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 goes on.

(For reference, my girlfriend and I are both programmers)

Look even here on HN, how many people are actually anti facebook, or how common "I'm staying off the internet for 6 months!" posts are.

The anti-tech counterculture is already here.

This is much more common than you'd think. The reason you don't hear more about it is that these people don't use the internet, so it's not like they're going to tweet or blog about it.

"For example, Facebook has considerably altered how we interact with our friends. In some ways, it has benefited us — for example, 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."

I'm a LiveJournaler, and have been since like 2003, and while the community is less busy than it was, I've been having a much higher quality of interactions on there, long before facebook was around doing anything. For me, facebook is just the latest chapter in helping people around the world connect, with more cute pictures of cats however that what came before.

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 our individual autonomy.

Clever use of AJAX isn't interesting. A decentralized and open network of self-bootstrapped 3d-printers suited for everything from making electronics to replacement kidneys? That's a different story.

"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 spend our time seeking satisfaction any way we like, and it is nearly always more efficient to communicate using other tools.

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 disadvantage.

I, for example, promised my wife I would go ahead and re-activate my facebook account soon so she could stop relaying messages to me. Utility conquers all.

I suppose this is one possible counterculture, but I'm not sure why it's more likely than any of a myriad of other possible countercultures.

Why this counterculture, apart from what the author would like to see develop? I mean, I'd personally like to see an anti-urban, anti-density counterculture enabled by technology, but I'm not under the illusion that that's going to happen just because it appeals to me.

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 are no secret! 2. All of those points are the mainstream. Frankly. Facebook was cool, I don't know, 5, 6 years ago? The crusade against Facebook started 2 years ago already, and the anti industrial food started at least a decade ago. All of these believes are now, surprised!, mainstream. 3. all of the listed end notes are common sense that every single fucking person will agree to.

So, what's so "coming" about those things? what's so "counter"-culture about those things?

Ah, the US-ian mind. What a wonderfully ignorant thing.

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 less parking space etc are some of the numerous other benefits. Cars may improve their mpg in the future, but with their size, they can never have the other benefits. Car should never be the vehicle to use for a single passenger!

The summary isn't much more than common sense from people who understand technology and the web enough to tell the good from the bad, as opposed to the majority of people (from all walks of life). This is happening today largely through internet freedom activism and the like, as spotlighted recently.

I'd think for something to be labeled a next great counterculture it would have to go further, as in a neo neo-Luddite movement, possibly shunning consumerism altogether and having this weird duality of knowing a great deal about technology yet living with as few of it as possible. Though of course it would soon gobble up masses of hipsters following it, with no idea whatsoever of why they're doing so.

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 generation that isn't necessarily anti-tech, but much more grounded in the real world. This article makes me believe this even more.

Strangely, I do not see this article as anti-tech at all. In order to be a part of the proposed counter-culture you suggest you must first have an understanding of technology that one could only achieve after working with it for awhile. Reading this, I could not help but thinking "so this is what the next phase of geek will look like." Rather than being counter-tech, it is just more discerning. Now that geek is mainstream, we must segment further. A more natural progression rather than a counter-cultural movement.

I think it's much more likely that we'll see tech become more ingrained, yet less apparent, in our culture. There seems to be some truth to this post that we're (somewhat) fed up with tech controlling our lives and our devices/services being so needy/attention-hungry at the same time. It gets old.

But things like Pebble, Google Glass, and Nest are fixing this. Tech will be less in-our-face, more useful, and less annoying than ever.

Excellent! So you mean to say that my schoolyard days of being hated for liking computers are going to come back to me as an adult?

There already has been some appreciation for the Amish approach (no joke) because despite appearances, the Amish aren't anti-tech and DO discuss and add new technologies to their culture, but the bar is just very high.

I would say this has been a trend since around the 50s when plastics were new and no one paid any attention to the consequences. Over time I think as a society we have become a little more cautious about unintended consequences, but there's a way to go.

I don't think anyone is (or should be) against new technology for counter-culture's sake. The issue is that the full consequences need to be taken into consideration, and I think that approach will certainly gain ground and eventually be considered common sense.

This isn't anti-tech. It's sensible use of technology, and most significant of all, quite common amongst exactly those that understand technology best.

It's no coincidence that it's usually techies that protest stuff like voting-machines.

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 culture are some of the most notable examples. Also, it this "anti-tech" culture really that big?

Responsibility and limits are key. Be responsible for what you through into the Internet, and make sure you take time off.

Also, read!

Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman

And theorist Vilem Flusser was an amazing philosopher who forecasted the ways of the Internet before the Internet was mainstrem.

See Wendel Berry "Why I am NOT going to buy a computer" from 1987, especially his standards for technological innovation at the end.

http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html

Based upon this list I might be a member of this future counter-culture. I fit 5 out of the 7 criteria, although I wouldn't characterise myself as being anti-technology.

I thought the anti-tech counterculture were called the "Amish"

It's so hilarious to see people write things like this as if they have discovered or thought of something novel. Have they not read any of the major cyberpunk or sci-fi novels of the past century? Have they not studied any history of technology? The article doesn't mention Luddites even once.

Personally I view anti-technology, anti-progress, and anti-intellectualism as perhaps the greatest threats to our society. I want to get as close to a Ghost in the Shell-like world as possible in my lifetime, and those forces are directly in the way.

> 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 really. If you were unwilling to have an airplane-style black box in your car that recorded your every move, would that choice be based on your attitude toward privacy, or your attitude toward technology?

If you were the leader of an Al-Qaeda cell in Pakistan, would you refuse to use a satellite telephone because (a) you didn't want to be blown up by a drone strike, or (b) you were against modern technology?

Not all rejections of technology are based on a rejection of the technology itself -- there are other equally valid reasons.

I am not sure it is accurate to call Facebook a "technology," any more than it is accurate to call driving from your house to work a "technology." Facebook is built on technology, but you are using that same technology when you post a comment on HN. Not using Facebook is kind of like only driving to pick up groceries, and riding a bicycle to work.