Why this counterculture, apart from what the author would like to see develop? I mean, I'd personally like to see an anti-urban, anti-density counterculture enabled by technology, but I'm not under the illusion that that's going to happen just because it appeals to me.
...in little more than a single generation, this long relationship with nature has withered in a culture that finds Americans giving themselves up to the indoor ease of the technological way of life. Today’s average American spends most of the day indoors or inside an automobile traveling some hellish commuter road between workplace and home. Experience of his own natural habitat comes largely from watching beautifully photographed films on television. In Sterba’s word, he has become “denatured.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/feb/21/visitor...
In my view we would use technology to empower people to form stronger community bonds. The author mentions food industry tech, and that's a major part of my vision also. I think we need to move towards a locally grown seasonal food source instead of shipping food to all corners of the globe just because we can. That's just one piece to the puzzle though, there's obviously a lot more planning that would need to go into it.
However, the local food movement needs to talk more about yield. It doesn't appear that humanity can sustain itself this way - small communities perhaps, but it's a first world luxury.
Also, "food miles" is a BS metric, the biggest energy sink is fertilizer (by far!). Ammonium Nitrate is made by fossil fuel + air - you are mostly eating energy from natural gas, not the sun, it would seem.
Admittedly, it's too expensive to set up to be used commercially for anything except... well, high-margin cash crops, let us say. But those costs should go down.