Comment by flubert | Hacker News Reader

Comment by flubert | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I wonder how communities like the Amish fit into the larger scheme of things. It seems like they've decided to ignore anything later than the 1700's technology. Are there other groups with different technology cut-off dates? If not, any theories as to why not? Do you need a religious component to keep you cohesive over the generations? I think I might be OK with regressing to a 1980's level of technology. I wonder how large of a group of people would you need to be mostly self-sufficient at various technology levels. It seems like you might need a lot of people, if you wanted to have even very old-school integrated circuits. Probably quite a bit fewer if you only had discrete transistors. It seems like sustaining at a previous level should be easier than inventing it in the first place, since the knowledge is already available. And you could siphon off a bit from the more advanced society (e.g. you can potentially use scrap materials left over from the advanced society, instead of maintaining your own mining technology, etc.). And you could still have some (lopsided) trade between the societies (anyone want a bespoke Walkman produced by a skilled 1980's artisan?). Any thoughts on the estimates below?

  - 1700's, 100's of people in your community (crude metalworking)
  - 1800's, 1000's of people in your community (machines needing more metalworking and machining skills)
  - 1900-1940, 100,000 people (radio)
  - 1940-1980, 1,000,000 people (TV, automobiles)
  - 1980-2000, 10,000,000 people (personal computer, mass air travel)

> I wonder how communities like the Amish fit into the larger scheme of things. It seems like they've decided to ignore anything later than the 1700's technology.

No, the Amish specifically have decided to carefully review new technology on a moral cost/benefit level before deciding whether and how to allow it in their communities. They don't ignore technology, and don't have any "cut-off date".

That sounds more reasonable then I would like to admit.

An example I heard on the radio was about the men who work in Chicago. The buggy takes them. As they are leaving their family, it should not be a trivial to do that. They had cell phones for emergencies, but when at home they were kept in the out house as they had no place when everyone was home.

> but when at home they were kept in the out house as they had no place when everyone was home.

But also so nobody can tell you're using it, who you're talking to or what you're saying.

A believe a lot of it also revolves around being dependent on outsiders. For example, I think in some cases it's OK to generate their own electricity with a diesel generator but they will not use electricity from the utility grid.

The various Amish sects that I'm familiar with in PA use technology much more recent than the 1700s (including smart phones in some cases).

Most of it is via generators and gas-powered appliances, as they won't have electricity running into their homes.

I'm not an expert by any means but it's just not correct that they stopped using technology developed after the 1700s.

I agree with your larger point that people may be better served by simpler technologies in many instances.

Alan Watts has some interesting (and prescient) writings about how misuse/misunderstanding of new technology leads down a hostile path to societal destruction. Sounds like you may find it worth reading.

I sued to go shopping at an Amish market and it seemed that they were just very deliberate in their use of technology. They used trucks to get their stuff to the market, they had cell phones, they had freezers. I think their society is just very focused and rejects distraction.

But it’s not all golden. There were a lot of stories of spousal and child abuse but they stay hidden.

Who did you sue?

“Used”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com