The point I'm trying to make is that technology is a bit like prisoner's dilemma. If you don't advance, you will be destroyed by those who do even though we might all be better off with less tech. As an example of this, consider CRISPR babies.
i mean, isn't that true of everyone in the US who isn't armed to the teeth?
also, i wouldn't be so sure they don't have some kind of weapons and ammo stored away.
It doesn't help that they're pacifists either
The Amish certainly set a bar that few besides Richard Stallman can match.
However, I do feel strongly that people I know are pretty deliberate about bringing each new piece of technology into their lives. This is true for folks in the industry, "tech enthusiasts" outside the industry, and relative luddites.
I think that after the tech explosion(s) of the 90s and 2000s folks are keenly aware that each new piece of tech represents a burden of some sort: recurring time and/or money costs.
This might not be the kind of deeply principled attitude displayed by the Amish (or RMS) but I do think people are pretty thoughtful and skeptical about new tech.
Ironically some of the exceptions I've seen are within the tech industry itself. Engineers who ought to know better are quick to embrace things that seem like obvious lock-in traps.
[1] https://calnewport.com/approach-technology-like-the-amish/