How about people who don't reject technology, per se, but prefer APPROPRIATE technology for the problem? I'm thinking of E.E. Schumacher's _Small is Beautiful_.

Extremely pious Jews used to reject TV and would not have one at home, for the well founded fear of seeing unmodest women and so on. Nowadays there is some control on content, so the rule is less rigid. Regarding computers, somebody above wrote that are forbidden. Not at all, as many blogs and countless Jewish religion websites testify. Genetical counselling was originally rejected, but having proved its effectivity in eliminating TS, it has been adopted. I would say extreme orthodox Jews are early adopters of medical and computer technologies.

Ii hope I have not been exposing folks' email addresses here. I'll redo the method if I have been.

First, the big big no-no to websites is listings someones email address... please reconsider, this is doing a huge diservice to the people who post their email address with you, in 1 year, their email account will be completely useless.

The biggest group of anti-technologists I know of are hippies... well, REAL hippies that is...

I think it is interesting to approach the subject of spirituality and technology from a "rejection" point of view. I work for a church and find that our denomination (and many others) are trying to embrace technology pretty quickly to stay connected to members in the community. An article in the recent Covenant Companion cites a study about the frustration of church members (in various Protestant denominations) who try to reach pastors and staff and cannot get a human voice.

I have seen more websites supporting "brick and mortar" churches than ever before, as well as discussion groups, weblogs and email lists. Our pastors carry cellphones with them 24/7 which can lead to pastor burnout pretty quickly. Parents can sign into a password protected website and keep up with their kids' activities at day camps or summer camps (photos and video clips included). Boards and committees use email and discussion groups to stay in touch, inform each other of crises where people need help, and volunteer opportunities.

The Christian Left has found each other (finally!) via the web and is gathering a little more steam politically. (Christian Left believes that the Christian Right is Neither...we may all be called "Christians" and act very differently). In fact, I have found more Christians who are less "mainstream" through weblogs such as I am Looking for God and that is heartening to me and healthy for my own always developing faith.

I don't subscribe to aggressive evangelism (personally, I think it is all about call and choice), so I don't know how that works with technology. I know that we still get knocks on the door from JW's :) And more aggressive evangelizing denominations seem to be selling home security systems in our Chicago neighborhood...I have NO idea what that is about yet.

"I seem to recall reading somewhere that Stephen King writes his books on a typewriter instead of a computer, since he doesn't "process words", but rather "writes"."
Posted by Rob on December 16, 2003 at 08:59 PM
---

To clarify, King uses a Mac now.

======
"to begin showing why I think this discussion is relevant, think of some technologies. press or television. both have created so much in this world. but imagine and think of what they have destroyed."
Posted by Gary Yuen on January 11, 2004 at 12:52 PM
---

I disagree. HUMANS are the cause of that--not the technology.

======

As for cellphone rejection, perhaps it's not actually rejecting the cellphone as much as it is rejecting the "intrusion" of people on your free time. It's not the technology that is the cause for you dislike of cellphones, it's the people using them. If one of these "Cellphone rejectors" were stuck out in the middle nowhere with a broken down car, they will be wishing they had a cellphone THEN.

One has to be careful determining if it is truly a rejection of technology (in some of these examples) or if it's the human use of it that people fear. I think there's a major difference there.

The rejection of hearing aids by some deaf is indeed interesting. I wonder if it will outlast this generation?

And yes, storm, I think there is a direct connection with religion, but I am not sure what it is yet.

Ironically, it goes against human nature to reject technology. These groups are actually hypocrites, because they DO accept technology or else they wouldn't even use fire or the wheel. They embrace technology to a point and then there fear of loss of control takes over. Although control is what we set out to gain by developing technology.

It seems that religion plays a huge role in straying humans from technology, but it could also be argued that the human need to create technology was implanted in order to encourage us along. Could the technology ultimately end up leading us to God? heh heh. That's one the philosophers, theorists, novelists, & filmmakers can tackle.

storm

While not a religious issue, many in the deaf community are rejecting (philosophically and emotionally) cochlear implants because, as they claim: There is nothing wrong with being deaf.

Granted much of this came out of the early bionic implants that only had a few channels or so giving the wearer a very uncomfortable, muddied percept of the audio world, but even today with modern high channel count implants, there are those in the community that completely reject them as not belonging in the deaf community. To accept them would be acknowledging that there is an abnormality or a lack that somehow diminishes one's self or the culture of the deaf community. Indeed, I suppose it could be perceived as a threat of extinction to the deaf community culture . This threat perception may have roots in many cultures unwillingness to accept technology I suppose.

Conintued thanks to all who have posted here recently.

Yes, Robert, there is indeed a curious bias toward Anglo-Europeans when it comes to rejection of technololgies. I say curious because given the pervasive degree that technology has penetrated a place like Japan you would expect to see Japanese Amish, but so far all my looking there has not turned up any. Ditto for the Islamic Amish. The closest I have been able to find is the Taliban.

The question of minority is interesting. Are these groups marginal because they have given up technology, or do only marginal groups give it up?

On the other hand unless a huge percentage of people gave it up, it would always be defined as a minority.

Pointers to Japanese Amish and Islamic Amish very much wanted!

Hi Kevin,
Reading these notes on rejection of technolgy I observe two things:

(1) the bulk of the examples seem to come from the USA, a few from Canada and other Anglo-Saxon protestant societies. These are communities that were disliked in the "old world" because of their almost intolerant adherence to orthodoxy. The Catholic Church is an interesting special case, because it actually took over the Roman Empire, and as such its teachings have more to do with preserving imperial power structures than with orthodox beliefs. It was this attitude that led to the birth of protestantism first and to the exodus of puritans later: the catholic church was not orthodox enough!

(2) the remainder of the examples are from opressed minority groups. I suspect that a large number of their rejections are in fact more about self-assertion than rejection of the technologies themselves, i.e. they reject a certain life-style and show this by rejecting one or other technology that is a hallmark of that lifestyle.
As to GM foods: given I was one of the original web pioneers and work at CERN, I'm certainly in favour of science and technology. However, I am also very convinced that technology per se is not necessarily good. GM crops can be very desirable, but at this stage of our scientific knowledge I feel we (humankind) should be just as cautious as we should have been when we introduced rabbits and then myxomatosis in Australia. We just don't know enough yet scientifically to be able to predict the impact of our technologies. And I want to distinguish clearly between pure science (what we do here at CERN) and applying that science (technology). The USA push for making Europe accept GM foods is driven only by commercial greed, not based on any scientific evidence that GM crops can be controlled.
Similarly, while I always take my PowerBook on any trips, I still don't have a GSM phone (European technology) and do not want one because all I have seen this device do is disorganise people's lives. Some technology simply is not progress at all: e.g. I regret the demise of PSION as Palm-type handhelds are just so much slower, uncomfortable and lacking of useful features that I wrote a story about this (http://robert.cailliau.free.fr/ByLetter/P/PSION/StoryOfPSION.html)

People are also very wary of stuff they cannot easily see and understand. Victorian technology was sometimes opposed because it cause cataclysmic social and economic change, but not because it had no benefits. Today's information and genetic technologies rightly inspire fear:  scientist are unable to explain their true nature and the public cannot simply open the hood to look at the engine and make up their own mind. It's too invisible and complex.

Finally, you may actually be investigating a specific area of a larger phenomenon: propagation of memes (you have no doubt read http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-286212-X)

Best regards,
Robert.

The Bruderhof, who have communes in upstate NY and in PA, are followers of Eberhard Arnold, who differed from Rudolf Steiner's philosophy of anthroposophy in several ways. Their communities reject television, and their Publishing House, the excellent Plough Publishing, has just closed it's Internet division -- more info at
http://www.plough.com/pp/index.htm

to understand a particular attitude about tech, one must first figure out how they look at the world. That in itself is difficult enough. There are various social anthropologists like Levi-Strauss I've been wanting to learn more about. This book could be a big undertaking. I have a book myself I'm trying to do and I'm sure I will address technology but my address is really greater concerns of humanity.

one of my new interests is Alchemy. Jung wrote interesting things about it.

I just finished reading Tolstoy's A Confession and ohter Religious Writings and thought of your question. In Chapter 8 Tolstoy writes about the destruction that technology causes to human lives via the acquisition of material to make the technology. I thought of things like the mining operations in the Congo to make parts that make parts of computers, etc. that lead people to bloody territory disputes. You may want to look into Russia's religious movements. The Russian Old Believers, the Doukabars, the Molokans, and/or the Russian Orthodox Church to find out their views on technology. Tolstoy was involved with the Doukabars in some way and they immigrated to Canada.

all such questions lead me back and back to ontology.

best of luck Kevin. I know you must succeed at what you wish for. everything depends on it.

Jerry Mander, _Four Arguments for the Elimination
of Television_

Ivan Illich. another person who at least problematizes technology.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/Anu/articles/TAM28/Artifacts.html

Man tackling a serpent. - Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi

http://ibs001.colo.firstnet.net.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearch?id=3518&idx=1&start=10

what do we think of man and nature?

There is a risk that we might be heading toward on online 1984, in which Orwell's "proles" are represented by the passive, televisionfed mosses that hove no access to this new tool [the Net]. . . . Above them there'll be a petite bourgeoisie of passive users, office workers, airline clerks. And finally we'll see the masters of the game, the nomenklatura -- in the Soviet sense. This has nothing to do with class in the traditional sense -- the nomenklatura are just as likely to be inner city hackers as rich executives. But they will have one thing in common: the knowledge that brings control. - Umberto Eco

some other things I found;

Language itself, speech itself, is a technology, a tool, that, from the first cultures to the first responses to the cry of a baby, allows us to make our way on the earth by making a world of it. The iconic sound shape of language beats the path. - Bernstein

and random quotes from the book Ideaology and Art by Robin Ridless and Peter Lang

In the age of Freud and technology, behavior has lost its metaphysical mystery.

"The collective is a body, too, and the physis that is being organized for it in technology can, through all its political and factual reality, only be produced in that image sphere to which profane illumination initiates us."
- Walter Benjamin

ur taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison-world asunder, by the dynamite of a tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its farflung debris, we calmly and adventurously go traveling. With the close-up, space extends with slow motion, movement is extended. The enlargement of a snapshot does not simply render what in any case was visible though unclear; it reveals entirely new structural formations of the subject. Evidentially, a different nature opens itself to the camera than opens to the naked eye--if only because an unconsciously penetrated space is substituted for a space consciously explored. (Benjamin)

The realism of the technology will trap us in illusion. Under present circumstances, the subject of art cannot be history itself. It must be the methods by which modern forms of representation falsify and delete history. Technological art must be art abouttechnology: how it divorces us from reality in the name of complete disclosure, and how it can be used to restore us to the same.

The gap between appearance and reality opened up and exploited by the Stalinist leadership exemplified the problematic nature of the technology in relation to politics. Both in the worker's heroization and his eventual fall from grace, the camera had been made a ventriloquist for the government. The truth had not been dissembled in a positive sense. Rather, the meaning of what was permitted to be shown on screen was incomplete. It was a function of what had been left out, the "off the record," which the student pursues with the help of the films' "clues." Thus, the political enemies of the state were made to confess to trumped up charges of treason on camera. When the hero failed to follow his "stage directions" and instead asserted his innocence, a hand was placed in front of the camera before it was abruptly shut off. Indeed, the attention of the camera and tape recorder is what displaced actual history to the "behind-the-scenes."

It is important to realize that, just as the film makes objects real to its viewers without exposing them as integral forms for prolonged, meditative inspection, advertisements, with their "insistent jerky nearness" and upbeat tempo do likewise. 38 The techniques of distraction--rapidfire timing, optical zoom--are indifferent to the uses to which they are finally put. Divorcing art from ritual and transferring it to the showcase of exhibition made it amoral. We are dealing with a base "sense perception that has been changed by technology," an appetite (and capacity) for spectacular sights and raucous sounds, which seeks gratification in art. Furthermore, this art is now thoroughly integrated with and mobilized by all sectors of society, from the political to the private. Different things may be being said, but the way they are said remains the same.

The low-technology art form must analyze and adopt the mechanical arts' modalities, because their structures are the ones people are now prepared to think in. "The mechanization of literary production cannot be thrown into reverse," Brecht warns. 13 The mechanical "means of representation" must induce the non-mechanical arts to revise their methods. Spurning commercial art in favor of an idiom such as literature, with its roots in the nineteenth century and remoteness from advertising's kaleidoscopic flashiness, causes elevated art to languish in neglect of "every development in communication." This is the crux of the matter. Do not believe, Brecht is in effect telling the politically progressive artist, that, just because today's cultural commodity is infused with technology, the absence of technology is itself a sign of intelligent revolt.

And yet the dirge Adorno wrote for autonomous culture can still be heard in those brief moments of silence when we evict mass culture from our lives. In the stillness, we remember that he said that mechanization obscured art's origin in the human soul; that it cultivated in people a taste for harshness, violence and conformity. After reading Adorno, one notices that when one turns on a rock radio station, it is difficult to tell the difference between the songs and the advertisement. One notices that the tempo of much popular music is assaultive. It captures a person in its driving repetition, whether he wants to be caught or not. (It is no doubt easier to surrender than to fight its physical persuasion.) The effect is physiological. The beat controls the listener, as advertisers surely know. The more electronic it is (disco), the more irresistible is its inhumanly even and high speed rhythm. Mass culture's dragnet around the individual tightens with each step forward in technology. (Already rock and roll percussion is beginning to sound weak, desultory.) On the other hand ( Benjamin again), this is the music of the streets--the music that can turn the drill of construction and the whinny of a garbage truck into "text."

The combination of technology and aesthetics can be used to undermine what is commonly considered knowledge. Art uses technology to stretch the limits of palpability and propriety. Thirty years ago, the experimental musician John Cage went to the laboratories at Harvard University to monitor the sounds of his own nervous and circulatory systems. He discovered in its soundproof chamber an absence of taciturnity. There is no silence, he said, only "non-intentional sounds." More recently, the expermental artist Yoko Ono called attention to the 'politics of sound' by putting the sound of a sexual orgasm on one of her records. When criticized for immodesty, she defended her move with an Eco-type explanation. The public, she argued, is routinely exposed to the sounds of bombs exploding. Censoring the sounds of intimacy would be an unbalanced omission, a knocking out of part of the range of human behavior that is offered for public perusal. The absence of silence, the absence of exception--both of these ostentatiously made points attack normal assumptions about reality by showing what it has to repress in order to gather to itself an identity.

Surrealism was not alone in its reaction to the structural opportunities unlocked by mechanical reproduction. In the American South, the desacralization of folk idioms brought about bytechnology led to the cross-fertilization of traditionally segregated idioms. The first time audiences heard a saxophone in a Country-Western or "hillbilly" song, for example, it sounded odd, impermissible. It was as though audiences were hearing the instrument for the first time. The reason: "R & B" (rhythm and blues) was black ethnic music; hillbilly was white. The saxophone had been strictly associated with the former. When it suddenly began to be used differently, anomalously, in the studio, long-time assumptions began to crumble. The result--rock and roll--intimated the possibility of other kinds of racial integration. The one fact that should not be lost sight of, with regard to the parallelism between two movements that otherwise had nothing in common, Surrealism and rock and roll, is that they were both exploitations of structural changes in the means of representation. Now ways of seeing and hearing came out of each's crossing of limits.

The auratic work of art could not tolerate such tampering. It was organic and quasi-sacred. On the contrary, the mechanical work is modular to begin with. It can be added to, or subtracted from, without harming its essential nature. Thus, Benjamin argued that the beneficiary of manufactured culture is the average recipient, who is no longer confined to the receiving end of culture.Technology not only involves the bystander as participant. It encourages a 'do-ityourself' attitude toward art in which the distinction between them all but disappears.

Walter Benjamin foresaw the increasing importance of the media when he said that the object destined for reproductionegins to anticipate reproduction. Competition in the field of public communication often centers around "state of the art" standards. The most advanced technology serves as a yardstick of literal reality. Old-fashioned equipment cannot naturalize the image as well as the up-to-date kind, because we notice it through the deficiencies in the reproduction. A "mono" record has a machine sound. A multi-component stereo sound sounds clear as a bell, transparent, "natural." Yet the latter's ultimate copy of reality specifies more than either natural perception or technically less developed reproductions. Its heightening effects shape and reshape our prevalent notions of accuracy, of adequation between the object and its synthetic reproduction. Advertising is a case in point. It delivers its message under what one advertising professional once called "the discipline of a tenth of a second." If it does not exploit the most advanced techniques, it renders its image less well. The latter comes across less economically. To be technically substandard is to communicate reality ineptly. In mechanical reproduction, what does not look real does not look rational. That is why the Punk movement in music returned to a more primitive technology. By doing that, it demonstrated how conditioned our perception is to technologically determined standards of clarity and audibility. It showed how superior reproduction is itself a form of connotation in Barthes' sense of the term.

Benjamin acknowledged the hothouse nature of the mechanical image by calling it "an orchid in the land of technology."

Adorno's objection to "the mere passive enjoyment of sensual sound" as an inferior form of cultural experience is both limited and vindicated by this line of thought. It is vindicated because surface effects have indeed become a part of the science of advertising. It is limited at least according to semiotics, because even the most visceral ofexperiences, once framed by art, enters into language and thereby becomes a conscious object of cognition. The ultimate significance of mechanical reproduction then proves to be that it has changed the meaning of meaning. It does not influence the recipient from a twilight state of semi-consciousness, as Adorno said it did, but through the ultimately ratiocinative avenue of language. Benjamin may have been sense-loving, but the objects of his sensuality were gloved in technology and, thus, rationality.

ah good think to start thinking about:

FROM THE beginning of time, technology has been a key element in the growth and development of societies. Entire eras are named for the levels of their technological sophistication -- the stone age; the bronze age; the iron age; the age of sail; the age of steam; the jet age; the computer era. But technology is more than jets and computers; it is a combination of knowledge, techniques and concepts; it is tools and machines, farms and factories. It is organization, processes and people. The cultural, historical and organizational context in whichtechnology is developed and applied is the key to its success or failure. In short, technology is the science and the art of getting things done -- through the application of skills and knowledge. - Mastering the Machine (Ian Smillie)

Technological success owes as much to technique, design, good planning and effective organization as it does to engineering. - Mastering te Machine

what is this idea of progress? is it the idealism of Hegel? is the history of humanity the movement towards greater freedom?

or is it this common proverb that we can see in so many poets philosophers and cultures, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

an interesting question is photographic memory.

maybe photographs are dangerous ways to open up our eyes into the window of the soul

to add more, i'm sure every culture has an immensly complex idea of the soul. and of seeing or how to see, how to look at people. and what is a second in time.

even in the west, the idea of soul didn't always exist and has changed so much. And more importantly, in any period in history, it's different to everyone else. between you and me. even in this time in history, who knows how to explain or summary this moment of time. so many cultures, beliefs. even in one disipline, can we summarize beliefs in biology? no way. we only identify trends, but we probably can't understand them.

the only important thing is our relationships. human relationships.

to begin figuring out why people might fear photographs. imagine.

we're such complex beings. always changing. modern psychology is so far from figuring us out. we ourselves and those around us are always evolving. sometimes this change doesn't occur only because the situations around us remain the same for so long.

first impressions - nothing close to who we are. a spec of dust in the depths of ourselves.

and a photograph, nothing more than a spec of dust.

to begin showing why I think this discussion is relevant, think of some technologies. press or television.

both have created so much in this world. but imagine and think of what they have destroyed. what have they made disappear from the world. how do we now relate to the universe and with each other? what are all the new ways of communication that press and tv have created? And what are the ways of speaking to each other that they've destroyed?

ah this words creation and destruction are not close to what i mean. i mean more than the situation or paradox of the human condition is always in flux and change. there is a configuration of chaos that's never stops moving..

The internet iself has changed so much. We'll spend at least the next few hundred years figuring out it's potential. and forever trying to realize it.

Hey Kelly, I just found these things from the Koran,

We were going with Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him). As we reached the place Arj there met (us) a poet who had been reciting a poem. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) said: Catch the satan or detain the satan, for filling the belly of a person with pus is better than stuffing his brain with poetry. (Sahih Muslim 27.5611)

Nay, say they, (these are but) muddled dreams; nay, he hath but invented it; nay, he is but a poet. Let him bring us a portent even as those of old (who were God's messengers) were sent (with portents).

As for poets, the erring follow them.

And said: Shall we forsake our gods for a mad poet?

Or say they: (he is) a poet, (one) for whom we may expect the accident of time?

--
I don't know yet what this word poet refers to in the Koran. but if it is anything like greek techne, then there does suggest some eternal inability to be with the infinite (that last phases doesn't even come close to what i mean). The question is how to look, work, speak, and act in this world.

It would have to be in ways of goodness. Like the swastika of Ganesha and of Buddha. of always reaching back into the fire of Heraclitus or Vishnu.

ah, I see how unclear I am in what I've written so far. too bad, I'll say more later. If you believe this to be irrelevant, sorry. But I believe to even understand this word technology, it's important to understand where it came from, and to do so is to understand the eternal naught of our own origins.

And such research is not too far away from what I'm trying to write so this is a fun conversation.

Hey Kevin, glad it's helpful. Man, discussing the concept of technology could go on forever, after all it's a question of technique or making. And what is this idea of poetry, technique, and technology, to greeks who invented this idea. Lately, I've been liking all authors akin to Heraclitus who speaks of poetry or making in a way of opening up the future.

here are some more quotes..

If, after a radical transformation of this society, we are to create a new human culture, ... we must upheave our established significations of rationality, our science of the last centuries and their homogeneous technologies. But of this music, of this distant future, we must sacrifice nothing to understand today, perhaps for fear of confusing it with the auditive hallucinations which could give birth to our desire.
- Cornelius Castoriadis

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.
- Aldous Huxley

Lets speak of technology as a process of making or of poetry. By poetry, i mean such infinitely complex things by this word. My new wish for technology is to undo a "very strange event: the birth of philosophy in poetry." (Blanchot)

Philosophy is the systemization of the world. It's the disipline, an attempt to summarize and understand the infinite complexity of the universe. Necessary of course. But how do we do in ways that only open up language and new ways of thinking. What should be our technique or technology of speaking and of the spiritual.

ah man, and spiritual. I'm only begiinning to look into other forms of spirituality like the iChing, the Vedic texts,
the Tamud, and all the bibles.

I wish I could say more or even say what I wish to mean in a better way. I hope this is at least a beginning to more questions. It is for me. I don't know you could write just one book of technology and spirituality.

teche is just the word for making. and that itself is difficult enough. I think Aristotle was greatest among the early ones to place ethics within technique. I haven't even figured all that stuff out yet. never will. and that's not even looking into every other concept of making that's every existed in all major cultures and religions. now I want to read more. so much to look into.

Thanks, Tony on the Amish references. Those are good books. In addition Kraybill's THE RIDDLE OF THE AMISH, now in its second edition, is also great. As you say, the Amish make a distinction between what's in their home and what's in their shops. They also make a distinction, which many outsiders find hard to reckon, between owning things and using them; they'll ride in cars not their own, for instance.

Gary, thanks for Plato's quote.

And I greatly appreciate the comments about Hindu and Jain beliefs -- about which I am far less familiar.

I live and work in central PA and interact with the "Plain" people often. Two important details, which are often forgotten when thinking about their choices, are; first, the response to technology is locally decided, and second, one of the biggest influences on those decisions is the idea of enterprise. Communities independently decide where and what technologies can be adapted and when exceptions are made, it tends to be in service of enterprise. While most modern technology is absent from the homes, it is not unusual to see phones and electricity in the barn, or bakery, or the mill. Sometimes the power or phone service is from the grid, other times it comes from generators or cell phones to specifically be off the world's hardwired network. In one community you'll see Razor Scooters and in another SUVs. The level of technological infiltration also varies by the individual doctrine of the various sects. Almost all Old Order Amish reject automobile ownership, other Anabaptists allow combustion engines, but reject rubber tires when farming, thus all of their farm equipment uses steel wheels.

A couple of books about the Anabaptists and Pietists that might help clarify these decisions and the differences between these people are:

Amish Enterprise by Donald Kraybill and Stephen Nolt
&
Amish Society by John Hostetler

While both books concentrate on Old Order Amish, they also explore the differences and similarities to the other Anabaptist and Pietist sects.

Before answering this question, let me ask. What is technology? Is it this greek concept of techne or making? Is it anything like karma or action? Is there any ethics before we act in this world?

Are there any people who care enough about how tech influences this world like Doerr or Joy? If we look at older technologies, how has publishing or media changed how the world communicates?

Not easy questions. We can't say that everything we've invented has made the world a better place. Each time in history has unique problems.

On another note, I was reading this just a few minutes ago. It's Plato's rejection about the act of writing:

In the region of Naucratis in Egypt there dwelt one of the old gods of the country, the god to whom the bird called Ibis is sacred, his own name being Theuth. He it was that invented number and calculation, geometry and astronomy, not to speak of draughts and dice, and above all writing. Now the king of the whole country at that time was Thamus, who dwelt in the great city of Upper Egypt which the Greeks call Egyptian Thebes, while Thamus they call Ammon. To him came Theuth, and revealed his arts, saying that they ought to be passed on to the Egyptians in general.... [b]ut when it came to writing Theuth said,

"Here, O King, is a branch of learning that will make the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories: my discovery provides a recipe for memory and wisdom."
But the king answered and said,

"O man full of arts, to one it is given to create the things of art, and to another to judge what measure of harm and of profit they have for those that shall employ them. And so it is that you, by reason of your tender regard for the writing that is your offspring, have declared the very opposite of its true effect. If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls: they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks; what you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance; for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing; and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows."

The "Jain" sect of Hinduism are a "non-Western" religious/cultural group that you should look at. The more orthodox members of this group are known to eschew any material posessions whatsoever...

Google turned up: http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/jainhlinks.html.

After poking around a bit i found the following (at http://www.intranet.csupomona.edu/~plin/ews430/jain3.html) description:

"Jain Ascetics own nothing and are homeless. Some wear no clothes and are said to be Digambaras or "sky-clad." Others known as Shvetambaras are identified by their simple white robes. Ascetics are also encouraged to remove all their hair and to beg for their food.They often do not even own vessels out of which to eat, but use only their hands as bowls. They are also required to eat away from the sight of lay persons. Because of their vows against non-violence and the taking of life, lay Jains as well as monastics are usually vegetarians. Some take the more extreme path of vegetarianism known as fruitism where only fruit, nuts and milk are consumed. Root vegetables such as potatoes and carrots are not eaten as they are believed to draw life from the earth, and reverence for plants and trees means that plants are not included in the diet.

Other ascetic sects such as the Shvetambarasect carry their intention to do no harm to all creatures to the extent of wearing face masks to avoid harming insects or microbes by breathing them in. "

Having lived in India for a number of years, I can attest to the existence (but not the sanity )of these ascetics.

Give me a shout if you want to discuss this in any way.

Cheers,
Anand

You know, the Luddites ARE still around. The Columbus Dispatch did an article about them a few years ago. You have to pay to see the article though. Here's a link to a E magazine article about the Second Luddite Congress (http://www.emagazine.com/july-august_1996/0796ibludd.html ). It was sponsored by the "The Center for Plain Living". I don't believe they have a web site ;-)

David Kline was also associated with this group. He's an Amish farmer/author. See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888683228/qid=1072805167/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/104-8877685-5159929?v=glance&s=books

Namaskars !
Salutations from India,

Though it is rare; it might be interesting for people outside India:
Very very orthodox Hindu temples somehow believe that taking photographs of the Gods & Godesses deminishes their powers.
In their effort to avoid misuse / dishonour of the Gods, many famous Hindu temples have banned photography within the premisis of temples.
It is not exactly a ban on photography but restriction of use withiin a specific religious area.
The head priest of such a temple can easily own the latest digi-cam personally without upsetting anybody !
Personally, I would treat it as a case of technology creating real awareness about the limitations of blindly worshipping symbolisms.

Greetings from India,
BM Bharadwaja

You have overlooked one of the biggest rejecters of technology, the Japanese farmer Masanobu Fukuoa whose book "One Straw Revolution" helped inspire the permaculture movement. Fukuoka--now in his 80s-- believes that it is possible to farm in a closed-loop system using thick living mulch (ground covers like white clover, buckwheat, agricultural mustard) and seeding directly into them. He adds nitrogen to the soil by planting nitrogen-fixing trees (e.g the mimosa or acacia) and shrubs (eg false ingido) nearby.

Fukuoka and his followers adamently reject greenhouses, hydroponics, aeroponics and any other mechanical or chemical methods of gardening. A small group (under 400) of Fukuoka adherents have their own website (you can see the archives by googling over to "Fukuoka Farming Yahoo." I was once a member, but after two years of nobody reporting much success actually running a garden or farm using Fukuoa's methods, I dropped out.

Fukuoka himself spends a great deal of time promulgating his own view of philosophy and religion (a pantheist reworking of Buddhism and Taoism) and not a great deal actually showing poeple how to farm. The lack of "how to" instructions severely hampers his approach. He advocates the use of seeds pellitized in clay as a method of reforesting the world's deserts. Trained as a plant pathologist, Fukuoka often makes very complex "seedballs" that incorporate microbial infusions of "matsudake" along with derris root and star anise. He received a grant to write a textbook on how to make seedballs but returned the money, saying he was too old to complete the work. The seedballs made by many of his followers are simply seeds, soil, moisture and clay--a combination which in my experience doesn't work very well.

Fukuoka's own extremely low-tech rice and citrus farm in Japan attracted many visitors in the 1970s and 80s, including reputable scientists who said that his methods when practiced by him (not necessarily by his pupils) did actually work. It is too bad that Fukuoka has strayed so much into philosophy and religion and has not been able to show others how to reproduce his apparently successful closed-system, extremely sustainable farm. Of couse, his "closed system" is an open air one, not sealed like the Biosphere experiments.
Fukuoka rejects space exploration and colonization.

Bob Monie, south Louisiana

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Stephen King writes his books on a typewriter instead of a computer, since he doesn't "process words", but rather "writes". And I have seen many references to screenwriters showing up with scripts scribbled on yellow pads for similar reasons.

Here's a resource on cultures and belief systems vis a vis medical treatment. It's aimed at medical professionals who would treat recent immigrants... may prove useful :

http://www.ethnomed.org/

Who really uses technology the way "we" do? I am at the CIO level, and I constantly see computers being used at glorified typerwriters. Huge resources are used to support the technology - which for Windows at least, does not work as advertised. My father, at 74, and his friends are working on computers which need updating, are virus laden, etc. things that most people either don't have the time for or just don't understand. I re-install a fresh copy of Windows about every year - is this how it is supposed to be used?
I don't advocate an Amish lifestyle, but I am not sure I accept the question as written.

best,
thomas

I just joined the conversation.
I am a Christain and a computer and technophile, but I have my levels of reservation on gene-splicing, reproductive technologies and genetically modified plants and livestock. Things that affect my definition of "life".

I think that many groups as well as individuals have a "push" wall that is resisitant to certain levels of technology.
I think this is based on traditions (What is and has been accepted practice), social and religious mores (What could or should be).

Some of the newest technologies meeting opposition haven't had a long history of being safely implimented yet - like genetically modified foods, and the plants and animals we harvest them from.

It took a long time for global warming to be accepted as a fact, to the point of it being perhaps too late to make a change back toward balance.

What edge of no return will some of our developing technologies carry us over if we do not proceed with a cushion of time? Once we discovered that we could do this amazing thing or that, why not slow down and contemplate?

Questions I want answered:

Would improve life for all on this planet?
Is it safe for even the most vulnerable lives among us?
Is it sustainable?

It is true that many of our present practices and technologies are founded on thoughtless and greed.

Not a good reason to continue that way.

Villette

I didn't read much further than the original post. The reference to the Hutterites is what caught my eye. Living in MT, I've come to know a few present and former Hutterites. Truthfully, I don't know much about their beliefs, but I do know that they don't reject technology. I think they may just be minimalists when it comes to technology. As far as I can tell, unless they can make money from it, they don't use it. I friend of mine has sold cars to Hutterites, sans every single option available - even bumpers. I've also read news articles about Hutterite colonies utilizing the internet, as well as getting busted at the Canadian border for smuggling fertilizers and growth hormones.

Just a clarification on the Luddite post (I was surprised that it was near the bottom of the list!). The Luddites primarily rejected certain technology due to one simple fact. It put them out of business. The steam engine made mechanical weaving possible and an area in Great Britain where the stocking making trade was centered was getting run over by this "new technology". Thus they rejected it by trying to destroy it. Had their first introduction to technology been a cell phone, we probably would never had heard of them :p

There is an excellent book on the subject that I read many years ago. Should you be at all interested I will dig up the title.

You do have me curious and no one else has asked yet? Why are you interested in this? It may give a bit of direction to the answers you receive.

Just to chime in on the original post regarding Christian Scientists' rejection of medical technology. The issue is very much the same as the one which Joe Christensen addressed, distinguishing between "rejection of technology" and "rejection of the concept behind the technology." The fundamental (intonation of "basic", not "political") mission of Christian Science is "to restore primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing." So Christian Scientists rely on prayer to heal disease, broken relationships, fears, anxieties, etc.

The reason it seems that Christian Scientists reject medical technology is that the media often portray that as a point of struggle. An ailing elderly Christian Scientist whose family has left the religion might intern that person in the hospital and insist on medical treatment. The spectacle portrayed on television or in movies is the delicate legal battle over who has the right to force medical treatment against the person's preference, along with the personal difference in beliefs between the patient and family members. But the rejection isn't of the technology, but the concept of medical treatment. Christian Scientists actively treat and heal through prayer.

For this same reason, Christian Scientists will typically not employ psychologists, psychiatrists or the like. And they do tend to employ a physician when a child is ill and is not readily responding to the treatment of prayer. They do this out of a respect for the law as well as respect for those around the child who might be concerned about its health.

I just read that rabbis are frowning on buying, selling phones with color screens. Posters reading "Torah fearing Jews" are being hung around the capital city of Jerusalem. The posters encourage cell phone users to refrain from buying or selling cellular telephones with color screens, presumably because they encourage Internet connectivity. (original sources are Israel Nation News.com, Cellular-News.com)

Thanks all for the many comments. David I appreciate your vigorous musings on your own life's relationship with technology. The distinction of whether technology is rejected, ignored, or embedded is very subtle and very important.

Thadd, if you are still around, I have a question for you. When your larger church community is trying to decide whether to accept shorts in summer, or TVs in the basement, or cell phones, are the criteria for deciding plain and visible to you, one of the members? How active are ordinary members in deciding this, or is it only a matter for the local bishops? I understand you are not voting, but do folks feel they are "voting" when they bend the existing protocols a bit? Is it conscious, in other words?

Maybe this is why our world looks pretty much like it always has.

I remember watching Walter Chronkite's "Twenty-First Century." We've changed plenty, but the world is pretty much as it always has been, because while man is technological, man rejects technology is a variety of ways that hide technology rather than elevate it to the same level as say science fiction and futurists tend to do.

Maybe the road to adoption is rapid ubiquity, rapid transparency, and the rapid disappearance.

I can remember arguing with some kid about how the speed limit used to be 75. They were born after 55 became the law, so they really think that we drove 70. Talk about a rapidly adopted technology. Well, maybe not, because 55 was thoughtless ideology. But, then thoughtless ideology is technology too.

The laggards and phobics as defined in Moore's technology adoption cycle reject technology at the core of their identity.

The laggards demand information appliances, so that the technology is easy to use. Getting to this ease of use takes deliberate sublimation of the complexities of the interface without sacrificing the power of the applications.

The phobics go the laggards one better and demand embedded technologies. Here the interface is left to the technical enthusiasts and is kept behind the scenes. They don't even want a box. They want it to fit inside the old box. The don't want to know it is there.

These rejections are standing waves and represent a sizable portion of the population. These rejections are about risk focus. We can only handle so much risk. By sublimating and embedding technology we remove the technology from our risk focus.

How much risk focus to we attend to pencils with? Ubiquity removes technology from our risk focus as well. Only the technical enthusiasts are dealing with the risk focus of the pencil. The people that use mechanical pencils still attend to their pencils. The people that use pencil sharpeners still attend to their pencils. Artists attend to their pencils. Me, I haven't used a pencil in years. I don't intend to ever use one. I reject the technology of the pencil. Ubiquitous or not, a technology can still be deliberately rejected, but mostly it is going to be inadvertant rejection.

Sublimation and embedding are the road to ubiquity, the road to affordance, and they are the road through rejection territory.

Adoption is apparently rare.

I realized a few weeks ago, when I was reading Petrosky's "The Pencil" that de-adoption, aka rejection of technology, can take on the form of the invisible. By this I mean that ubiquitous, black box technology falls from notice, from focus and is thusly de-adopted.

This is that point where the explicit becomes once again the imlicit as if it never existed, as if the effort to discover, develop, and commercialize never happened. Which is the same end as non-adoption.

Rejected technologies, non-adopted technologies, and ubiquitious, invisible, sublimated, embedded technologies all end up in the same places: museums, historical mentions, closets of the enthusiasts, collections, and off focus, out of mind, invisibility. The place of non-practice, inattention, the forgotten.

Hi, someone mentioned Luddites above there. You definitely need to look into Luddites and the Industrial Revolution. I am not too sure about absolute religious values prompting them to destroy machinery, but it is an interesting bit of history during a time of sweeping technological change. More of a social motivation rather than a spiritual motivation.

Also try reading a book called "Beyond Politics" by Solange Hertz, a rather strange view of science and Catholic religion. This author is somewhat hard to find but details a very interesting point of view, beginning with some ideas of what electricity is. Of course take this book with a grain of salt. the way the author writes it one would presume that he is only speculating for the pure philosophical/theological fun of it.

Hope this was helpful, your cool tools column sure is.

I filed an unemployment claim for a partial payment, because I did freelance work that week. Well, the state insisted that I identify my "employer." This has caused tons of problems.

The point here is that the goverment seems to be lagging in their use of technology. Yes, they provide computers and printers, phones and fax machine, but their defintion of work is still blue collar, non-entrepreurial, non-freelance.

The system eats you when you don't fit. The non-adopters rule.

Correction to my previous post. I meant to refer to Switzerland's state run religion not "state run government". Oops.

Kevin,

I was raised in a church with origins from the Amish-Mennonites. I am a "member" of the Apostolic Christian Church of America that was started in 1847 by a man named Samuel Froelich. Originally started as a movement against the state-run government of Switzerland it also challenged the practice of infant baptism. As a church, we have been struggling with the issues of technology since the church was founded. The introduction of the automobile was resisted until the 50's and 60's, televisions are just now becoming accepted, the internet is being debated. The demise of the farming industry is forcing young men to look for other forms of employment, but there are only so many carpenters that a small town needs. Many are moving to engineering jobs. I'm considered to be from a "liberal" congregation in the Midwest. In truth, I'm one of the more "liberal liberal's", but my point is this: I'm constantly struggling with the tension between my heritage, religious beliefs, etc. and the invention of technologies that obviously enable the best and the worst of human behavior to manifest. My choice of careers has been limited because of the pressures of family and church. The previous post prompted my post, because I witness inconsistencies every day similar to the Amish cell phone example. My wife wears a head covering in church and at church functions but not in daily life. I brazenly wear shorts in public on hot days but can't get over the feeling that I'm disappointing my family or offending other church members. Some hide their televisions in the basement or closets. I don't know much about other cultures who struggle with this, but I can definitely relate to the confusion and insecurity that individuals deal with when it comes to making life choices between religious heritage and technology. It's more complex than many people realize.

The first thing that came to mind on this topic was the demise of Bob Marley. I could be mistaken, but I believe he died from complications of an injury or cancer in his toe, which he refused to have amputated for religious reasons. This is in keeping with a rastafarian's preference for not shaving the face or cutting hair, resulting in 'dreadlocks'. The habit comes, I think from a passage in the old testament that a beard should not be shaved and the corners of the head should not be rounded (hair cut). I'm not sure what the policy is with fingernails. Hasidic jews have a symbolically long lock of hair in front of their ears for the same reason. Also, I recall reading an article several years ago about amish who had gotten around the rule of not having a phone in the house by charging their cell phones at the houses of non-amish friends, in order to use them throughout the day for business.

Just thought I'd chime in on the discussion of the Amish. To my recollection, the Amish are not necessarily anti-technology, but are very careful about how they allow technology to affect their communities.

Their opposition to telephones stems from the way a telephone call tends to disrupt face-to-face interaction. Because of the practical benefits of the telephone, however, many communities have decided to have a single telephone installed, for allow for emergencies and communication between distant communities.

As such, I'm not sure to what extent their approach to technology stems from religious fervor. In a sense, it might be regarded more as a shared commitment to a kind of social engineering.

Where religious beliefs do come into play is in their rejection of anything immodest, which they equate to being sinful. This tends to manifest itself more in their rejection of bright colors, and their choice of clothing styles.

It's also worth noting that in many communities, much more latitude is given to young people, as they go through puberty and try to find their place in the world. Once they settle down and start a family, however, they are expected to fall back in line with the community's traditions.

I'm guess I'm no real authority on the topic, but I do live in an area with sizable populations of both Amish and old-order Mennonites, so I have tried to develop an understanding of what makes them tick.

Personally, I think there's a great deal of wisdom to their idea of considering the impact of a technology before allowing its widespread use. Someone else mentioned GMO foods, I think there's enough reason to cautious in our adoption of this in our agricultural practices, but I fear it may be too late to go back, at least in North America.

what about the hasidic and orthodox jews and their sabbath observations-don't use elevators, tv etc...

also check out www.beliefnet.com/index/index_506.htmlbout

your sister

One fashion/fetish rejection of technology is related to wrist watches. Dress watches are never digital, even though a digital watch is generally more accurate and offers more features at a lower price. Mechanical watches became symbols of power with the industrial revolution when the trains had to run on a common time system. Now, a $2000 watch with the best antique technology is a symbol of power. The sleeker/cheaper/better technology is welcome in sport and geek culture but not in business culture.

We are de-adopting VC funding for software startups.

I read some IT columist commenting on how the top of the line Westinghouse washer and dryer can now talk to each other. The washer tells the dryer what kind of load it is washing, so the dryer can set itself. Well, the columist said that he doesn't use his dryer that way. He goes on to say that he would have to redo the settings on the dryer. He wasn't thrilled.

But, if the washer didn't talk to the dryer, he would still have to set the dryer.

It's really funny to see a technologist argue against a technology.

I can remember trying to write a BNF grammar for a home control system. My issue was what would these things say to each other. I started out with the caveman case. This turned into a mess. The truth is that it was top down. Westinghouse isn't asking what all these things can say to each other, but rather what would this one useful conversation be.

It's kind of like saying that technology can prevent its own adoption by overreaching.

To hear people bemoan the dot bust and the so-called lessons we should learn from it reminds me of a book on telcom product management. It contained the "telcom technology adoption cycle" that is similar to Geoffrey Moore's version, but there are no early adopters (business visionaries) in the telcom version. Instead, there is a big gap, aka a bust, followed by mass adoption. They knew this before the bust. But, you would have to ask who knew. Apparently, not many.

So again, technology blocking its own adoption.

There was more wrong that just the lifecycle. And, apparently, we haven't collectively learned all the lessons that we should have.

Depends on the my latest experience with the remote, my house may qualify. My infantile need to physically abuse VCR/TV/Remote/PC has resulted in a startling number of periods where the most technical item actually in my house is the circa 1968 dryer.

I know that this isn't what you are looking for, but hey....I'm actually using a laptop this week.

Depends on the my latest experience with the remote, my house may qualify. My infantile need to physically abuse VCR/TV/Remote/PC has resulted in a startling number of periods where the most technical item actually in my house is the circa 1968 dryer.

I know that this isn't what you are looking for, but hey....I'm actually using a laptop this week.

here's the thing: frequently, while i am in the local wal-mart, i have seen these people that are not quite amish, but something more like mennonite? anyway, they are the type of people that have also chosen to live a simple life....anyway, i have seen them and they all have cell phones and drive big SUV's, and their children wear disposable diapers and they pay with credit cards.....so i am wondering, what exactly makes these people more righteous than the rest of us?

Two additional examples:
- In Lapland (the very Northern parts of Norway, Finland and Sweden, there is a fundamentalist Christian group called LĘstadianerne where at least some of the many splinter groups reject some kinds of technology. (One English-language link is http://www.srk-oulu.net/suviseurat2002/international/en/who.htm). (I tried searching for "LĘstadians" on Google - many of the pages are Geocities-styled and have expired, but the cached versions are available, and you could probably get English-language material from the US branches of this sect. There are some rather bizarre stories about the degree to which these groups reject modernity in general - for instance, in one group washing machines were allowed, as long as they did not have glass doors, because then the wife could be subjected to the sight of her husbands underware moving in, presumably, an unGodly manner. My uncle, who was a conductor for a boys Christian choir, told a story of how the choir was not allowed to sing hymns in more than one "voice" (not sure if this is the correct English term) in one church in Northern Norway.
- not sure if this is what you are looking for, but just to mention it: The Japanese for over a hundred years famously rejected guns in favor of Samuraj-style swords and spears, as described (I think) in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel".

"De-adoption" is a great concept. Thanks, David.

What role does historic time play in adoption? Is adoption or rejection Boolean? Even the Amish de-adoption of specific technologies deliniates a process, rather than a state.

Products remove or eliminate constraints. Products are the results of decision trees, tons of decision trees. Each of these decisions is socially constructed. Each of these decisions is made in a social influence network. Each of these decisions is emergent and non-deterministic.

There are the products that succeeded and were adopted. They changed the paradigm, but we know from paradigms that each paradigm carries with it non-linearities where it cannot be applied. From these non-linearities, new paradigms arise. The old one dies. The old one is de-adopted. So there is a whole slew of non-adopted and de-adopted technologies.

So why not look at how deadoption occurs at the end of life as well.

There are those that reject technology and they are us. In Geoffrey Moore's Technology Adoption LIfecycle, there are phobics who only use technology when it is transparent, when it is invisible. Is using invisible technology the same as getting your hands dirty, no. There is a gradient.

Late market customers of computer technology demand that it be powerful, but require the use of fewer controls. This is task sublimation. The endpoint of task sublimation is the phobic's total embed. The midpoint is the information appliance.

Computer technology depends on the recognitional skills of humans and packages that as semantic-based tagging and the extrinsic link anchor, analog-to-digital converters of all types not just electronic, layers, and persuasion. When do we see it? When do we know that we are being exposed to it. The ability to stand apart from it is slipping away from the human grasp.

I believe some Aborignal tribes contend that technology, particularly language, runs counter to ideal human lifestyle.

HI Kevin
Rejection of technology must be viewed as a Content or as a Context issue. Workers of all kinds within the Context of Mass Production are treated like "things." In that Context they often reject technological improvement of their jobs. Proof is all of the technology initiatives that have failed in the past 10 years. I have a client who installed $25M in technology to make their sales force work "smarter" and the sales people will not use it. Once the Context is changed to Mass Customization and people are valued for their creative talent, they easily embrace technology. For examlpe my father ran a brick plant in an Amish town in Ohio. The Amish workers easily used technology at work that they would not use at home. It was the Contextual difference between work and home that made it acceptable to them. As you study this issue, whether religious, social or business it is Contextual Blindness and interpretation that prevents people from embracing most technological advancements. Therefore, you could conclude that many technological advancements enable Contextual change and people "resist" changing Context rather than resisting technology. I appreciate that people fight wars to protect the Context of their existence but technology never exists independently of Contextual meaning.

Many members of the Free Reformed Church in Canada and the USA reject the use of televisions, and film.

I recall reading that Christian Scientists reject certain kinds of medical procedures? And the movie "Lorenzo's Oil" comes to mind (Susan Sarandon, Nick Nolte) - was there something in there about their rejecting certain medical procedures? In a stepped back, grander interpretation (I am in real estate) the real estate industry is remarkably slow changing, rejecting (often by unions, fearing cheaper methods which would obsolete their skills) newer methods of construction. Japan has robots that build high rises; try to get that ok-ed in NYC. The shiping industry for many years rejected the use of containers as containers were harder to open and fewer things "dropped" onto the dock. Apparebtly another union rejection of progress.

There must be endless information about indiginous tribes all over the planet whose religions, beliefs, fears, dreas have led them to reject something new, better, different. People machines seem by their essence to reject 'new". Machine machines seem by their essence to be indifferent to 'new'.

Personally I love how technology evolves into seemingly simplier, more powerful, more usable forms, meanwhile becoming more and more complex under our consciousness. While the surace interface "simples and simples" the mechanics "complicate and complicate" beyond users understanding. Way cool.

That was an incredibly informative piece on Bhutan TV.

And yes, the ban on contraception is a good example.

I didn't know about the rejection of childbirth tech, Ed, which I will have to look into.

Is any one of aware of rejection cases farther back in history, say, pre-1900?

You'll probably find the country of Bhutan a fascinating case study. They are devout Buddists who just opened up the country to television a few years ago, with interesting results:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,975769,00.html

also I don't think anyone has mentioned the Catholic Chuch's rejection of contraception and abortion. Abortion is an interesting case, I believe its banned in a majority of the world's countries.

Kevin,

I just finished reading Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-Cultural Perspectives by Robbie Davis-Floyd Carolyn Fishel Sargent (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520207858/002-0727750-0353648?v=glance). It deals with some issues involving the rejection of technology surrounding childbirth in cultures. Moderately interesting.

Some argue that the "hillfolk" of the Appalachians are staunch rejectors of technology, but I can't say if it's actually practiced or just a matter of attitude.

Another thought is the active rejection of "non-organic" foods (although the terminology is all wrong and fuzzy on this debate, it might be worthwhile). Many South American cultures refuse to eat store bought food products. I'm sure there are similar groups who reject them around the world.

I'll think of more after I get some sleep in me.

Just back from vacation. Working backwards:

Elliot: I've been reading Ellul's Technological Society. I have mixed feelings about it so far --primarily because the technology he is speaking of is not the technology we are using. And I wonder if he would not be a big cell phone user himself were he alive.

Shafee: I do need to look into the Orthodox prohibitions on certain techologies. Thanks.

Farsam: I agree that individuals many places, and not just at sanghas, are capable of discliplined adoption and use of technology. What I would be most interested in is if any group has a codified, or rule-based way of deciding what they use or don't. Are you aware of any guidelines for technology use adhered to by spiritual communities? If so, I'd love to review it.

Steven: Did you ever hear of Alan Kay's definition of technology as "anything that was invented after you were born?"

Vision: In fact, the first technology the Amish used to seperate themselves from the rest of the world was their eventual rejection of those same phones.

Jim: I know nothing about the Bretheren in NZ. Are they like the Amish? Any pointers?

Thanks all.

You should check out the works of Jacques Ellul if you haven't already. I always think of him as one of the first neo-luddites. He articulates his point especially well in The Technological Society. Good Luck!

Dear Mr. Kevin Kelly,

The very Orthodox Jews have prohibited the use of television, and more recently, the internet, due to their fear that males would see females not properly attired, let alone blatant pornography. Some their very extreme leaders explicitly regard the internet as a diabolic instrument. I would guess that also certain fundamentlist muslemes would have similar fears.

Jakob Nielsen rather explicitly rejects any tech more advanced than HTML 1.0 (Flash, XML, banner ads, etc).

But seriously Kevin, a quiet, non-reactionary catch-as-catch-can neo-ludditery is alive and well at 'sanghas' all around the country. Many similar-minded eastern spiritual communities around the world also practice a sort of 'just enough' techno-minimalism wherever they reside. Rather than rejecting tech all together, they tend to just remain 'barely functional,' getting by with as little as possible, like say, a P286 era PC with a 28.8K dial-up modem running Win95, which will still allow you to manage an email account in Pine. Mariana Caplan's book 'Do You Need A Guru?' talks about life at one such sangha in Arizona.

This also leads to interesting questions about the practices within the lifestyles of certain exemplary individuals. There are many otherwise technically-proficient, able-bodied, upwardly mobile and totally with-it individuals who use technology in very disciplined ways, self-redeeming exemplars of the user-centered computing ethos of Don Norman, et al. Hyper-scholar, philosopher Ken Wilber is one such practitioner. He literally churns out tome after tome after tome of thoroughly researched and integrated academic philosophy with only slight dependence on the web, word processors, etc (that is, his reliance-ratios astound when considering just how prolific he is). He openly writes in his journals about his disciplined daily meditation practice and what his day to day life is like, which does include a healthy does of TV at the end of each day of intense scholarship. He's not by any means anti-tech, he's just not anyone's overburdened end-user, an overwhelmed consumer or an overfed tech-head. He retains a mastery of his life (and its creative sources) first and foremost.

Hi again,

I too, don't have a cellphone, but own 2 computers, DVD player, camcorder etc..etc.
I don't have a cellphone because I don't want to bothered by people ringing me 24/7. If it's that important, they can phone me at home or work, via landline.

Cheers Jim

Hey -

My first thought was for those (apparently) few of us left who don't have a cell phone. When car phones first came out, my thought was that the reason I get into my car in the first place is to get away from people. But I don't know how to categorize this group beyond "people who reject cell phones" because I expect it spans a variety of peoples. Although I suspect they are over 25 (I am 35) and knew life before cell phones. I think this ties into Steven's comment about the over 70 crowd rejecting computers.

I think it would be interesting to correlate acceptance of a technology to age and the date that the technology became generally affordable.

I also have a reaction to some others on the list so far. Many of the groups listed (most evident in the Catholic condom versus "complex and invasive assisted reproductive techniques") are not rejecting a *technology*, they are rejecting a concept that is affected by the technology. Hmmm, this feels kinda subtle. Catholics don't reject the technology of condoms, they reject the concept of interfering with bringing more life into the world. Whereas, I don't reject telephones in general, I reject carrying one with me. It is the technology of portability that I don't want not the concept of long distance conversation.

However, I don't think I would connect a rejection of cell phones to spirituality except insofar as my peace of mind. So, I think you might consider what it is that is being rejected. I think the Amish using phones and then rejecting them speaks to this.

Joe

As a computer salesman, I can tell you based on personal observation and interaction with thousands of customers, that a large swath of the "Over 70 Bracket," pretty much abhors, abstains, or refuses to participate in use of computers or technology. Even things that might otherwise improve their lives.

A word on the Amish... they were considered early adopters until the very end of the 19th century. In fact, Amish were some of the first to have telephones in their homes. It wasn't until the church elders noticed the effect that these technologies had on the behavior of their flock that such tech was proscribed.

Beyond the groups you mentioned, and a few of the groups mentioned here in the comments, I can't really think of any others that proscribe the use of technology... but if any come to mind, I'll be sure to let you know.

Hi Kevin,

The Brethren, so I'm lead to believe will have nothing to do with computers and radio apparatus etc.
A recent case in mind here in New Zealand, where a Brethren owned logging company got themselves into trouble for refusing to install 2 way radios in their logging trucks (a requirement by law here)
Demands further investigation.

Cheers Jim

In The Netherlands / Europe:
Dutch Reformed Christians: rejecting of some medicins

Rudolf's Steiners' "Antroposofy", no television, rejection of some medicicins, rejection of public school system.

Straight Edge, in Europe small but steady group of young people rejecting alcohol, drugs, some even sex.

best regards,

Justien

That's a good point, Dale.

It seems to me that prescribing a technology implicitly excludes others. So, for example, a religion's prescription that it is permissible to eat meat only of animals killed in a certain way implicitly rejects other technologies for killing animals for food.

Dale

Anders, can you clarify something for me. Are you saying that the Hopi will not use any electricity generated by non-renewable sources, or that they are petitioning for such avoidance?

I am looking for actual refusal, rather than talk about refusal. If Hopi are actually not using such electricity I'd certainly like to hear more about it.

Hi, Kevin!

Happy to see that you are running a new book project, been following your work since early nineties.

I would clearly recommend digesting the Hopi Indian tribes values and beliefs, who just maybe some few years ago was rejecting every form of energy technology due to its unsustainabilities in the Johannesburg Summit taxonomy and vocabulary(www.johannesburgsummit.org). Especially since they claim to be deeply spiritually convinced, and has given the most clear-cut prophecies of all when it comes to the descriptive parts of what to come. The nine signs, leading to the "Third purification", where the first and second are what they saw the world wars during last century. And most of these prophecies are related to technolgical advancement - telegraphy, electricity (spider webs), snake irons (railroad) etc.

With the acceptance of one energy technology just some years ago, in this respect maybe it represents a hope.

And that is Photovoltaic electricity. PV Cells.

Is the Silicon Age (sustainable decentralised energy and information technology) providing the strongest tools for empowerment, at the same time supporting a sound and sustainable positive spiritual as well as material development, creating a better life of us all?

Maybe the preservers of life - as they see themselves - have an answer to that question.

I do not know.

"I still haven't found what I'm looking for"

/Bono, U2

Peace,
Anders

---

Link: http://www.recycles.org/hopi/

Kevin,

What about Mum's against cellphone towers - they don't want them in their neighbourhood or near their kids' schools because of the fear of brain damage and cancer. But many are happy to carry a cellphone themselves.

And most of the world (particuarly Europe) against GM foods. The US is producing them in ever increasing quantities, but few outside the US want to eat them. The US is currently involved in legal action with the EU to force them to accept more GM food into their market. See Newscientist.com, keyword frankenfoods.

New Zealand also rejects nuclear power. All our power comes from hydro dams and US ships aren't allowed in NZ ports if they are nuclear powered or _might_ be carrying nuclear weapons. As you can imagine this displeases the US a great deal.

The US bans transplantation therapies which use human foetal neural material, but this is allowed in Britain. Isn't stem cell research also restricted or banned in the US?

Erik, those are good suggestions. I will note that some of them are rejections that one group hope or insists another do, when in fact they don't. But its a good list. A friend, John Jordan, wrote me to add these:

On religions and technology, none of these are terribly clever but they might spark something:

-Various Native American religions rejected photography (more from the subject side than the user side); that's less universal now. See for example http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/htmldoc.exe?CISOROOT=/lctext&CISOPTR=1541

-The Taliban has prohibited television

-Catholics prohibit something as simple as a condom but allow quite complex and invasive assisted reproductive techniques - there's something of a paradox there.

-The Shakers did not reject technology but used it in pursuit of the ideal of simplicity rather than consumptiveness, so they're sort of halfway into the boat you're studying.

Ideological rejection of specific types of technolgy doesn't always originate with marginal religious sects.
Sometimes well educated, thoughtful, well intentioned people who want specific technologies banned or restricted.

Here are some examples along with a mention of the groups that want them banned or restricted.

Human cloning: The Bush Administration, the US House of Representatives, various state governments.

SUVs: The Sierra club.

Television: Harlan Elison, and all those folks with "Kill your Television" bumper stickers.

Also, there are folks from quite conventional religious groups who'd like to see technologies or practices associated with them banned:

Abortion: The Catholic Church, Various ecumentical Right to life groups.

Contraception: The Catholic Church.

Jehovah's Winesses have very specific restrictions on blood products. They won't accept blood from someone else, and they won't even accept an auto-donation if it leaves their body. However, they don't seem to mind going on cardiopulmonary bypass as long as the loop is continuous and doesn't become disconnnected from the body. In cardiac surgery usually some of the patient's blood is discarded and replaced by blood from the blood-bank. But with JWs, they use a device called a cell saver to "wash" blood before transfusing it back to keep their cell count up without extra blood.

Keith, I didn't know that about the JW. I'll have to check them out.

Thanks for the encouragement, David.

Hi Kevin,

I'll suggest the Jehovah's Witnesses who reject blood transfusions. It becomes a big legal and then media issue here (Canada) every 2 to 5 years when JW parents refuse to allow a blood transfusion for a critically ill child.

Keith

Kevin,
was perusing your web page and I noted the theme of your forthcoming book the link if any between technology and spirituality. Well in a kind off obtuse sort of way Ive been interested in the link between business and philosohy it seems to me these concerns are not unrelated. Being the classic business exec type this is my "anorak hobby" that Ive been pursuing provately for the last decade!! Anyway to get to the point, I have been researching the "dynamics of contradiction" and business and idea cycles, and am beginning to see a direct relationship between the behaviour of "systems" including technology and how contradiction or paradox play out in reality. All this may seem quite obscure and indeed it is until one looks at the potential application in terms of forecasting models. The research I have been doing suggests that one must distinguish between "a problem to solve" in which one applies traditional problem solving approaches, or, a "paradox to manage", in the latter case the approach does require a more spiritual; set of approaches e.g. discthe "and", embracing contradiction, mapping the dynamics of contradiction which by the way is an infinity loop etc. This has been a sub optimal summary of the thrust of what Im engaged in but seems to resonate arount the link between application and meaning, doing and being, technology and spirituality.