I don't.

Neil Postman (the guy the author references) is a pretty notorious technological determinist. He's commented on the dangers of most technology, even going as far to say that the printing press has destroyed social interaction and community in the medieval sense. Perhaps it did; if so, I would argue that shedding those traditions was for the better. He has an often-negative view on technology's impact on society, one in which he conflates the bad ways people use technology, with technology's negative influence ruling our lives.

This author, apparently, agrees on many of Postman's common points. I can't bring myself to accept this kind of reactionary argument against technology. Maybe the most obvious reason I find this to be terribly absurd is that this author, who is writing his disdain for people who are so terribly attached to their phones, is posting this to his blog on the Internet, a medium which people before him argued against in the exact same way. When the next big gadget or innovation comes out, people who thought smartphones were fine will start saying "whoa whoa, I think having instant access to information from around the world is great but I don't know about [I don't know, Google Glasses?]" Where are we supposed to draw the line when his own line is shifting? Do we just go ahead and say that "everything up until the last big advance was great, but no more!"

I'm sure this guy thinks he's indeed very different and far more polite and creative for not looking down at his phone, and he's free to think whatever he likes about that. But what makes his "look around at the world" any better, more valuable, or more creative than my "have a conversation with my girlfriend" or "read something interesting on my phone"? The way we have conversations and spend our time now is changing - it's true. But why is the old way any better, I wonder? Guys like this never really explain that.