Yeah I was going to say something similar, but you put it more succinctly.
It seems the message is really about efficiency and sustainability, not necessarily about low tech. Also, framing it as being about low tech sort of helps things but also hurts things.
For example, I was really interested to read the article about bicycles, and think they make a set of excellent points, points that don't seem to get enough attention in the cycling community. But my guess is the cycling community (to the extent there even is one cycling community), often (although not always) focused on the latest and greatest tech, would respond more to a bike being marketed as ultra-durable or upgradeable and efficient than being "low tech".
It seems the message is really about efficiency and sustainability, not necessarily about low tech. Also, framing it as being about low tech sort of helps things but also hurts things.
For example, I was really interested to read the article about bicycles, and think they make a set of excellent points, points that don't seem to get enough attention in the cycling community. But my guess is the cycling community (to the extent there even is one cycling community), often (although not always) focused on the latest and greatest tech, would respond more to a bike being marketed as ultra-durable or upgradeable and efficient than being "low tech".