The original title was “plateaus of rejection.” I’m not sure; maybe that made more sense. The idea is people reach a point where they don’t want any more technological growth on top of what they’re currently comfortable with. I would say that “completeness” is the way the Amish view the world; the term may be less applicable to those who have no use for human augmentation.

Well, dates don’t have much of anything to do with it, and of course any talk of lines and slopes and plateaus is metaphorical. I wouldn’t suggest that the Amish got together back in the late 1700′s an said, “Uh-oh. Industrial Revolution coming. Count us out!”

But having said that, we do have people today pretty much saying “Uh-oh. Human Augmentation coming. Count us out!”

My point is that there is a pretty clean break between the Amish world and the Industrial / Post-Industrial world and that our economy and society are more tolerant of technology rejection along that clean break line than within the cluster of technology developments that came after.

I once considered starting a blog detailing expiring patents, as they expired, for the purpose of supporting a movement dedicated to rejecting patented technology. In a similar way that Free Software advocates commit themselves to not using proprietary software, some might have a similar predilection to avoiding patented hardware or software (or, more absurdly, business methods).

And here you describe a sub-economy not completely unlike the “buy organic” movement that exists today or the “buy MOSH” movement that I suggested might one day exist. As I pointed out, any sort of relinquishment is possible — along the clean break lines or right in the middle of the cluster — but I don’t expect our economy to accommodate squeamishness about wi-fi vs. coax (or non-patented vs. patented technology) the same way it will accommodate the Amish or those who wish not to be augmented.

I want to emphasize that the use of the word duress, in addition, rather than merely in place of, coercion (or consent) is the thing to think about.

I also take issue with framing the acceptance or rejection of techniques as taking place along a linear measure, whereupon exist “plateaus” on which people build their technology platforms.

The terrain on which people make technology decisions has, ultimately, little to do with this. The Amish, as the example, don’t really make their decisions of what to eschew based upon some date in history. Neither do questions of accommodating the disability, a case in which considerable regulation has been considered prudent. As an example, consider that some Amish farmers are [[http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=3947 growing genetically engineered crops]].

I once considered starting a blog detailing expiring patents, as they expired, for the purpose of supporting a movement dedicated to rejecting patented technology. In a similar way that Free Software advocates commit themselves to not using proprietary software, some might have a similar predilection to avoiding patented hardware or software (or, more absurdly, business methods). What results is a kind of moving target of technology relinquishment, consistently 28 years behind the cutting edge (at least as far as patented tech goes).

Avoiding coercion and duress is a far more complex issue than a chronological framing would suggest.