Cal Newport: It arose in the 1990s. The basic idea is that technological innovations can bring value and convenience into your life. So, you assess new technological tools with respect to what value or convenience it can bring into your life. And if you can find one, then the conclusion is, "If I can afford it, I should probably have this." It just looks at the positives. And it's view is "more is better than less," because more things that bring you benefits means more total benefits. This is what maximalism is: "If there's something that brings value, you should get it."
[Maximalism] ignores the opportunity cost. And as Thoreau pointed out hundreds of years ago, it's actually in the opportunity cost that all the interesting math happens.
The article is a bit run-of-the-mill "I have a book to sell"-piece, but I've been thinking a lot about this topic and whatever neo-Luddism means lately. More and more I shun any tech that tries to influence me, and my life is much more...zen? because of it.
Does anyone else communicate with EVERYBODY on Facebook Messenger?
My parents, my coworkers, my girlfriend, even my drug dealer - I don't really have anyone's phone number. And I don't think I'm unique in that way.
I don't have the Facebook app on my phone, for around 2 years now I haven't posted or viewed my feed.
I do concede I'm still addicted to other aspects of my phone, it's just Facebook that I always found especially distasteful.
However I consider Messenger as an unavoidable necessity for my generation.