Bored Borg wrote:
I've never seen an Amish, let alone met one.

I can sympathise with what they are trying to do, to some extent,
but
no man is an island and the mores necessarily get a bit complicated
and decisions become arbitrary in some way that may seem less so to
an initiate.

What's the basic rule on technology?
Forgive the flippancy but I gather that it's something like,
"Damn the ICE, unless it's older than anyone likely to be operating
it."
In this way it becomes something that is always just "there" and can
then be considered non-technological in some way.

I can understand it simply if they say, followed a neolithic
lifestyle or had a cut off point at, (thinking), the industrial
revolution or at mass production or had a blanket ban on fossil
fuels
or any one of dozens of other obvious rules, but the tempering of
ideology with the minimum of expediency is absolutely fascinating.

I supppose it's easy to say "shun technology unless it's absolutely
necessary" but it's intriguing to see what _necessary_ might mean in
terms of the group compared with the individual.

Is steam power more correct than ICE but less correct than water
power or sweat? Is plastic ever a good thing? It seems like it
should
be obvious, but looking closely I realize I really have no idea how
it works.

The existence seems to be almost Zen (yeah, I know, I know.... be
gentle) but I admire the _focus_ greatly and the lack of guile.

My impression is that the general rule on technology is that it's OK
as long as (a) you don't become dependent on technology that you can't
fix without buying parts or services from outside, (b) it doesn't
facilitate social interactions other than face to face, (c) it doesn't
serve as a status symbol, and (d) the English can't turn it off. That
view may be considerably in error.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)