I can't find the article, but it said something around the lines of "each Microsoft Word user thinks that there are too many functionalities, and wants less".

His remark is that each user uses different functionalities, so one can't reduce a product's functionality in a way that satisfies everybody.

Everybody would sure love to have a smartphone tailored 100% to their usage, but in real world, either they accept smartphones in toto, or they just use a brick. In generalized form, the same concept applies to tech.

But back to the primary: is it really tech that some want less of, or the negative effects caused by its overuse/abuse? For example, IIUC the Amish are against modern tech primarily because it's changing their communities in ways they aren't fond of. But they still use tech that's not so modern, such as buggies (as opposed to just riding horses), manual plows for farming, saws and hammers for building, etc. Can anyone even go less than that? And that relative "less" only moves forward over time.

I doubt you want much dark in a neighborhood though, particularly if there are unsavory elements potentially roaming around. A sliver of light may be the difference between someone being attacked or a home robbed.