to new technology. In fact we may have inherited it from the primate line. The resistant attitude among the older population to new technologies is documented in particular.
The narrative today is that technology is "taking over". But that's always been true. It's more accurate to say we're move dependent on it now than ever. And that's because we've simply built the new inventions off the old ones.
And luddite-chic attitudes, especially among artsy types, will remain. Not that that's a bad thing but it's typical. Artist love to explore old mediums. That's basically their job.
I predict we'll continue to see these attitudes and articles covering them. And it'll probably grow unfortunately. But this becomes dangerous if it turns people into real Luddite. Technology is the big man on campus, and to get a name for yourself the easy thing to do is to knock him down.
I can't source the exact quote (anybody?), but I remember somebody saying, "A pretty good definition of technology is whatever didn't already exist when you were a kid."
I don't really get into Twitter, but about hundred years ago, bicycles were novel technology.
I'm an HN reader and I don't have a cell phone. My mom lent me her iPod last week; it's the first time I've had one. I think I'm going to give it back.
I think we need to add something new to the HN comment guidelines, to the effect that:
"When someone makes a broad generalization, often meant to read "99 times out of 100," it contributes nothing to the conversation to say "I am one of the other 1 out of 100," rather than "It's really more like 95, or 60, out of 100."
FTA: A small group of people are reacting to what is overload
You mean overreacting. If you want to eschew owning a microwave or an iPod because you truly enjoy cooking and the sound of your LPs–great. But if you're doing it just to be a contrarian or lead the next hipster movement, you're no better than people who are slaves to gadgets IMO.
The key is balance, not prohibition. I didn't have cable TV for most of my twenties. Then I realized how much I missed watching baseball games. Now we have cable–I'm not a slave to it and neither are my kids.
Have fun listening to your turntable on the subway ...
I think people like this help balance the population. They provide an example that a good life is possible without all of these things that some of think we can't live without. They also point out what we are missing out on by not have time to read books as much, for example. However, just because they do it does not mean that everyone must go as far as they do. I think the reasonable reaction to a story like this is to reevaluate one's life and possibly make some adjustments, but for most people it would not mean giving it all up.
I've taken similar actions, but the specifics are quite different. I don't have a phone - neither mobile nor landline. I have a Skype phone number, but I don't always have it open, and I don't always answer it even when it is. I don't watch TV, though I will occasionally download things that were shown on TV. I'm online a lot, but I don't use Myspace, Facebook or twitter. I don't even see the point of the latter.
I think it's becoming increasingly important to make careful decisions about time-consuming activities. Don't multitask too much. Make an extra effort to focus on depth over breadth.
Edit: it may be that the central theme here is control over how my time is used. TV ties the user to a specific time schedule. Phones are synchronous while email is asynchronous. The big social sites seem to be focused on wasting time more than anything else.
What about when people use technology periodically, but neither obsessively immerse themselves in it nor make a point of eschewing it whenever possible? There's a middle path here, using cell phones, e-mail, etc. without getting obsessed with them, but ... it doesn't make for very exciting news, I guess. (Granted, many examples later on, padding the article, are hardly extreme: deciding Facebook isn't worth the time, not replacing an iPod, etc.)
It probably helps that the couples profiled are not in professions which necessitate having internet computer use constantly. Point me to the lawyer who isn't always near email or editing documents digitally (after perhaps proofing a hard copy) and that is a lawyer who's not busy.
To echo what some people are already saying, I think it's fine if you're not totally into gadgets or don't want to get overwhelmed with pointless, distracting communication.
Just don't be self-righteous and superior about it.
Don't be like that Stuff White People Like entry: White people like not owning TVs so they can tell people they don't own TVs.
I can totally relate. I remember back in 94-96, when I ditched all my computer stuff and went back to a typewriter (while at my part-time job I was selling computers).
I think everyone would turn off the TV and not be on the internet when they are cooking and have friends over for dinner. Ditto for board games. If you enjoy those things as I do, do them. No need to make a big deal about it. Are we so twisted that doing those normal things and not being on Facebook or watching FOX is newsworthy. I haven't seen it.
The only thing that did bug me is the obvious attitude from the people interviewed. I don't have any problem with how they live their life but let's be honest: Their zealots. People who feel the need to expel technology because they don't think themselves capable of moderation.
That's fine. We live in a free country. But it is a weakness. Not something that justifies their "proud to the point of smug" attitude.