They were like, "this technology is pretty cool and all, but not so much if it means I'm going to lose my source of income and starve homeless in the streets".
Very apropos
And if it's not us, it's going to the developing world that picks up that mantle anyways. In a few decades you might find yourself in the same situation as former colonial states. Blocking creative destruction has been cited as one of the major factors in why nations fail.
The need for security is just as much a force of nature as the need for innovation. Unless you provide a solution for both, the cycle will keep repeating.
I think it just as likely that social media-induced social discohesion tanks the country as lack of innovation (particularly since a large proportion of innovation seems to be taking us further and further from a world where normal human interaction doesn't involve a screen).
The problem was then and has always been capitalism: the owners own the tech. which means that The House (owners) always wins in the end as we approach more and more automation. Meanwhile we bicker about “doing the same thing [like some old-fashioned has-been]” and “losing the competition to the developing world” as if that is relevant to anything.
The tech. was never the focal point of the issue.
First, I want to survive the next working years, without me and my family starving. I could not give less f... what they'd be doing 100 years from now, if that means being unemployable now...
Then, to answer your question, in many cases, sure, I want to be doing the same things as today. Even better if we regress in some areas, and we do the same things as 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. I could live in a society without smartphones for example (and without even more addictive and worse replacements)...