Hello all. How ya doing? (That can be the first question you answer in your comments) Anyway, I'm doing quite well because I'm missing class to compose this sweet blog post about the article "Luddite vs. Fetishist." As you may have gathered from the title of this post, the article has to do with two opposing view-points: one guy, Henderson, is fiercly anti-technology, while the second guy, Barkow, is a big technology fan. These terms they use (Luddite, Fetishist) basically refer to the camps to which these writers belong. The intro says that luddites take there name from angry British textile workers protesting mechanical innovation, and these guys hate what they see as un-needed innovation. The fetishists, I suppose, are the tech-guys, but the article doesn't seem to address the word origin.
In this virtual dialogue, each dude takes turns writing an email to argue his position. There a lot of good arguments posed on either side, but the most entertaining thing might be reading these guys go back and forth ragging on eachother. They're pretty good at that. Henderson, Luddite and founder of the Lead Pencil Club, argues that today's fascination with technology is brought on by greed, and consequently, people convincing the public that they need useless technological objects (in his example, a GPS) in order to make a buck. This whole process of aqcuiring new comodity items and speeding up the rate at which we satisfy our whims is drawing people away from what Henderson contends people really want: "knowledge, wisdom, love." (Robbing us of our humanity maybe?) On the other side, Barkow argues that things like email (and GPS) are innovations that are just more practical than the systems they replace. He even mentions how email is a more efficient tool than the US postal service by Wendell Berry's requirements for technological innovation.
I'm not going to mention who I think "won" the battle, so in your responses, be sure to mention which writer you thought was more effective at arguing his side (as well as writing the best insults).
Also, what's your opinion on the technology debate? Is techmology helpful? dangerous? Will robots one day rule the world? Will we ever know the product of 10.9999999 and 10.999991111...99999?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Just in the first paragraph, I want to agree with both Bill and Tim. I believe that in many instances, technological development causes more cost and less gain. However, it is most certainly inevitable and can be beneficial in many instances.
Bill, lead pencil club, really? I agree that an over abundance of technological equipment impedes social development, creativity, and relaxation in general. “Calm down and take a walk” is always good advice, take a break from the buzzing computer and smell the rain. “…knowledge often arrives with silence.” Let’s have more faith in the unique potential of our personal thoughts and the power that lies in simplicity.
Haha. Tim is a bit of an ass. He makes a valid point that in all likelihood (based on the past) there will always be work; it will simply fluctuate, which is normal. However, once we reach “the tipping point” of work available, and there is none, we may not be able to recover as we may have been able to do in the past.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Bill can have his beloved pencils and Tim his GPS. Hopefully the rest of us are less insane and take some stance in the middle.
Tim’s best insult: “You like hikers, right Bill? Would you leave the tree-huggers stranded on a mountain to die?”
Bills best insult: “Take a walk outside into the real world…You’ll find people there, and maybe time to talk to them. You might even make a new friend.”
All I can say is haha. That article was the best one yet and it actually kept me reading. I"m not sure if I can pick a clear winner though because they both had some good points through their witty humor. Bill had a couple good points about some people just need to take a second to breathe. Everyone's always in a rush with nowhere to go, it seems. And yes, many people with new innovations are just out to make money. And it sucks when they put something crappy out and make tons of money on it and you're like...damn, if only I could think of that!!
And then good old Tim had some interesting view points as well. It's interesting about how he was saying that email is a better innovation than the pencil because it can do more than the pencil ever could. Well didn't someone have to design email with a pencil...or a pen i guess? And don't all ideas stem from someone's brain that eventually leads to the web? I mean, I love inventions and cool web things but sometimes people take technology and everything that goes with it to an extreme.
And maybe it is true as Bill says, with celebrity gossip, news, data, and facts that are out there..maybe we can never satisfy our hunger for what we really want: knowledge, wisdom and love.
Well Cecilia with an e doesn't say anything meaningful..and maybe these two don't either.. I'm out..
I thought it was interesting (given the Ohmann article) that Tim started to make the tech-neutral argument...he argued that we shouldn't blame the tech but the person using the tech...to some extent he's right...if real letter writing declines and email is what people choose to do...well that's our own damn fault...On the other hand, Bill is arguing that all this stuff contributes to a culture of speed which encourages us to choose the email over the more traditional letter writing...that we are being duped and dumbed-down...one problem with that is that it is an elitist claim...that one group of people (Leadites) is in better and more knowledgable position to judge the "reality" of the situation and instruct all us n00bz on how we could be better more fuller people...I don't like that...but I can understand the idea of negativity related to a "culture of speed," I guess...
I loved this article, I think it was the best one we have read so far. I think being able to see both points of view from two extremes was really interesting.
I really like Tim Barkow, he's really down to earth and logical about the progression of technology. I think his best point was that computers are not going to take away our jobs, they will always be there because work is never done and computers are just a tool to help us with the work.
I feel like Bill Henderson is kind of stuck in the dark ages and doesn't give technology much of a chance.
I liked this article because it was an entertaining, easy read. At first I really enjoyed the debate between Henderson and Barkow, but towards the end I quickly lost interest. I felt their arguments became more weak as the article dragged on. It was almost as if each new paragraph began with an insult or an attempt to defend oneself personally. It lacks credibility once the debater reaches a certain blow.
Tim Barkow pretty much summed up my own argument to this issue in the statement, "what works for one person is not necessarily appropriate for another."
I think that this article was hilarious. I think Bill Henderson is a very ignorant person that is scared of change. His statement in part VII that said the technology was unnecessary from the TVs with nothing to watch to websites, "internet sex" and "blab groups" really agrivated me. He has completely presupposed that there are only negitive, or worthless material on the internet. He cant support his argument with credible information because he doesnt have any credible information. How could he when hes never used a computer.
Basically, I think he is fighting a losing battle, and the 99% of the population that owns a computer would agree.
I understand Henderson's view point of wanting to hold onto the past and not wanting to get rid of things just because 'something better comes along'. There is a sentimental value to many of the old methods technology is now erasing. Technology can be expensive in terms of money and intangible qualities as well. As the world updates, it leaves behind part of it's past. Things that were once loved, such as sitting by the fire reading a book or writing a love letter by candlelight become distance memories. Or worse, are forgotten all together.
However, Barkow is right-this is reality. We must make sacrifices in order to have gains. We must be willing to let go of some comforts and adapt. Technology does provide faster, more efficient and more accurate tools. I liked Barkow's argument that people have always bought stuff that others would have found useless such as jewelry. Is there really that much of a difference between someone spending money or a necklace or on a GPS device. If that item makes them happy, isn't it ok to spend the money? I don't believe that people have overnight become greedy and that is why people are now buying so much 'useless stuff'. People have always been greedy. Now, they just have the means to be more greedy.
There are of course good and bad aspects to everything but as a world we must decide if the good outweigh the bad in terms of advancing technology. I think Barkow won the arugement though.
This is definately the most entertaining article I've read in a while. Kinda surprised I didn't see any "yo momma!" jokes.
I agree with Barkow that technology is a neutral body that is manipulated by people. GPS can be used as a guide for hiking, or as an aiming device. A car can be used for transportation or to hit someone. A computer can be used as an educational tool or a...well... sex-box.
Even though I'm more of a techy, I can understand why Henderson doesn't like technology. It is leading to the dehumanization of our society, and with the rise in tech. humans are essentially becoming machines. E-mail is faster, but feels lifeless sometimes (not to say you can't put heart into an e-mail). The irony of his argument about computers and technology wasting resources is that his pen-and-paper approach is taking away trees. Someone needs to find some middle-ground here.
The end of this exchange really bothered me. Both are so bull-headed that the argument solved nothing. Barkow rips Bill, saying his book sucked in his last response. Funny, but it was like watching children argue over what Saturday morning cartoon is better...both present good arguments, but are too stubborn to compramise.
This was an interesting article, or should I say battle of words? This was probably the easiest reading that we have had so far. It was easy to read because I was interested in reading the arguments as they would bicker back and forth. Anyway, when it comes to the debate of emerging technology I can see where both sides are coming from.
Technology can be helpful and dangerous as well, depending on how you look at it. Obviously, e-mail is “smaller, cheaper, more efficient” than the US Postal System.
It really bothered me when Bill Henderson referred to the internet as a place with “usually useless data.” Are you kidding? Yes, we all want knowledge, wisdom, love and friendship and we all know that all of that can be found with a click of a button. There are dictionaries, encyclopedias, love matching services, chat rooms, and so many more places where these things can be found. I agree with Tim, “more tools; more options. Innovation is good.”
I don’t find that there is necessarily a “winner” in this battle. I think that both writers were effective at arguing their sides. If I had to pick a side, I would probably go with Tim. I also think that it is not necessary to insult each other to make a statement or prove a point (although it was entertaining.)
I really enjoyed this article because I can understand both sides of the argument. I understand that computers are an essential part of our lives today, but it seems that there are many negative aspects of of all the new technology as well.
I agree that I take my computer for granted with every day tasks such as emails and the internet. I know that I would never be able to give up these two tools, especially with my classes. But even though the internet continues to make everything easier for us, I can't help but worry that in the long run it is only hurting us.
Through this technology it seems that it is defintely effecting people's relationships and personal skills. People would rather sit on computers looking up stuff on the internet or talking on instant messenger rather than getting out of the house to actually talk to someone face to face.
I understand where both guys are coming from. They both make good points however I think I would have to agree more with Tim. Even though I am not technology savvey I could not imagine life with no computer, tv, internet, etc. I mean when I first moved into my apartment this summer we were without cable and internet for a week. Going into the whole thing we didnt think anything of it, we thought no big deal. Well going one week with no internet made me never want to do it again.
I just feel that in this day in age we have learned to live with technology and it has made our life easier so why go back? Granted everyone likes recieving a letter in the mail, but could you imagine everytime you had to tell a professor or boss something having to write a letter, mail it, then wait for a response? I don't agree when they say the mail is dying, I dont think the mail will ever go away, but I do think now since we have had it for so long we couldn't do regular daily things without email and other forms of technology.
This article was a very interesting read. Both sides presented very good arguements. It is true that technology takes away from the personal aspect of communication. Now people just wander the streets lost in their own world listening to their ipods. Before portable music players people would interact with each other while they waited in line at the bank or where ever. Now people just say the minimum required to acheive the task at hand. Technology is taking away many experiences that the older generations had. Many consider this a "bad" thing, while others like being lost in their own little world whilst going about their daily activities.
On the other hand technology is a very handy tools. It has speed up many different activities, from sending mail to online banking. It has made life easier for those who choose to embrace these technological advancements.
I agree that it's the people's responsibility to do whatever we want with the technology given to us, it's not the computers fault that people are lazy. I disagree with bill when he says that technology impedes creativity though, since you still have to be creative to write an essay people will enjoy. It's not like we just punch in a topic and the computer types it up for us (which would be baller). Until I'm completely turned into an R2-D2 type drone (which would also be baller), I'm going to keep believing that the technology doesn't control us, we control the technology.. Come on people, this isn't I,Robot.
I really enjoyed the different points of view in this article. although i think that henderson is ignorant because he never gave technology a chance to help his life. but that's besides the point. he did think through everything he said and his methods have worked in his life so he has to be doing something write. i really like Barkow just the way he says everything he says, almost as if he is looking down on henderson because he doesnt use technology to his advantage. You can tell they are both very stubborn people who think the other is a pompus a**hole.<----- i had to keep this PG haha
Post a Comment