I don't own a TV and after a month with an iPhone, I passed it off to a co-worker and bought a $15 phone off Craiglist.

When I'm not on the computer I want to be fully enjoying the people I'm with, the mountain I'm hiking or the book I'm absorbed in -- not fighting distraction from a computer in my pocket or a TV playing in the background. My passion for technology wouldn't be worth much if it didn't benefit from the inspiration and energy I get from the rest of life.

But, each to his own. I don't judge people just because their tastes are different, or because they have more willpower than I (and can thus keep all the latest gadgets around without getting distracted).

I don't see proud, smug, or weakness. Nor do I see that "HN readers are on one side": I don't use Facebook, Twitter, a cell phone, an iPod, or a TV, and the only electric things in my kitchen are for heating/cooking.

I certainly don't think it's generally true that they "don't think themselves capable of moderation". Obvious counterexample: if she thought that, you wouldn't be carrying a cell phone at all; but she carries a cell phone which she simply never uses.

I see it as simply a natural progression: technology was great, when there wasn't much of it -- like sugar and fat, when your diet had almost none of it. Now that we can have all we want, we have to reconsider what we truly want: is more technology (or fat) really our goal?

Does TV or Facebook make my life better in any way? I tried, and the answer was clearly "no" for me. I fail to see zealotry in not doing something that doesn't benefit me.

Moderation and self-control have nothing to do with it. If there's no point in doing it at all, it doesn't matter how much I do. I don't smoke tobacco, and not because I'm incapable of moderation, but because I see no point in doing it at all.

I agree. This is standard human behavior with regards to new technology. In fact we may have inherited it from the primate line. The resistant attitude among the older population to new technologies is documented in particular.

The narrative today is that technology is "taking over". But that's always been true. It's more accurate to say we're move dependent on it now than ever. And that's because we've simply built the new inventions off the old ones.

And luddite-chic attitudes, especially among artsy types, will remain. Not that that's a bad thing but it's typical. Artist love to explore old mediums. That's basically their job.

I predict we'll continue to see these attitudes and articles covering them. And it'll probably grow unfortunately. But this becomes dangerous if it turns people into real Luddite. Technology is the big man on campus, and to get a name for yourself the easy thing to do is to knock him down.

I can't source the exact quote (anybody?), but I remember somebody saying, "A pretty good definition of technology is whatever didn't already exist when you were a kid."

I don't really get into Twitter, but about hundred years ago, bicycles were novel technology.

"'Technology' is what we call whatever didn't exist when we were born." --Alan Kay

Thanks!

I'm an HN reader and I don't have a cell phone. My mom lent me her iPod last week; it's the first time I've had one. I think I'm going to give it back.

I think we need to add something new to the HN comment guidelines, to the effect that:

"When someone makes a broad generalization, often meant to read "99 times out of 100," it contributes nothing to the conversation to say "I am one of the other 1 out of 100," rather than "It's really more like 95, or 60, out of 100."