Great post Nate! It's probably just because I've been writing about it recently, but 1 Thessalonians Chapter 4 comes to mind... as a stark contrast to "making a name for ourselves" à la Babel, St. Paul writes that we should "make it our ambition to lead a quiet life". It seems that those two goals would be mutually exclusive of one another...
Also, cheers for the Lord of Spirits reference 🍻 Love Fr. Andrew + Fr. Stephen!
One thought came to mind as I read: the various intentional communities in the Anabaptist traditions, who are not anti-technology specifically, but as a community consider each new tool innovation from the point of view of how it affects the community's social fabric and relationship with God. Thus, from the outside, the decisions made on what is allowed or not can seem random, but they very much are not! It's, at the core, this same division in type that you're describing that they are using to decide what is allowed, although the language used is different.
It seems like the smartest way to go about things. Not antagonistic, but not enthusiastic either. A measured consideration of what the effects might be and whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
Just by choosing to be a "late adopter" can help, too. I never had to learn T9 texting, for example. Many got very fast at texting with a numerical keypad on those old flip phones, a skill which is as useless now as gas lamp repairman.
Great post Nate! It's probably just because I've been writing about it recently, but 1 Thessalonians Chapter 4 comes to mind... as a stark contrast to "making a name for ourselves" à la Babel, St. Paul writes that we should "make it our ambition to lead a quiet life". It seems that those two goals would be mutually exclusive of one another...
Also, cheers for the Lord of Spirits reference 🍻 Love Fr. Andrew + Fr. Stephen!
You are absolutely on to something there. And cheers 🍻
So much good food for thought here.
One thought came to mind as I read: the various intentional communities in the Anabaptist traditions, who are not anti-technology specifically, but as a community consider each new tool innovation from the point of view of how it affects the community's social fabric and relationship with God. Thus, from the outside, the decisions made on what is allowed or not can seem random, but they very much are not! It's, at the core, this same division in type that you're describing that they are using to decide what is allowed, although the language used is different.
It seems like the smartest way to go about things. Not antagonistic, but not enthusiastic either. A measured consideration of what the effects might be and whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
Just by choosing to be a "late adopter" can help, too. I never had to learn T9 texting, for example. Many got very fast at texting with a numerical keypad on those old flip phones, a skill which is as useless now as gas lamp repairman.
Wendell Berry’s rules for adopting a new tool are inspired by the Amish vision on the same topic. I found them to be very useful.
Giving everything away for improved UI/UX that everyone can use? We're so back, Babelbros. Gen AI super optimists/pessimists are the same thing.
https://argomend.substack.com/p/the-church-of-ai
I never had! Thanks for quoting that passage. Fascinating.