Good morning, and I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Our Berry article today is rather fitting for Black Friday, I thought.
“What is the purpose of this technological progress? What higher aim do we think it is serving?” (p. 73). Wendell Berry asks near the beginning of The Art of the Commonplace, a piece in which he ardently defends rejection of “new technology” for a simpler life. Berry himself has no qualms about insisting that technology’s aims are easily defined: “money and ease.” (p. 73). He argues that modern people have disguised these goals as “futurology” and claim that everything is “for the future”, but that this vague goal is really just justification for the true ends of technology.
Berry himself, of course, devotes part of his piece to defending his own choice not to own a computer. He argues that people shouldn’t accept solutions just because they are offered and presented as a “better choice.” Berry doesn’t offer a specific “line in the sand” about what technology he wouldn’t use.
“One of my correspondents asked where to draw the line. That question returns me to the bewilderment I mentioned earlier: I am unsure where the line ought to be drawn, or how to draw it. But it is an intelligent question, worth losing some sleep over… I am not an optimist; I am afraid that I won’t live long enough to escape my bondage to the machines. Nevertheless, on every day left to me I will search my mind and circumstances for the means of escape.”
Berry’s writing reminded me of the phenomenon of urban farming.
Chicago Urban Farming (from Wikipedia)
Do you think that the increasing tendency for people in urban areas to engage in agriculture is evidence that people are paying attention to ideas like Wendell Berry’s? Or do you think that there’s something else to it? What else could it be, if not?
It’s also rather fitting for this post to go up on Black Friday, the day that’s famous (or infamous) for a mass rush of consumerism. Not far from here, in Tallahassee, there was a stabbing over a parking space at Walmart. Every year, more stories like this mar the Thanksgiving weekend as shoppers go nearly mad with enthusiasm, often for new technology. Do you think that there’s any chance that the Black Friday shopping hysteria will ever stop and consider what is really necessary, as Berry urged, possibly in the face of increasing violence? Or, do you think that Black Friday really isn’t as negative as I’m implying it is, and if so, why?
I also have a few summary questions for you to ponder as well. Feel free to answer as few or as many as you’d like.
1. Where, if anywhere, do you “draw the line” when it comes to using new technology?
2. Are there virtues and benefits to society that come from unthinking acceptance of technology? What about to individuals?
3. Would Wendell Berry have spoken out against “new” technology fifty, or a hundred years ago? Is there something in modern technology that is especially offensive to Berry’s sensibilities, and what can you point to in his writing that would suggest what it is?
utopos et eutopos 
I found myself pondering where the line should be drawn with technology just last night. I was staring at the stars and could not figure out what this extremely bright star was, so I took out my phone and fired up the star map. As I stared into the screen (obscuring my view of the star itself), I realized the barrier that I had just created between the real world and myself. I thought about how if I were in a less technological age I would have had to learn about the stars before knowing what I was looking at, and there would have been a tremendous amount more work involved with observing just that one star. Berry rejected the idea that technology makes life simpler, but I must disagree. I did not need a star map and sextant to identify Venus last night, I had a gadget to help do the hard work so that I was able to just sit back and enjoy the view. The question of where to draw the line is, I believe, a personal choice. Berry made his choice in engaging with computers, my own personal choice would be the manipulation of the human condition. Technology has its place, just not in manipulation of the very core of being. That is, though, my own opinion and I do not expect others to agree. Much in the same way that I say: let the sports athletes dope themselves with whatever they want, it is their body and they will have to live with the results. While I may not want my body, or the human condition that I enjoy manipulated, I do not have any reason to tell someone else not to live as they see fit. Enjoy the stars in whatever manner makes you happy.
I don’t think Black Friday is really all that bad. It’s definitely different and marks a substantial shift in the way we look at holidays, but it does have some merit. Wendell Berry talks about the trouble with not making things within the home, and that modern consumerism just encourages spouses to rely on the market for everything they need, bringing only money and sex to what is otherwise a dead relationship. Black Friday could be taken as an expression of that tendency, that people demand cheap junk so that they can buy it in bulk and feel validated in their relationships, but it could easily be something else.
Things and money have, in the past few decades, become extremely cheap. Consuming has necessarily become a major part of American culture, and far from being empty and deplorable, it has taken on a rich character evident in the way people treat each other and their things. People enter successful marriages based on common interests, join groups based on their hobbies, and are even inspired by their creative interests to take on new professions. This sort of living is a result of the consumer revolution, which has brought a massive variety not just to retail stores but also to individual tastes and pursuits. Black Friday, despite the stabbing, may be evidence of a tendency in American culture that is richer than we think.
Additionally, Berry refers to the dignity of producing something which has economic value. In an economy that is increasingly becoming more reliant on a creative class of scientists, artists, authors, and designers, is it possible that the creativity engendered by modern consumerism holds just as much economic dignity as did the production of tables or pottery in the past?
Sorry, I meant to reply to the blog post as a whole, not just Pete’s reply!
When you look at the kind of big sale items on Black Friday, they are all technologies that people cannot live without. People have to have the latest technologies. In our society it is looked down upon to own something that is old and outdated. Everyone has to have the biggest tv, the fastest computer, or the newest phone. One thing that I have come to realized from working in retail is that my customers do not see me as a person, but as a vending machine. That is to say, they see me as a means to an end. I am simply what they have to put up with to get their newest product. It is interesting to look at the first hand affects of our consumerism combined with the progress of technology.
I did the exact same thing with the sky map on my phone the other night, and in my case my knowledge gained from using the app to find out what it was sparked a great conversation. In that case I feel that technology was used exactly like it was meant to be, technology is meant to assist us, not hinder us. Technology is helping to sensationalize news stories. If a mass shooting happens, I will probably know by looking either at facebook or news sites on my phone within the hour. Computers, tablets, and other mobile devises are making our public discourse much faster, and with speed comes a decrease in the quality of the publication. We will soon see just what we have to give up to have some of the technologies that we have today.
Where would I draw the line on technology?
Aside from my Volcano Vaporizer, I’m really not all that interested in technology. If I was to become interested, chances are they would just invent something bigger, better, faster, longer; or perhaps shorter, because there is no profit in longer anymore. I believe I draw the line when technology is used to modify the human body and mind to perform better, faster, and longer than the body or mind would naturally.
For example, say a person has four blog post that need to be done today by, if luck favors me at all, nightfall. Before the mid 80’s, this meant buckling down and making it happen. Now, they have this cool little pink pill called aderall, before it ridlen, that speeds up the mind and practically forces one to do the four blogposts. The moral of the story is that, perhaps, through prolonged use the individual might lose all ability to get anything done without the use of mind altering pharmaceutical technology. This was the argument made by Kass in his Happy Souls segment of Beyond Therapy and I must agree.
Question 3,
Wendell Berry would have certainly spoke out against technology fifty to a hundred years ago, and he does. In The Art of the Commonplace, Berry describes how the use of the automobile has separated a portion of American society from each other and what they need, and according to Berry, “to do without an automobile would disconnect one from many obligations,” (Berry, 74). Technology from a hundred years ago is not dissimilar to technology today. Electricity has been around since the 1870’s. I’m sure there is evidence that suggest that the use of electricity has adversely affected the average American’s ability to write correctly sense the use of electricity has encouraged people to write less and less. Modern technology offends Berry because so much of modern technology takes the, as he puts it, “art” out of doing something. He goes on to enplane how the typed work is less desirable to him, and to me, than work written in longhand because when work is written in long hand there is always potential for the piece of work to get better.
It is interesting that you say technology is essentially of no importance to you, I truly believe you are a dying kind to modern society, Superior performance is what humans are wired to accomplish. Like Kass says, whether “best” means better than yourself, others, or better than the best I think we all can say great performance is recognized in our society. Modification of performance begs the question of whose performance it really is now, so I can agree with restrictions on technology used to modify the human body. With restrictions on the technology that can be made to enhance human performance I can only assume that outside sources, such as equipment, would suddenly move forward leaps and bounds.
Question 2
I do not believe there are any virtues or benefits that come from unthinking acceptance of anything. That’s what Albert Huxley’s novel Brave New World was all about; the unquestioning acceptance of technology. When we just accept without questioning we lose the ability to question all together. We quickly become dependent on technology and lose what it is to be human.
An easy example is the smart phone. The days of the face to face conversation are numbered. People will be hanging out in a room, but instead of talking to each other like decent human beings; they are playing twiddly dee on their cell phones, either texting a person who is in California or playing fruit chopper. There is no benefit to be gained from this behavior. We have become more connected to this widget than we have to each other; thus limiting our ideas and our interactions to this box that can easily fit into one’s back pocket. Unthinking acceptance leads to addiction. There is no discipline in obtaining said technology, whether it is a smartphone or methadone, so therefore there is no discipline in the use, or abuse, of the technology.
I fully agree. If we are to accept that technology changes us in any significant way we cannot wade into to the future of technological progress without some serious consideration. What I really worry about is the decrease in human interaction that we have seen come along with the internet and smart phones. It can only get worse, and soon just the skill of being able to have a conversation with someone and to look them in the eye will be a very marketable skill in the new job market. It is very dehumanizing when we outsource our personal interactions to machines.
In response to question 1, I would draw the line when we reach the point where technology starts to take away from our humanity. I believe that we have already reached that point with regards to social media and online news outlets. Social media outlets like facebook are making actual human interaction with others more rare. Online news sites are making it to where when seeing someone present a news story on TV occurs less and less. People would rather order a pizza online than they would to call the pizza place and actually have to talk to someone. More often than not big websites have online chat features with customer service representatives than they have a phone number for you to call.
In my own experience working retail, I can somewhat see the effects of the lack of human contact in people. When dealing with customers that are near my own age or younger I am rarely looked in the eye. Maybe only around 20 percent of my customers who are under the age of 20 say more than two words to me when I am ringing them out.
So we are approaching the line where the detriments of technology are becoming more and more apparent. When more people than not would rather use a website than have real human interaction that is where I would draw the line.
I agree with you; however, I believe online Pizza ordering is the least of our worries. As i have mentioned above, there are times when i will be kicking it with people and they will be rapped up in a conversation on the facespace with people from New Deli, India. Berry warns against this saying that we are more dependent on technology and consumerism than we are about God, country, and family. Is facespace not an awful lot like the telescreen in 1984. The only difference is that we volunteer to put our information and what we had for breakfast on the telescreen instead of big brother forcing us to do so. In all honesty, I don’t even like typing my work; I only do it because professors won’t except it any other way. Wendell Berry shares my dislike for computers because it seem that typed work is almost impossible to fix, while written work has scatches and smudges and this kool thing called character.
Berry heavily romanticizes using a pencil and paper to do his writing. He talks about the bodily connection he feels to his work and the relationship between the body and artwork, but I think, at least in writing, there’s little difference in interaction between writing by hand and typing on a keyboard. Although handwritten manuscripts do have mistakes and maybe show some of the personality of the author, the writing itself demonstrates quite a lot about the person writing it – I doubt the loss is as significant as Berry makes it out to be.
The same is probably true for most art forms. Painters who paint on tablets using photoshop communicate themselves through their artwork, and the emotion of the brush strokes is certainly still evident. Music made with a synthesizer or a computer program has all of the elements of classically composed and produce music. Dance is filmed and put on youtube. The only thing lost is the presence of the viewer near the artwork in question, but chances are that would have been lost anyway, maybe due to distance from the stage or printed copies of paintings.
I don’t think Berry’s argument for not owning a computer makes any sense. It’s just more of the nostalgia of the rest of the reading.
I like your argument! I think Berry is just an old man set in his ways. As this current generation gets older and some new form of writing, different from typing on a keyboard, comes into fruition there will be people who think typing is the best.
There will always be those individuals who think the old way was better. Such as “hipsters” made fun of for using old type writers in the goal of seeming “hip.” These arguments will never be mainstream arguments because these technological advances are making life easier. People will always embrace technology, but there will always be those individuals against it, thinking the old way was better.
I absolutely agree. I find little genuine argument in his writing and a lot of nostalgic ranting fueled by a poor understanding of technology and general dismissal of its benefits. In the days of handwriting, reading was inaccessible, writing was arduous, and educational potential was lesser. We can read more, write more, and indeed have our writing read more. We only read Berry’s book because it was typed and manufactured. Berry occasionally admits benefits to technology before then overlooking them and complaining again, as if that is enough to stop us from bringing those benefits up as a critique.
This sort of nostalgic overlooking is not too atypical of humanity, though. What is more frustrating for me is how close Berry occasionally comes to the real problems. “The answer to the present alignment of political power with wealth is the restoration of the identity of community and economy” (pg. 63). In statements like this, Berry starts to hone in on the actual problems which he conveniently masks with “technology.” The actual problem is distribution of power, and technology is both a subset of an and instrument towards that power. The problem is our institutions.
If some technological development is harmful, we should fix it technologically. This is obvious. Our class and power systems frequently prevent this. Observe the corporate pollution, lack of technological and medical access for the poor, and political control by the economic elite. As we speak, those elite are lobbying to gain further control over how we use the internet, in terms of what we do, how we do it, and how often we access it. Disney Enterprises seek to monitor how we share their “intellectual property.” I know; they sent me a letter for intimidation. Internet service providers seek to increase our rates, assign arbitrary data caps, and charge services like Netflix extra for high speed access. Wealthy schools feature modern technology and courses which teach students how to utilize them, while poor schools frequently go without air conditioning and deal with paper supply shortages.
Inequality is the true problem with technology, but it’s not a problem even remotely inherent to technology. Access to and development of technology are the victims of these social conditions.
Berry comes close to realizing this when he talks about subjects like community, yet his emotional distaste for technological society which has sped beyond him and lust for the past prevent him from fully grasping it. Technology has virtually infinite benefits to offer, but it also provides paths for disaster. This is not the problem of technology, but rather the problem of our social economics. We need to pursue technological progress in tandem with economic equality.
I think Berry would have spoken out against technology that resembled what we have now. I doubt he would have liked the radio or the telephone, which removed some of the bodily connection a listener had to their friends or the music they listened to. Berry is very concerned about the “industrialization” of human life, the slow stripping of character and meaning that he feels once defined a rich life. To play music over the radio is to steal from the listener the impact of the music hall, and to have a conversation over the phone is to do away with eye contact and physical presence.
I think Berry would argue that once something has been stripped away, nothing replaces that emotional significance. However, I don’t think that doing away with tradition leaves a permanent void. Things take on new characteristics after they change. The telephone might have cheapened some elements of conversation, but it also made it much easier to keep in touch with friends. Friendship changed from a local and intimate affair to something capable of stretching across distances for long periods of time. Also, nostalgia will continue to grow over new things. I am sure that in twenty years people will romanticize facebook and online classes.
As I stated in my comment under your “Technology as a Problem” post, technology really simplifies and benefits me in numerous ways. I do believe there is a limit, though, as to how far I would go when it comes to using technology. Technology such as my iPhone serves a purpose for me everyday — it is a means of keeping in touch with my family and friends, keeping myself organized, figuring out what the phone number is to that local deli I really want for lunch, using the Sports Center app to find out the last play in the Alabama game, googling what movies are currently in theater, etc. No matter how trivial or useless it may be to others, almost everything I do on my iPhone I do for a reason. Would I take technology beyond this? If my iPhone one day suddenly became a means of perfecting my physical person or altering my mind then I can say that is most definitely where I would draw the line. For example, I do not agree with nanotechnology. Yes, it is fascinating that science is developing ways to rid the body of ailments and diseases, and prolong life expectancy. However, it is so unnatural, to me, that it is highly disturbing. I understand that disease is horrible, and a loved one dying is even worse to deal with, but that’s life. Additionally, my statement could be as simple as perfecting someone cosmetically. I am sure that not many people would agree with me, but I am totally against plastic surgery simply as a means of making yourself look better. I agree with Berry when he explains that “since the beginning of the technological revolution, more and more people have looked upon the body, along with the rest of the natural creation, as intolerably perfect by mechanical standards” (page 75). I get it, people want to feel good about themselves so they spend thousands and thousands of dollars to obtain perfection, but for what price? There are too many horror stories out there about bodies rejecting the plastic surgery. I personally know someone who had liposuction and one of the drain tubes ended up breaking off inside of her which caused way more problems for her than the good it did. The few pounds of fat she wanted to shed ended up scaring her stomach even worse. So, I guess you can say that I draw the line with technology when it goes beyond curing my boredom, easing my everyday life, or keeping me in touch with my loved ones.
The only place that I draw a line when it comes to technology is with smart phones. I still use a regular cell phone that does not connect to the internet. I know that if I had a smart phone, I would spend much more of my time distracted than I do already. However, this line is not firmly drawn, and it is not in place because I’m nervous about the future of technology or because I don’t want Google or Apple collecting my personal data.
I don’t think there’s too much of a reason to draw a firm line when it comes to technologies. Berry says simply that he does not use a computer because he does not find it very desirable, preferring to write with a pencil and paper. People are capable of regulating their own use of devices and employing them as they see fit. For most things, biological enhancements aside, the repercussions are so insignificant that they do not merit a full moral investigation. For example, the use of facebook information to generate better ads or inform marketers about current trends is largely benign. Although it in some ways mirrors dystopian fiction, the current and potential uses are hardly threatening. Society has to be careful not to get caught obsessing over the more mild elements of the technological revolution, or it might miss some of the more substantial developments.
So would you say that you draw the line with smart phones because the technology has gotten to that extreme? I can see your argument especially now a days with the amount of Iphone and Android users you see on a daily basis. It seems like most of the world is hopping on to the smart phone bandwagon. I think society is already obsessing with the technological revolution and a perfect example is look at the new Iphones that come out every year. No matter how small the change may be from the 4 to the 4s everyone still wants the 4s because it has a machine you can talk to and its the newest thing. It is the same way with a lot of different devices but the trend is much more noticeable with Apple users. The only line that I think should be drawn with these phones is the amount of time we should be spending on our devices or else fear the wrath of constant social media every minute of the day.
I have doubt if we can “draw the line” in regards to technology. Berry has difficulty in knowing where to draw the line and I appreciate his dilemma. A few years ago, I refused to utilize a cell phone for texting. I would only talk on the phone and even requested to have a phone disabled for texting. Presently, I send and receive many more emails and texts than voice transmissions. I tried and failed to “draw the line.”
As Berry states, the pressure for him to use a computer is based on speed and volume of work. This is the same pressure found in the use of a cell phone. Texting instead of talking is more efficient and without the needless conversations concerning how are you doing, the weather or the activities of your past weekend. Received on a phone, we answer emails quickly without waiting to access them on a laptop or desktop computer. We crave and expect instantaneous responses.
However, there is a loss. The efficiency of texting destroys the human element for communication. The spoken word creates a communal connection that is lost with the simple and cold electronic word. Ironically, our written language suffers with the advancement of technology. We type more but spell less correctly. I foresee future spelling bees with the stupid short cut “words” found on texts and tweets. Technology is destroying both our oral and written communication skills.
Will we “draw the line” on technology? I do not think so. Everyone wants more and wants it faster and cheaper without concern for the human cost.
(This post was not initially hand written with pencil and paper.)
The answer of “where to draw the line” is obviously going to be different for every person. Unlike Barry, I don’t necessarily believe that technology making things more accessible somehow makes it “laziness” because finding information is quicker. Regarding the post talking about the stars, that to me seems like a definite positive side to technology. Even though the information was accessed quicker, he was able to find that information about that particular star and go back to enjoying its beauty, so why would that be a negative thing? For me, drawing the line is a personal choice and goes back to what I posted on in the last post: the idea of moderation. Just because we have the access to varying forms of technology it does not mean that we have to partake in all of it. In my mind drawing the line does not mean not having a cell phone, but rather knowing when and when not to be on it and to know that it should not consume all your time.
I feel like “drawing the line” should be a personal judgement to make, and one that will differ for everybody. I can see some new technologies that feel excessive though, like the new “Smart Watches” from Samsung or the rumored ones from Apple – it seems like we are making simple things needlessly complex. Do we really need to have a watch that tells us our current BPM and Blood Oxygen levels? I think it should be about moderation and having respect for your surroundings and other people – one should not reply to texts at the dinner table, but you shouldn’t reject technology outright because you’re needlessly handicapping yourself in comparison to other people and you aren’t going to slow the adoption of new technology.
I like what you say about it is different for everyone. I have been one of those people who have had dinners where we barely talked rather than were just a group of people who were eating while on their phones in a group. I know it is a problem, but how do you combat that? Tell people to get off their phone. I am concerned with the next generation getting more and more dependent on their phones. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on what will happen with people and cell phones, it is only going to get worse as more and more generations are around with cell phones. It is both exciting and scary to think about it.
I went Black Friday shopping this weekend for the very first time in my life. My mother, my sister and I were the first people in line at Lowe’s at 4:00am. My sister had already ordered the poinsettias and a power drill online, so we figured it was going to be easy, in and out, get the items paid for and leave. Black Friday hysteria ensued when everyone entering the building found out that poinsettias were sold out. People began cursing and yelling all over the change of price from 5 dollars to just 1 dollar for a poinsettias. My family was at the forefront of the arguing because we were able to get our poinsettias because we ordered ours online the day before. While this chaos was happening I could not help but laugh, why were people going insane over a plant that only saved them 4 dollars? I asked my mom and she just said people really like this plant and look forward to getting them from Lowe’s, basically it was stupid for them to only order 250 of the valued plants. I think this madness is just insane, I will never understand why people go crazy to save a few dollar, but it will continue as long as poinsettias are sold at Lowe’s.
The “needs” that Berry speaks of our necessarily out of the consumer mindset. The term consumerism is used to describe our economy becuase we have the luxury of consuming goods and then consuming newer “better” goods when ever the updated models are released. The technology market has a perpetual nature to it because “better” objects are always being released. So the perpetual tech market is an ideal example of consumerism. But yet nothing in this market is a basic need for life that Berry speaks of. As we can observe from centuries of human existence, modern technology is not necessary for life. Technology, for better or for worst, simply makes future additions to our life. If we really wanted to we could exist without using technology, it is just not necessary. While I do agree with Berry that modern technology is not a necessity, I also think that we will not stop the use of technology. We should all try to think about how well our lives are functioning, what we already have, and how important technology is (in relation to making our lives “better” in the future), before we fight someone in a walmart isle for the newest piece of electronic crap.
I think when technology gets to the point of Canticle for Leibowitz where we are destroying each other with advanced nuclear warfare there is a line to be drawn. It is pretty obvious to everyone that technology is beneficial although some like Berry and the Amish think technology is not necessary. The truth is though because of technology we have been able to advance our lives by drastic proportions and have even increased the average lifespan by 40 years of what it used to be. The only way technology is going to cross any lines is if we the humans allow it to because after all we are the ones controlling the technology and we ultimately choose the uses of the technology we make. The line if there were to be any is the line that we make when we decide what our new technologies are going to be used for.
If we are destroying each other with nuclear warfare, then I think we don’t have the opportunity to suddenly draw that line. Lines, like all policy, should be contemplated ahead of disaster. This is however an amusing example to me, because we have had access to nuclear weapons for decades without destroying each other. That does not at all mean that we necessarily won’t do so, but we can see nonproliferation agendas as a form of line-drawing.
I agree that technology has benefited us dramatically and will continue to do so. Furthermore, I agree that it is up to humanity to make decisions about technology. Like past decisions, future decisions will be made with an eye for progress. We will further enhance ourselves into better and healthier humans. We already have and are doing this, but the rate of technological progress increases in proportion with the progress itself.
It is impossible for our relatively simple minds to comprehend beyond the future Singularity, but we are capable of seeing its inevitability so long as our species continues and proliferates. It is futile to stand in the way of technology as a whole. Rather, we should assist in the development and spread of technology so as to provide a steering hand to its course. We either make decisions about technology’s progress, or we stand back, shout at it, and have little to no impact on its future.
Kurzweil points out that technology has as many dangerous opportunities as helpful ones: “But these developments are not without their dangers. Technology is a double edged sword—we don’t have to look past the 20th century to see the intertwined promise and peril of technology.” Given the inevitability of technological progress due to the central human drive to create and improve, we must prepare ahead of potential disasters and maximize benefit. Like Kurzweil said, we have to work ahead of people like the future’s potential bioterrorists.
If we oppose technology, we hand the decisions of our future to those who oppose us. While the reactionists complain that the internet makes access to knowledge too easy and that video games somehow drive us mad, the rest of us will either utilize technology well or pursue destructive goals. It is up to the good people of the world to embrace and guide technology ahead of the destructive people. The naysayers will be left behind as they always have been.
Concerning the question of where the line ought to be drawn, I think that the effects of the technology in question should be considered thoroughly before acceptance. A paramount question to ask is whether it replaces human skill. I am not opposed to technology that requires an increase of skill in the user; it would be foolish to be unequivocally opposed to human invention. After all, we have an innate tendency to create, discover, and seek perfection. However, the majority of technology in the modern world replaces the skill of the user. While people like Kepler and Bach accomplished their work manually (leaving an indelible mark on history despite conditions much more challenging than ours), we have programs that think for us, giving answers without requiring effort. Technology that increases our dependence is no great accomplishment. It weakens its users, whose identity atrophies from disuse. They live vicariously through screens and buttons, disdaining to use their body for its own purpose. As Rousseau points out, not only are we unfit for living in the real world (as opposed to our industrialized, increasingly virtual world), but we are even less content than we were before our “advancements.”
Work now tends to be done by technology, which has replaced the human skill required to make clothing, food, furniture, and whatever else was needed. Compare the user of a calculator or iPad to a skilled knife-thrower or saxaphonist. The problem is that skill acquisition requires commitment over a long period of time. In a culture that worships instant gratification, the idea that all good things take time and effort will not be happily accepted. We have been conditioned to expect exactly what we want when we want it, without any exertion or–God forbid!–waiting. We have high-speed internet, automatic doors and faucets, search engines, cake mixes, interstates, and countless other conveniences, all which instill the subconscious mindset that we deserve this pampered lifestyle (Considering the curse in disguise that it truly is, maybe we do deserve every bit of it). “Quick and easy”–how many times have you seen that on an advertisement? As Wendell Berry points out, we have lost the joy of using our bodies. We demand the end without the means, having forgotten that the journey is often more important than the destination.
I agree with your distinction between technology that advances us — invention, and that which we become dependent on — instant gratification. It is also interesting to note we are already sliding down a slippery slope of dependency as evident in your list of new “technology” used almost without a second thought regularly. I do disagree with Berry’s point in your post, that we have lost the joy in using our own bodies. To an extent, the social acceptance of these technologies begs me to believe that we have just forgotten how to use and love using our bodies. I can assure you an average person who hikes, paints, or even milks a cow (although some aspects of these things are polluted with technology) will appreciate the pure act of using their body. I would go even further to argue that the majority of people would enjoy these acts more now that we take the accomplishment of simple tasks for granted.
The increase in urban farming isn’t evidence that people are paying attention to Wendell Berry’s ideas. I would argue that the action being taken in modern society is part of a greater cycle of human disposition. This cycle is evident in Lawler’s “Problem of Technology” where he discusses the community. At first, technological limitations were in place which, in essence, created diversity of goods and services. However with travel technology and the industrial revolution, “.. technological progress has reduced our country to an aesthetic wasteland; by making every place look and “feel” the same” (Lawler, 3). The movement from “Mom and Pop” small business to large corporations has taken some of the public’s individuality and choice. I think the movement to buy local and organic is an effort, whether consciously recognized or not, to revitalize the individuality that technology has diminished.
Technology was not intended to cause some of these effects on society, it was definitely inevitable, though. Limitations on technology are hard to do, since we’ve effectively opened a pandora’s box with research and the constant outcry for greater knowledge. Movements such as buying local, however, prove that it is possible to recognize and combat technology’s effects. At this point in time, it is not feasible to limit, but rather regulate technology. Clearly, there are benefits advancement brings our population. It is important to remember to note that benefits do not come without consequence whether it be to some or the masses.
Establishing such a bold relationship between Black Friday’s craze and technology itself is an overreach. Black Friday has much to say about consumerism, but technology is only a product in this relationship. If Black Friday displays a fundamental shift in culture or people, that shift is the result of a capitalist culture. It is very possible, and even likely, that technology causes its own fundamental cultural shift. Certainly, all of our readings have suggested or implied as much. Lawler discusses our “technological tyranny” (pg.139) while Kurzweil says, “We’ll get to a point where technical progress will be so fast that unenhanced human intelligence will be unable to follow it” (pg. 1). Either truth has profound implications. While you’re right in that our attachment to technology and our consumerism have become intertwined, this attachment to technology would persist in different economic circumstances. To really analyze what technology means to the human, we have to separate it from contemporary economic conditions.
The “line” does not exist beyond personal choice, and I don’t personally draw one. I will adopt all technology which personally benefits me and fits within my socioeconomic means and ethics. I evaluate both personal and societal costs, benefits, and harms in each adoption. I hope to see beneficial human augmentation I can utilize.
Agrarianism is primarily a reactionary movement, and there are virtually always reactionary movements to great social changes. Reactionary movements involve radicalization, and Berry is some form of that. We see the same behavior in reactions to the abolition of slavery, to women’s rights, to welfare programs, to marriage equality, and so forth.
I absolutely intend here to say that Berry and other agrarian radicals are wrong about our future. However, that is not my only intention. Reactionaries serve a social function in making the rest of us evaluate progress more carefully. Sometimes we can shrug off what they have to say, sometimes we accept their consequences as necessary evils, and sometimes we learn something and incorporate it into our agendas. We shrugged off those who said women lack the intelligence to vote; they were wrong. We accepted the economic recession of the South; it was more important to abolish slavery. And now we consider what we do with technology and its opponents.
I propose that urban gardens are evidence that we are learning something from the reactionaries. Technology will continue its steadfast march, and we will benefit from it. However, we have had to consider its current consequences on how we get our food, on genetically modified organisms, on air quality, and on our appreciation for natural phenomena. Urban gardens provide at least a partial answer to all four of these concerns.
As there are several questions risen in the blog, I would like to focus on a couple. First, urban farming is precisely an instance where “virtues and benefits to society” arise from a more modest acceptance of technology. Such farming is not only advantageous to the individual, but the wealth can be spread when communities begin sharing those farming tasks and sharing products. Berry stated that we are in a “state of total consumerism – which is to say a state of helpless dependence on things and services and ideas and motives that we have forgotten how to provide ourselves – all meaningful contact between ourselves and the earth is broken.” This perception can easily be applied to food as well as material goods, as farms are more factory like now than ever before.
Which leads to my second conclusion that there is an “increasing tendency for people in urban areas to engage in agriculture is evidence that people are paying attention to ideas like Wendell Berry’s.” I believe urban farming is a prime example of how, as Berry puts it, the young rebel against the affluent, consumerist society. Urban farming is one example of how unrestrained technology is something to be challenged at times. At times, an appreciation for a simpler, purer method is preferred; such is the case with urban farming.