Battery, signal strength, distance and weather conditions all conspire to limit your behavior. Text messages and notifications are instructions and your response options are narrow and repetitive. Devices cost you, they are your "skin in the game" and payment plans are often dubious. Devices selectively limit experiences and much can be lost in translation.
The earliest devices were Indiscernible from the world of their users and were tied to belief and world view. Devices are subservient to culture and long term we can't keep pouring cultural meaning and resources into them and expect them to keep up. The comparison is obvious: The need to cut vs. the need to FaceTimeā¢.
In an effort to justify devices, we invest effort, value, time and money to keep them viable. Too much emphasis on an object makes it a fetish. We're aware of the confusion that arises as we try to force ourselves into accepting a balance. Right now we're being generous with our personal time and effort but soon we'll hit a human limit.
The goal seems to be to connect everyone. But if everyone had a device would that ensure free flow of information? The idea of connecting is biological and social but it is also a metaphor made real by the promotion of a world view held by the creators of our technology - and it's a very new notion. It's attractive to manage yourself and work smarter but we may not have a compelling reason for valuing connection overall.
New tech needs to promote connectedness between fields, not just between objects. The ability to create time by respecting and promoting privacy will help emphasize the difference between off and on. Increasing participation and making devices plentiful and shareable will get us beyond the limitations of "One Man One Device".