This bothered me as well. Not carrying a mobile phone works for him, but if everyone did the same then obviously that strategy collapses. Unless he's advocating that no one carries a mobile phone, which actually seems reasonable in some respects.
> Unless he's advocating that no one carries a mobile phone
I'm pretty sure he is advocating that, "unless things change".
If even a significant minority fraction of the population stopped carrying cellphones, society and industry would have to work around that problem. After all, we all seemed to get along mostly fine before they existed.
I honestly think there's a moral argument _against_ everyone not carrying a mobile phone. How many people worldwide do you figure use their mobile phone in emergencies? How many times do you figure having a mobile phone has made the difference between receiving help when needed and people dying?
It's not to say that mobile devices don't come without their own set of challenges (surveillance capitalism, social media, the influence on how we interact with others, etc). However, Pandora's box has been opened here. Even if we assume that mobile phones only make the difference in addressing emergencies, and only do so 0.1% for 0.1% of the population, that's 7M people that are saved.
It strikes me as suprisingly disingenuous that some people are so ready to eschew technology as inherently "evil" just because there are some challenges or problems associated with it. You have to weight both sides.
> if everyone did the same [..] that strategy collapses.
I think the idea is that if everyone did the same, operators and carriers would be scrambling to recapture the market with user-friendly privacy-respecting devices and services, so everyone could have a ethical phone, including rms.
