Good article in general, except for the title. I know many people and see many people online who understand these truths.
The hard part is creating a viable alternative culture that can make collective choices about technology use.
It’s also worth noting that the Amish rely on the ‘English’ I.e. American legal system and military for their defense. Their way of life doesn’t stand alone outside of American society.
They could manage without our legal system, I'm sure, but I think there's some profundity in the military point. It does no good to create some sort of utopia if that utopia hasn't got an answer to smart bombs or paratroopers, etc. The fundamental game theory of the modern world's arms race has to be considered in any attempt to structure the perfect society.
Our legal system is what protects their land and property from just being taken by other Americans. It also allows them to maintain a lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state.
One of the fundamental purposes of any legal system is to protect people's land and property from being taken by others.
Furthermore, allowing people to maintain their lifestyle with minimal interaction with the state is probably the best possible use of the state in the first place.
There are ways other than legal systems to prevent that. I'm sure they would have no problem deploying their own police forces and providing basic protections against anyone less than a military force who would try to just take their land.
Military forces are a separate problem from legal problems. I think rather a lot of the people rushing to correct me are conflating the two in their heads. When you say "just being taken by other Americans", are you thinking of a rogue criminal or some sort of organized invasion?
Personally, I suspect that even if you tried the sort of organized invasion that a civilian might try to put together that you'd still find yourself up against some stiff resistance. Criminals in general are less than excited about stealing from people when they can almost count on being shot at. They steal from people who won't shoot at them.
The problem is when you get to military levels of invasion, at the level where you start putting together forces that count on being shot at and still overpowering you.
> I'm sure they would have no problem deploying their own police forces and providing basic protections against anyone less than a military force who would try to just take their land.
Sounds like a militia.
Also, you don’t seem to be being taking seriously what it means not to have a legal system.
For example why are you talking about criminals? If there is no legal system, there are no criminals. A bunch of guys with AR-15s and pick up-trucks and walkie talkies really wouldn’t find it hard to displace a religious community who are relying on old hunting rifles, horse drawn buggies, and no wireless comms, especially since the Amish would have families to protect.
The legal system is equivalent to the military support when your talking about internal threats (rival groups with modern weapons or resources claiming their land for themselves)
If you're going to escalate in that direction, I'll point out that an organized group of criminals will happily escalate the issue to the point where 'Just use your guns for self-defense' is not going to end in your favor.
They'll only need to make an example out of a few people to make it clear that giving in to their demands is much cheaper than fighting them.
I have my doubts about how little this scum fears death when it's really imminent eg death row; how intrinsically lucky they are to escalate and escalate, always win and never lose; and how fearlessly they react when faced with a man who hasn't crossed the law trains his gun on them, for a legitimate reason.
If they were outside the legal system, they could retaliate in any way they see fit. You would have to commit a trail-of-tears esque genocide to claim their land
But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else decides for me?
The beauty of a society that embraces individual choice is that the individual gets to choose. You can let somebody else decide for you, but you can also go against them.
The article loses me on this point as well. Any individual can look at the effects a technology has on those around them and decide not to participate. Does that mean you're left behind? Yeah, but the Amish face the same problem anyway.
The one advantage the Amish have is that their 'eccentric' choices are seen as more valid and respected compared to an individual making those choices. But I think that's more of a failing of our modern culture not respecting individual rights as much.
> But why do we need to make collective decisions about technology? Why can't I decide for myself based on what I see and think? Why is it better if somebody else decides for me?
You can decide for yourself, but most technology is social, and so it matters quite a bit whether other people make similar decisions to you.
Sure, but I, as an individual, don't have to follow along. If I don't want a TV I don't have to get one. If I want a TV I should be able to get one. It shouldn't be my government or community saying that I have to get one or that I can't get one.
That is a different matter since the airwaves are a scarce resource that can't be used by everyone at the same moment, therefore it has to be regulated somehow.
As an example, take the FM radio spectrum from 88 to 108 MHz; each channel has to be separated 100KHz from the next and previous ones, therefore one can have maximum 10 stations in 1 MHz, and that spectrum is 20MHz wide. The total is 200 "slots" in which fit all transmitters. Now thankfully at these frequencies radio waves don't propagate easily beyond line of sight, compared to HF which benefits from ground wave and sky wave propagation (allowing for example foreign stations reception), so -roughly- each moderately distant city can have its own 200 frequencies free of interference from the next city (state, country).
Still, we have only 200 possible stations in a place where there could be thousands of people willing to set up their FM radio, which of course is not possible. Hence the need to regulate the resource.
Is there any vaguely-homogenious 0.1% of America's population that could stand alone outside of American society, when you start requiring mega-scale social systems like a first-world legal system and military? I'm thinking "no".
Depends on the threat model. Settlers of the 19th century had a legal system and were mostly able to defend their settlements, though not to take on, say, the Japanese empire.
The Amish are probably able to put some kind of legal system together themselves, but their decided religious pacifism limits them to living under protection of others.
“[Pacifism] is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality.”
-- George Orwell
In other words, you can be as “committed” to pacifism as you want, but your life and freedom, and your indulgence in your pacifist philosophy, is made possible by other people’s commitment to the defense against violence with violence, and, often, to their sacrifice.
I'm not a pacifist (combat veteran, actually) but I'll point out that you may be missing something on their side of the argument.
There are some things worth dying for (for example, freedom as you point out). A pacifist has a similar mentality, but believes not taking a life is worth dying for.
Both the pacifist and the non-pacifist want freedom, but the pacifist would rather surrender liberty than kill if that's what it comes to. By analogy, I want to keep my car, but I would not shoot anyone who tried to steal it even though it's legal where I live. I might hate what they're doing but I value their life more than my car.
Of course people with a variety of stances on the issue all call themselves “pacifists”, just as there are “vegetarians” who eat fish. I respect the choices that you describe, because they’re your choices, and don’t endanger other people. The pacifists I consider morally obtuse are those who refuse to see that they enjoy their freedom under the umbrella of institutions that are decidedly not pacifist. It’s a kind of philosophical parasitism. And the pacifists that I have real contempt for are those who would refuse to defend other people against violence.
“I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”
-- John Adams
The point is that if you transplanted Amish society out of the protective USA and into somewhere more violent like Central Africa, they'd probably all end up dead, or the survivors would be the ones that abandoned pacifism.
I think you're providing a charitable accounting of pacifists that might describe the best among them. Orwell (whom you are indirectly responding to) gives some acknowledgment to these types but is cynical towards others:
> The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of the western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransferred.
That's a very pessimistic (and I'm afraid self-fulfilling) position. Costa Rica abolished their army in 1949 and hasn't been invaded since. Why shouldn't an Amish Nation fare as well?
Costa Rica is a wonderful place that has benefited from spending funds that used to go to maintaining the army on improving civil society. But this is not even close to a pacifist success story.
The army was abolished by the man who became president by winning a civil war. Costa Rica maintains armed forces to patrol the border, combat drug trafficking, and maintain internal order, as well as an armed police force. But they don’t call any of these things “armies”.
They have a defense alliance with the United States. If another country tries to invade them, the US will use violence to defend them. Is it pacifism to depend on someone else’s willingness to sacrifice for you?
Costa Rica only exists as a country because they successfully used violence to repel a private army raised by a US citizen who wanted to annex them to the US.
Call me pessimistic if you want. I prefer to believe that I have a realistic view of the role of violence in the world.
I'm no historian, so this is a very rough synthesis:
In history there's a handful of cases where there have been what are viewed as probably warless societies. Honestly I wouldn't say they fared any worse than warring states. Indus Valley Civilization, Rapa Nui Civilization, Early Sumeria... I'm sure there's countless others in reality but those are what I recall off the top of my head.
I find it difficult to actually piece together a narrative where war is actually a necessity. Empire itself, abstracted, is really just the displacement of toil which isn't a "necessary evil" by any means. And by far and large that is what virtually all war has been predicated on up to World War 2 which justified itself with teleological underpinnings like Marxism and Fascist ideologies; perhaps a few exceptions being outright hostilities triggered by emotional kings.
Ultimately it's survivorship bias, but the surviving population is selecting for all the worst conceivable parameters, which in turn has perverted our whole understanding of civilization. It's made it seem as if war is necessary, that defense strategies and assets must be in place, etc... I don't think this is really the case, but creating a policy system that is totally forbidding of the powers necessary to conjure the public force is a difficulty in and of itself.
I do also suspect that people who do tow the line of government aren't self-contained individuals, they do themselves require laws, governance, and espouse things like inevitable war are exactly those predisposed to causing it, and they're projecting themselves.
Since this is Hacker News, I think a simple tech analogy is that you can do about as well without any national security as you can do without any cyber security.
That is a beautiful quote by Orwell, who had a knack for getting at the essence of things.
But I would disagree with the notion that one society should only adopt a belief if it generalizes to the entire planet. That's not really a useful yardstick to judge feasibility in a world that requires heterogeneity and in which different groups have different pressures. Universalism is a bigger lie than pacifism.
So what role does pacifism play? Let's reinterpret the Orwell quote -- those who have money and guns can be Pacifists. I would say yes. If they were militarists, it would end badly as you would get powerful warmongering states. So a bias towards pacifism among those who strong and in no danger makes sense, just as a bias towards militarism among those who are weaker and in danger makes a lot of sense. Then we can look at the other aspect. If you are a radically different subgroup embedded in a larger population, you want to keep your head down. You don't want to be seen as a threat. So the Amish, famously apolitical and non-militaristic, are more tolerated by the rest of society.
Of course, other people's guns serving to protect you. So really your guns, from the point of view of the larger society as a single unit, but other people's guns, from the point of view of an individual person in that society.
The amish owned gun stores I've shopped in, the guns they use for hunting, the lawsuits against the NY SAFE act or trying to buy guns without a photo ID. Just because they practice pacifism does not mean they are against guns, owning them, using, etc. You can't think for a second if someone attacked them they wouldn't use them to defend themselves.
They still hunt. I know because I spoke with a young Amish man a couple of weeks ago about it. He was out bow hunting because muzzle loading season hadn't started yet. I don't know if they have more modern guns though, I didn't ask that far.
Well..depends on the threats to your safety...look at the Dalai Lama who is permenantly (due to a belief system) dependent on someone else to keep him and his ppl safe.
The Amish are typically eligible for a lot of welfare programs, due to their low income. However, they also reject Government support as part of their ethos.
Whilst the Amish are reliant on the rest of society's laws and defenses, there are other ethnocultural groups within the USA that are reliant on the rest of society for their housing and food supply. That's a lot further down the hierarchy of needs.
>The hard part is creating a viable alternative culture that can make collective choices about technology use.
This alternative culture is impossible under capitalism, where the tendency is for any and every technology to be acquired and applied in the service of the already rich and powerful.
The tendency exists for sure, but there is nothing supporting the claim that it’s impossible. The Amish themselves are an example. Also there are other eco villages and communities that have managed.
It seems like they have chosen to abstain from capitalism and have been allowed to exist because they don’t represent a threat to the capitalist order.
Also, by definition, if collective choices are being made about the use of technology, then it’s not capitalism.
You have a bizarre and manifestly incorrect view of capitalism.
Collective choices get made within capitalism all the time. Corporations, clubs, cooperatives, unions, associations, etc, cities, counties, countries, etc, are all legally established collective choice making groups. There is also nothing preventing people from forming their own groups by free association.
ahem Cooperatives and unions are by definition not capitalist.
The key feature of a capitalist enterprise is that the workers and the owners are not the same group. This is in contrast with a socialist enterprise, where the owners and the workers are the same group.
There is a ton of stuff preventing people from forming their own groups. Have you seen how companies (see Amazon & Starbucks recently) react to people attempting to do so?
I am always a little conflicted about articles that portray the Amish as this wise group of people. I lived close to Amish country for a while and there were lots of stories about child and spousal abuse. They seem to live to some degree outside the regular legal system so you hear less but it seems to be a pretty oppressive group.
Worth reading up on Rumspringa [0] which is when Amish youth leave the community to experience modern life and make a decision on their own separate from the community if they wish to return or not.
This is a good observation, and it’s also important to realize that there’s no single “Amish” group - there are various groups of similar religious and cultural origin across a number of US states and Canadian Provinces, each of which has its own unique rules and practices.
I think this articles attributes intent and wisdom where it is not due and as such should be at best considered a romanticization of their culture.
Even tough it seems they understand the choice they are making regarding some technology and even tough in many case with hindsight it appears that they made some judicious choices for their society wellbeing, I argue they do not have the tools to make those choices in an unbiased manner as those tought experiments are also technological byproducts.
Their stance regarding modern medicine, tolerating it when someone is truly ill, seems particularly hypocritical if not disingenuous.
> I argue they do not have the tools to make those choices in an unbiased manner as those tought experiments are also technological byproducts.
I wonder if the rest of us use technology in an unbiased experimental manner without regard to the consequences? As the decades go by we become increasingly stressed having to deal with commutes and corporations and bureaucracies and living in a world of phone zombies, mass media outrage, echo chambers, etc. All the While our world becomes more complex and less robust.
Personally I think there's a huge lack of intent and wisdom on our part. As a group we're focused on novelty and profit instead of people, and don't seem to be so great at dealing with the resulting problems like pollution, inequality, depression, etc.
I am reminded of that probably fictional but nonetheless instructive anecdote involving Minsky and a young Sussman coding a neural network. Ignorance of the biases of your culture does not eliminate those biases, as it were.
All technology is the product of people with beliefs about prevailing conditions and beliefs of what is valuable. As the articles says, technology is not some isolated, abstract thing. It is embedded in a much larger reality that is indeed value-laden, thus making technology itself value-laden.
> wonder if the rest of us use technology in an unbiased experimental manner without regard to the consequences?
There aren't bloggers out there implying the rest of us are sagely engaging/disengaging with the technology.
I think GP is annoyed by attributing unwarranted wisdom. Maybe it is a result of wisdom, but those bloggers certainly aren't giving good arguments for it.
What would we observe differently if it were regular technophobia?
Only the future will tell if we manage to solve problems faster than we are creating new ones. But I'm pretty sure abdication means death at this point. We are not crocodiles that managed to find a timeless form and effortless survival behaviour. We are brand new, extremely weak but extremely smart, I think it's pretty revealing about our nature and survival options.
> Only the future will tell if we manage to solve problems faster than we are creating new ones.
We've already accumulated a ton of technical debt, just like so much feature packed bowl of spaghetti software. Were cars worth it, the long commutes and destruction of neighborhoods versus the independence? People seem to miss the way things used to be. And the debt from the last 75 years of frantic building is still accumulating - crowded roads, car-only subdivisions full of low-income folks living five to a house because you can't get to work without a car, etc. A similar argument can be made about computers - the personal alienation and the impersonal bureaucracies versus the huge increase in available information, but with the possibility of a future nightmare of totalitarian surveillance and control.
I didn't mean to argue with anything you said. Perhaps I just see the situation as more acute. I like my tech debt analogy. Just like bad code it is not just about the current problems, but also the future problems we've already baked into the system.
I live in Lancaster and I think people project some of these things onto the Amish that aren't true. It isn't technology specifically that the Amish try to avoid, it is consumerism writ large. Now, they do make their own clothes from plain colored cloth and don't have car payments and mortgages but it is still something they struggle with as a group. I always think of their approach as trying to prioritize people over things.
However, there are lots of Amish that have freezers hidden in the barn running off generators. If the clergy shows up, it is unplugged and everyone pretends it isn't there. Lots of the children have cell phones hidden in the corn fields that they sneak out and use (even outside of those that are on rumspringa). Given the lack of affordable farm land, lots of the Amish now work in the trades. Someone picks them up in a F-350 crew-cab and takes them to work, but not before they stop at the Sheetz/WaWa to buy soda and candy and lunch just like all the other workers. Our Costco has tie-ups for the Amish and they come out with several carts loaded to the max. They continue to struggle with the modern world and it is getting harder each generation for them to remain insular.
> Their stance regarding modern medicine, tolerating it when someone is truly ill, seems particularly hypocritical if not disingenuous.
Can you explain? The amish are not against technology by any means. They just don't think you need to let it run you. I mean, as many said, the amish use telephones and even cars if necessary for business, or emergency. How is this any different?
I made the same observation about chasidic Jews. On first glance, their engagement with technology may seem backwards (eg, still on feature phones?) but as time goes on we're seeing those choices pan out right (eg - people who go on tech detoxes, etc - something you never need to do when you're chasidic or amish.)
I would say the thing that's missing from "our" society is a compass. What is it that we want to be, what do we value the most, etc? You begin by knowing those answers, and then you can evaluate whether technology helps or hurts you.
For example -- almost everyone says "we value family." But the chasidim and the amish express that by living close to their family, while "a typical American" moves far away from home and then has to rely on FaceTime and WhatsApp. The reason we have this problem is because we value something else above family (or community) -- that may be novelty, work opportunities, etc. But mainly, I think it's because we've become quite a bit untethered.
Society has moved pretty far away from religious and traditional values in the past few decades, and hasn't replaced them with anything (certainly not anything better.) So while a chasid or amish person can look at TikToc and say "that's just going to take me away from my family/spiritual work and therefore I don't want that" - we in secular society are confused about our trade-offs.
> I would say the thing that's missing from "our" society is a compass. What is it that we want to be, what do we value the most, etc? You begin by knowing those answers, and then you can evaluate whether technology helps or hurts you.
This is religion, as you point out.
> But the chasidim and the amish express that by living close to their family, while "a typical American" moves far away from home and then has to rely on FaceTime and WhatsApp.
It's not just this binary though. There are various levels of facetime and whatsapping as well.
And actually, most americans live close to family. On HN we are a bubble.
I feel like I have to drop "Technopoly" here, because that's promoting similar concepts. Postman calls out our bias towards adopting new technologies without any reluctance, and without consideration of the hazards of deploying it. He also espouses the view that once a technology is adopted it will self-proliferate up to the point where it becomes wholly outmoded, which at least as far as I can tell appears to be true. So there's this natural blindspot for technology where mankind seemingly sees only upsides, judges it fit for use. Eventually an overarching technic emerges where it's not mankind that is using the technology, but rather technology is using mankind. Like most of Postman, it's a very compelling criticism, and despite its age the points he made are remain salient.
The problem is we've stopped asking ourselves what it is that we value. What are our goals? If it's maximum pleasure we could just create a VR world with heroin, a catheter, and a bedpan. Go on a soma holiday whenever we wanted. But we don't want maximum pleasure, only our hindbrain does, and we are letting ourselves be led around by it for the profit of others.
> Any idea that technology is an unmitigated good begins to be questioned.
I think that's where we as the more "common" society may have gone off course: no technology (chair, toothbrush, etc to be cheeky/comprehensive on my use of the word technology) lives in a world where it's an absolutely perfect good. Anything can be abused, and when we've though about adjusting or rethinking big internet-based technologies, including social media services, it seems we're not putting enough responsibility on the operators of these services.
To me, that _doesn't_ mean we expect them to be perfect either with the ability to be responsible actors, but there needs to be some agreed upon standards that we can evaluate performance of their ability to act responsibly. It can just be left up to them, which is currently the state at a high-level.
It's not just the Amish. Many communities have decided they wish to live at ~1850. It has always made me curious why, what do they know?
If you look deeply in many religions they are the same. Buddhist monks aren't excluded from tech but they certainly dont own any themselves. Why? Because it's something to consider and create desires. Just as they shave their head not because of aesthetics but because now you never have to worry about your hair looking bad.
When you eliminate the unnecessary from your life, you certainly live a happier life.
Yes, the shunning is problematic. But there is one key difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish, in this respect: The Amish encourage their teenagers to go experience the modern world, before making that commitment. Among Jehovah's Witnesses, that kind of pre-commitment behavior would lead to (reversible) soft-shunning.
I think the rational play for an Amish youth would be to not commit to the religion, but live the lifestyle. That's not really feasible for a young adult who was brought up as a JW child, after a certain age. They would be gradually excluded from their baptized cohorts, even if never shunned outright.
How is shunning problematic. If they didn't shun, they would no longer be amish, or be able to preserve their culture. Perhaps we should appreciate the upside of asceticism.
Note that my comment was about comparisons between the Amish & JW flavors of shunning, rather than the Amish specifically. I believe my first paragraph was clear that I think the Amish model of shunning is the more reasonable of the two.
Let's also notice that you chose to say 'preserve their culture', whereas in the comment you replied to I was speaking of religions (and also, albeit implicitly, cults.) I'll come back to your Culture point, but I have to answer your question in the context of what I meant, not what you meant.
Religious shunning is problematic because it harms the individual. Again using Jehovah's Witnesses as an example: JW children are under intense peer pressure to make their commitment at an early age. They are strongly discouraged from building up a social network outside of the JW domain, or even to pursue higher education. So if a JW child gets baptized at 14, and then when 20+ realizes they are gay (or atheist, or buddhist), coming out as such after making that JW commitment causes them significant social, economic, & psychological harm.
But does it protect the religion? Absolutely. That's the whole point, individual-be-damned (if you'll forgive the pun.)
As to your point about Amish culture: religion & culture can be orthogonal to varying degrees. I suspect the Amish are one of the extreme examples, where religion & culture overlap inextricably. There are many aspects to their culture that are especially precious to them, and so it only makes sense that they wish to preserve it.
But still, it would be willfully myopic to not concede that the shunning harms the individual. Atleast /rumspringa/ gives their youth the ability to make a more informed decision, and even a way to avoid complete ostracism even if they explicitly choose to live as though English, and never make the commitment to be Amish. I give them credit for that accommodation, relative to the shunning that other insular religious groups do.
> religion & culture can be orthogonal to varying degrees
I fundamentally disagree and I think this is where a lot of Westerners get hung up on dealing with other countries. There are non-religious cultural practices for sure, but these are not practiced independent of religion.
Many Buddhist monks own cell phones. Many even own laptops. Additionally let's not romanticize the Amish community. They have significant social issues just like any other society, their lack of modern technology doesn't make their society a utopia, it just makes it different. Maybe in some good ways, sure, but it doesn't solve for endemic rape, incest and abuse for instance.
The monks I've known accept modern science, medicine, etc cheerfully. It's not really relevant to Buddhist spirituality any more than the advent of frozen fish sticks was.
It's fine to LARP 1850 if that's your bag. But people who truly wish to live in the confines of that era will have children who die of cholera. We should all be grateful for the upsides of modern society.
I have a colleague who constantly talks about not having a cell phone and how freeing it is, but on the other hand, he's always asking someone to look something up, asks for someone to navigate him to where we're going for lunch, asks to borrow a phone to call his wife, etc. It really looks like this guy would be happier with a phone.
Are phones unnecessary? Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, the way to a happier life isn't to ignore things, but to find a balance (or develop the self-discipline) to use something like a cell phone in a way where it can improve your life.
I was a very late smartphone adopter. I had a map in the glovebox and would look at a maps website on a desktop/laptop before leaving for somewhere unfamiliar. Your colleague doesn't seem to have figured out the technology that smartphones have replaced.
I live outside of Pennsylvania Dutch country and two weeks ago driving in that area I was shocked to see many horse and buggy drivers distracted by their iPhones.
"The Amish don’t always reject a technology, but they have very specific rules about how it is to be used."
Maybe they determined a way to use their iphones without them being harmful? I.e. using specific apps or only in certain circumstances.
The other key is that each community decides for themselves what is permitted and not permitted. Some Amish are permitted to drive cars, but only if the car is black, but this is community specific. Source - my brother-in-laws family left the Amish when he was young, so he got to see both worlds.
Do they have turn signals in their buggy? or they just use their hands to signal? I would suppose the horse knows the road, is in "auto" mode. Obviously i have no experience with horses at all.
They have turn signals, along with flashing hazard lights. And they’re quite necessary, since they’re often traveling at less than a quarter of the speed of the traffic around them.
Without a turn signal, car drivers would try to pass a buggy that has moved into the middle of the lane in order to make a left turn.
In a don't-text-while-driving context it might be more suitable to compare buggy drivers to car passengers. Horses are alive and will try to avoid crashing violently.
I don't know a lot about the Amish, but my understanding is that it's less about the technology itself and more about its effects (as is the focus of this article) and also the dependencies it creates.
The Amish are OK with using electricity as long as they can generate it themselves. They don't want to be dependent on a utility to provide it.
Yes, it's common for Amish carpenters to use lot's of modern power tools in the course of their work, but will often remove the electric motor and replace it with a belt drive that is powered by a water wheel or similar.
Interesting article, but since the way of life of the Amish is so polarizing, I'm afraid this distracts from the question, whether society as a whole and its members ought to embrace all technology or whether it's sensible to evaluate and discuss its merits and perhaps regulate its use. This is of course done everywhere to some extent, but perhaps we ("the English") would be better of doing it more?
> But they carefully consider how each [technology] will change their culture before embracing it. And the best clue as to what will happen comes from watching their neighbors.
This knowledge is not unknown in the English world. This is how most large, conservative financial organizations manage technology. They don’t dive into new technology without some very careful consideration.
An interesting read about the subject is the small 'utopian' book Erewhon by Samuel Butler, published in 1872.
It considers the implications of the industrial revolution on society, and thus how it shapes the industrial society and its future. The relationship with the religious power structure is quite enlightening.
Highly recommend this and other videos by Peter Santenello. He goes into Amish communities and just talks with people. Fascinating insight into the same topics of this article.
I can relate. Even though I own a smart phone, I've turned off all notifications and sounds that can distract me except for incoming calls. Never used Facebook. Don't want a car.
This is me. Especially the car part. Owning a car is such a burden that I’m really enjoying being able to not have one. Of course, some people do need to own a vehicle, but if you can manage without it, I recommend it.
There are places where owning a car is a burden. I have lived in such a place and I didn't like it. There are pther places where owning a car is pretty much essential.
I'd give up computers and the internet entirely before I gave up my car.
Really curious what those places are. Because for me it's the other way around. I live in a Dutch city where you can get around easily by walking, biking or public transport. And for those rare occasions I need a car, I use a car sharing service. Don't know if you live in car-dependent suburbia(most people do), but that doesn't sound appealing at all.
We live in a rural area about 10 minutes drive from Olympia, the capitol city of Washington state.
There's a fair amount of public transit in and around Olympia, but none of it comes close to where we live. Uber doesn't serve this area, and taxis are rare and expensive.
My wife and I work from home, and drive our largely hydro-powered Tesla in to town a few times a week.
It's more accurate to say that these coastal cities have certain enclaves where you don't need to own your own car but can take public transportion/walk or get an Uber in a pinch. Uber makes a big difference in increasing the size of the enclave, but having other people drive you around isn't car independence.
I think they were referring to places whereas owning a car is a burden and that the op didn't like. Not places where the need for a vehicle is paramount.
There are probably farmers no too far outside your city that need trucks and other vehicles. I’m not a farmer, and much prefer a lifestyle like yours. But the people growing the food you eat have a different lifestyle.
This is happening in a lot more religions. Younger Catholics are becoming more traditional. We're even adopting our own garb. At my traditional parish, men come dressed in suits and many women veil (as is traditional when in church). Similar attitudes regarding television and video games. Many even hold to the old catholic beliefs on usury (not very popular amongst most other conservatives). It's a good reminder to be out of this world. Most social life is through the parish. It's pretty nice. Would love to meet the amish in the middle.
The hard part is creating a viable alternative culture that can make collective choices about technology use.
It’s also worth noting that the Amish rely on the ‘English’ I.e. American legal system and military for their defense. Their way of life doesn’t stand alone outside of American society.