I’ve seen two different anti-technology phenomenon and naturally put 2+2 and came up with 5. My comparison is the (some) of the reaction to Kindle (or all eBooks) and GMO. Many people blindly oppose both of these for a variety of reasons, but the silly reason I’ll rant about is the purely anti-technology pro-“natural” POV.
I’ve personally encountered numerous people and read from even more who denounce Kindle because they want the physical feeling of holding a book (the few who praise the craft of bookmaking, esp. typography, I agree with, but mostly people just claim that somehow the “natural” technology of a book is superior to the “artificial” technology of the eBooks. In the case of GMO, given all the opposition I’ve seen is completely unscientific and just blind hostility to modernity is the same, somehow “natural” is superior to “artificial”.
But what these critics ignore is that the technology they support (dead tree books, human-bred food crops) are just as “artificial” and unnatural as their later replacements. Come on, folks, what “natural” food do you eat? Is there anything you eat whose genome has not been heavily manipulated by humans for thousands of years?
In the case of books we need to remember that books are actually (compared to the age of human civilization) a relatively new technology (since 1440, an eyeblink in history). Before the books you should much praise as “natural” there was something that was much more natural, illuminated manuscripts painstakingly written by hand by some monk. These works are beautiful (and rather valuable as collectables) and the printed book drove that earlier technology out. But even the manuscripts were a new technology replacing the much less convenient (but more durable which archaeologists loves) clay tablets. And before writing there was the oral story, often sung. So how many people have denounced writing replacing oral, printing replacing writing. My Kindle is somewhat inferior (in look and feel) but very convenient. I used to lug about 20 pounds of books with me on trips and now I can carry just one lightweight device. And Kindle, (at least the Paperwhite version) is far better than the clunky iPad or even Kindle Fire (I can hold my Kindle for a while without muscle strain, plus the batteries, due to eInk, lasts all the way on a planeflight to China when my iPod was long dead). I spent much of my life in the technology of publishing and I admire fine deadtree books, especially those with good typography. But I’ll forgo this feature to save my aching shoulders from hauling books around. But the real point is just that Kindle is the most recent in a long line of new technologies, each replacing the nostalgia of the early technology.
And I see a parallel with GMO. Almost nothing we eat is untouched from its natural evolutionary state. Humans have altered food plants and animals for dozens of millenia with the crude breeding processes they have (they have no idea which genes they’re transferring when they use old-fashioned breeding techniques). So the anti-GMO crowd is just as irrational as the anti-vax crowd, denouncing a technology they don’t have the scientific knowledge to understand. And for the most part the anti-GMO crowd is just pawns in a money battle – since only a few companies (mostly U.S.) have the patents other countries, esp. France, hate having to buy the GMO seed. But if the seed is such a bad technology why do the farmers buy it? No one is holding a gun to their head.
Now I actually like “hierloom” foods, at least the plants we grow in our yard. But I don’t think they’re any more “natural” than megamart products. Food is all “artificial”. Those genes in your heirloom tomato are still artificially selected (in fact the nearest “natural” relative to a tomato isn’t even red since red is part of the plant’s rotting process so its offspring (seeds) get fertilized). So the genome in that heirloom tomato is just as artificial. Now, other the hand, especially home-grown it does taste better. But that’s not due to GMO instead of plant breeding. Factory food is different than home food whether it’s GMO or not. So fine, denounce factory food (assuming you can afford “natural” food or live in a climate where you can get “local”), but don’t blame Monsannto, who is just a convenient whipping boy.
Most of the people who denounce Kindles or GMO are “liberals”, ordinarily my group. But when they get irrational and just inappropriately blaming technology (without realizing their preferred product, books, heirloom vegetables, are just as much a product of human technology as the new things.) So it’s just a question of newer vs older manmade objects and you’re showing your ignorance when you claim anything else.
About dmill96
old fat guy, who used to create software in Silicon Valley (almost even before it was called that), who used to go backpacking and bicycling and cross-country skiing and now drives AWD in Wyoming, takes pictures, studies Spanish and writes long blog posts and does xizquvjyk.
dailydouq 
Anti-technology parallels: GMO and Kindle
I’ve seen two different anti-technology phenomenon and naturally put 2+2 and came up with 5. My comparison is the (some) of the reaction to Kindle (or all eBooks) and GMO. Many people blindly oppose both of these for a variety of reasons, but the silly reason I’ll rant about is the purely anti-technology pro-“natural” POV.
I’ve personally encountered numerous people and read from even more who denounce Kindle because they want the physical feeling of holding a book (the few who praise the craft of bookmaking, esp. typography, I agree with, but mostly people just claim that somehow the “natural” technology of a book is superior to the “artificial” technology of the eBooks. In the case of GMO, given all the opposition I’ve seen is completely unscientific and just blind hostility to modernity is the same, somehow “natural” is superior to “artificial”.
But what these critics ignore is that the technology they support (dead tree books, human-bred food crops) are just as “artificial” and unnatural as their later replacements. Come on, folks, what “natural” food do you eat? Is there anything you eat whose genome has not been heavily manipulated by humans for thousands of years?
In the case of books we need to remember that books are actually (compared to the age of human civilization) a relatively new technology (since 1440, an eyeblink in history). Before the books you should much praise as “natural” there was something that was much more natural, illuminated manuscripts painstakingly written by hand by some monk. These works are beautiful (and rather valuable as collectables) and the printed book drove that earlier technology out. But even the manuscripts were a new technology replacing the much less convenient (but more durable which archaeologists loves) clay tablets. And before writing there was the oral story, often sung. So how many people have denounced writing replacing oral, printing replacing writing. My Kindle is somewhat inferior (in look and feel) but very convenient. I used to lug about 20 pounds of books with me on trips and now I can carry just one lightweight device. And Kindle, (at least the Paperwhite version) is far better than the clunky iPad or even Kindle Fire (I can hold my Kindle for a while without muscle strain, plus the batteries, due to eInk, lasts all the way on a planeflight to China when my iPod was long dead). I spent much of my life in the technology of publishing and I admire fine deadtree books, especially those with good typography. But I’ll forgo this feature to save my aching shoulders from hauling books around. But the real point is just that Kindle is the most recent in a long line of new technologies, each replacing the nostalgia of the early technology.
And I see a parallel with GMO. Almost nothing we eat is untouched from its natural evolutionary state. Humans have altered food plants and animals for dozens of millenia with the crude breeding processes they have (they have no idea which genes they’re transferring when they use old-fashioned breeding techniques). So the anti-GMO crowd is just as irrational as the anti-vax crowd, denouncing a technology they don’t have the scientific knowledge to understand. And for the most part the anti-GMO crowd is just pawns in a money battle – since only a few companies (mostly U.S.) have the patents other countries, esp. France, hate having to buy the GMO seed. But if the seed is such a bad technology why do the farmers buy it? No one is holding a gun to their head.
Now I actually like “hierloom” foods, at least the plants we grow in our yard. But I don’t think they’re any more “natural” than megamart products. Food is all “artificial”. Those genes in your heirloom tomato are still artificially selected (in fact the nearest “natural” relative to a tomato isn’t even red since red is part of the plant’s rotting process so its offspring (seeds) get fertilized). So the genome in that heirloom tomato is just as artificial. Now, other the hand, especially home-grown it does taste better. But that’s not due to GMO instead of plant breeding. Factory food is different than home food whether it’s GMO or not. So fine, denounce factory food (assuming you can afford “natural” food or live in a climate where you can get “local”), but don’t blame Monsannto, who is just a convenient whipping boy.
Most of the people who denounce Kindles or GMO are “liberals”, ordinarily my group. But when they get irrational and just inappropriately blaming technology (without realizing their preferred product, books, heirloom vegetables, are just as much a product of human technology as the new things.) So it’s just a question of newer vs older manmade objects and you’re showing your ignorance when you claim anything else.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
About dmill96
old fat guy, who used to create software in Silicon Valley (almost even before it was called that), who used to go backpacking and bicycling and cross-country skiing and now drives AWD in Wyoming, takes pictures, studies Spanish and writes long blog posts and does xizquvjyk.