Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Amish Technology

Here's a cool article about the Amish adoption of technology. They all follow one basic rule: if a new thing is more trouble than it's worth, they won't use it.  Different Amish communities draw that line in different places.  

I actually use that rule myself, again with a different threshold.  I've had people call me Amish, meaning it as an insult, for not using things they think I should be using that I don't use because they're worthless or troublesome for me.  I say, "No, but that is where I got the idea."  It's a great rule.  It saves so many headaches.  I'm neophilic in many ways.  But I've seen society make a lot of stupid mistakes, and its safety precautions are abysmal.  This contributes to my caution about adopting new things myself.  I look for the drawbacks.

Most people don't.  Their default is to accept new technology.  They often don't consider the costs.
Tags: economics, networking, science, spirituality
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 16 comments
Nods I still get flack about refusing to get a smartphone and sticking with a Motorola flip phone.

As an aside, I once went a friend's party in PA, with his house on the edge of a piece of Amish farmland. The farmer was plowing his fields with the traditional horse team.... and a small gas motor turning the blades of the plow
I love watching the local farmers work with heavy horses. Around here they seem to go for American creams, which can be off-white to palomino; sometimes Clydesdales, I think.
That kind of stuff kinda struck me as hypocritical; learning the reasoning behind banning cars helps make more sense of it. On the other hand, "let's make it hard for people to visit elsewhere" points towards "crazy dangerous cult". Eh.

What I'd be really interested now is an as-unbiased-as-can-be study comparing electrical and pneumatic appliances/tools/machinery.
Trapping people is crazy and bad if it's not something they want. But the Amish have a cohesive community and family structure. They looked at what cars did to that, and they are correct in observing that cars increase mobility at the direct expense of cohesion. They didn't want to make that trade. I don't blame them. I consider cars a necessary evil. I can easily see why people already happy with their community would wish to protect it from that erosion.
I have no interest in ever owning a smartphone. Even if they were in my budget, I don't want to give myself that temptation of constant Internet. Plus, those things seem pretty frail, more so than I'm willing to invest in.

Brick Nokias FOREVER. You can hit those things with a truck and they'll still keep working.

--Rogan
Another reason I'm indifferent to most of the marketplace is that ads almost never say anything I care about, so I ignore all of them. It's just blather. But one in a thousand or so will have actual product information, and one of things that does stick in my mind is durability. Consequently two of the commercials that I remember are "Takes a licking and keeps on ticking" and the one with gorillas jumping on suitcases. Okay, your product promotes durability. If I need that kind of product, I might remember to look at yours first to see if its other features meet my needs.
Thinking about these Stasi cell-phones. Or how they make TVs these days. It's got some advantages when TV and computer are not that far apart, but since then watching TV has become as complicated as using a computer. What about those ones who don't know how to use a computer properly?
And this does not even aim at elder humans...
Then people don't use them. The more things you turn into computers -- televisions, clocks, ovens, washers and dryers, cars, books -- the fewer people who can and will use them. The products do more IFF you can master their complexities, but otherwise they are less useful or completely useless.

This is one reason I don't watch TV anymore. My standard for a user-friendly TV is to push one button to turn it on, and twist one dial to see what's playing. I do not like TV enough to invest any more energy than that. So at this point, we watch one DVD episode of something a night, and that's because someone else works the equipment. I don't care enough about it to do it myself.

Further consider that the more complex things become, the easier they break and the harder they are to repair. Since America is rapidly getting poorer, this also undermines the market for and use of fancy gadgets. But it's not something people track; they're only watching the part of the economy that chases the the newest release trying to keep up with the Gateses. And then they wonder why it's so sluggish.
I fear in families it'll be there's one person who knows how to operate it and this person gets abused each and every time...

The thing my mind perhaps will consider about this is: First, how much is the cost? And second, can it spy me?
You know, lots of people run around with this stuff, lots of people have this stuff in their living room, but if you see how much it is, you shake your head and wonder which kind of contract with the devil do they have to be able to afford all this. For the cell-phones the trick is easy - have it with a contract. There simply is no other way.
But for the TVs, for the home electronics - a few hundred Euros and some people need to live on that. And it's not like only those people afford this to themselves which have an income which easily covers that. (If this would be the case, a lot more still would need to use their old tube tv.)
To me in my rational mind, the sum of what I get and the sum of what I have to give don't have a match.
>> I fear in families it'll be there's one person who knows how to operate it and this person gets abused each and every time... <<

Often true.

>> The thing my mind perhaps will consider about this is: First, how much is the cost? And second, can it spy me? <<

I resent spyware. I avoid it as much as possible, no matter how shiny the bait it is attached to. I also resent nagware. Screens that threaten criminal penalties for using the product in unapproved ways just make me want to not use the product. Fuck it, I have books that don't say mean things to me, I have gardens, I have crowdfunding full of people who are actually fun to be around. I don't need this shit.

>> And it's not like only those people afford this to themselves which have an income which easily covers that. <<

It's a price people are charged for participating in society, though. More places are forcing people to be on the grid even if they don't want to be. To have a job -- to survive -- you have to have a home, a phone, usually a car, etc. And there's a very disturbing trend away from things you buy once and own, to things you have to pay for all the time and only borrow because they're really controlled by someone else. That's not only abusive, it also runs up the base budget at a time when people's real spending power is plummeting.

Horsepower is self-replicating. You don't go out to the barn and find a baby tractor one morning. Open-pollinated crops are self-replicating. GMOs and hybrids are either designed not to reproduce, or the company will hunt you down for saving the seeds. They want to force farmers to keep buying their shit. People don't want to buy their shit, so they're working to make alternatives unavailable or outright illegal. It's a problem.
Social participation - the question arising for me is: What does social participation use me? What is more important?
Before I start trying to impress anyone, I've got to ensure that electricity is running, that I know how to warm the room when it's winter outside, that I have clean water access and that I don't starve.

I don't know if it is the way, but it seems like people already take this a bit too self-evidently. That's why they have such switched priorities.
If and when civilisation goes down the crapper and all the technological logistical supply chains are disrupted.. the Amish will probably shrug and carry on the way they've always done.
They are a priceless backup copy of civilization. I treasure them for that reason. You could not pay people enough to do what they do by choice.
True that... and we're all one bad solar flare away from being Amish.
I remember John Scazli's Zoe's Tale. Zoe is the daughter of the head of a new colony... with a twist. Between now and then everything got so high-tech that it *all* went wireless, even commo between modules on the same board. Which meant it *radiated*, which the enemy aliens could detect.

So they set up the new colony without any tronics whatsoever 'cept a few inside a Faraday-caged bunker. And a group of Mennonites to show people how to run the "ancient" tech they *were* using.

It was a good story. :)

Re: Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

6 years ago