Category: Geeks r Us
I'm writing a critical response paper on the following piece. This article is both fascinating and downright annoying, mostly because I see him as a stubborn old man who needs to get his head out of the sand, to put it politely. Honestly, I'm finding criticizing this article without flat-out calling him a moron, extremely difficult. Time for this guy to wake the hell up and smell the coffee. what do you guys think?
Why I'm Not going to Buy a Computer
By wendell berry
"Like almost everybody else, I am hooked to the energy corporations, which I do not admire. I hope to become less hooked to them. In my work, I try to be as little hooked to them as possible. As a farmer, I do almost all of my work with horses. As a writer, I work with a pencil or a pen and a piece of paper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. As she types, she sees things that are wrong and marks them with small checks in the margins. She is my best critic because she is the one most familiar with my habitual errors and weaknesses. She also understands, sometimes better than I do, what ought to be said. We have, I think, a literary cottage industry that works well and pleasantly. I do not see anything wrong with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A number of people, by now, have told me that I could greatly improve things by buying a computer. My answer is that I am not going to do it. I have several reasons, and they are good ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first is the one I mentioned at the beginning. I would hate to think that my work as a writer could not be done without a direct dependence on strip-mined coal. How could I write conscientiously against the rape of nature if I were, in the act of writing, Implicated in the rape ? For the same reason, it matters to me that my writing is done in the daytime, without electric light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not admire the computer manufacturers a great deal more than I admire the energy industries. I have seen their advertisements. attempting to seduce struggling or failing farmers into the belief that they can solve their problems by buying yet another piece of expensive equipment. I am familiar with their propaganda campaigns that have put computers into public schools in need of books. That computers are expected to become as common as TV sets in "the future" does not impress me or matter to me. I do not own a TV set. I do not see that computers are bringing us one step nearer to anything that does matter to me: peace, economic justice, ecological health, political honesty, family and community stability, good work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What would a computer cost me? More money, for one thing, than I can afford, and more than I wish to pay to people whom I do not admire. But the cost would not be just monetary. It is well understood that technological innovation always requires the discarding of the "old model"—the "old model" in this case being not just our old Royal standard. but my wife, my critic, closest reader, my fellow worker. Thus (and I think this is typical of present-day technological innovation). what would be superseded would be not only something, but somebody. In order to be technologically up-to-date as a writer, I would have to sacrifice an association that I am dependent upon and that I treasure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My final and perhaps my best reason for not owning a computer is that I do not wish to fool myself. I disbelieve, and therefore strongly resent, the assertion that I or anybody else could write better or more easily with a computer than with a pencil. I do not see why I should not be as scientific about this as the next fellow: when somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante's, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of computcr with a more respectful tone of voice, though I still will not buy one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To make myself as plain as I can, I should give my standards for technological innovation in my own work. They are as follows:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships."
And someone, please enlighten me. What the flaming hell does he mean by, "the rape of nature"?
Hi Joanne.
I don't see much wrong with the article or the opinions expressed within it. You
need to remember that it takes all sorts to make a world.
Do I think that my life would be improved without a computer? No.
Do I see all sorts of benefits in owning a computer? Yes.
Is the accessibility of the world around us increased by owning a computer? Yes.
But at the same time, it's perfectly possible to live without a computer if that
happens to be your lifestyle, and there's no doubt that computers have had a
significant degradation in people's grammar and their ability to spell.
To add to the post before mine.
This writer can see, so can write with a pencile easy.
When the writer wishes to get stuff published someone else uses the computer.
My sister doesn't use one.
Nature means as close to natural as possible. A pencil, paper.
No enerty used.
If the writer were blind... Lol
I have to voice my agreement with the last two posters. Writing skills by a a considerable majority of people has degraded in the last several years from what I've noticed, and part of it can definitely be attributed to computers. The general new mindset is, "well, why do I have to worry about checking my spelling/grammar when a computer can do it for me?"
There are a lot of things that we as blind people cannot do without a computer. However, even there blind people partly suffer, because the more a blind person uses a computer, especially at a younger age, the less this blind person will likely worry about reading braille. Which means that braille literacy is going to go way way down if more and more blind people start using computers at a younger age. This is unfortunate, in my opinion, because I at least, feel that I retain information better when I read it in braille rather than it being spoken to me either by a person or a screenreader. That is also a matter of opinion though, because I have heard differently from other blind people.
Anyway, don't knock this guy's life style. I actually in part, admire him for what he's trying to do. The older folks, and the folks who grew up with minimal technology are pretty set in their ways, and enjoy their life styles. One might even be able to argue that they are far more active and a lot les lazy because they are not dependent on technology.
This doesn't directly address the article above, but some of you may be interested in listening to the following book available on BARD:
Off the grid: living blind without the Internet DB83144
Kingett, Robert W. Reading time: 3 hours, 26 minutes.
Read by T. David Rutherford.
Computers; Disability
Journalist Robert Kingett accepts a challenge: to adapt to his blindness without the Internet and the array of digital devices from which he has never before been disconnected. He keeps an anecdotal month-long diary of his adventure--battling with an FM radio, hooking up a landline--and shares his discoveries and insights. Unrated. Commercial audiobook. 2015.
While I agree that there are definitely downsides that come with the rise of technology, I think there are more pros than cons. . Braille literacy does not *have* to be affected. It could actually be improved, as Braille is not more portable than ever. Though Mad Dog is right, people do use it as an excuse not to have to learn/teach Braille, and that's a shame.
that being said, I agree with Joanne. All this guy does is come off as stubborn and backwards. It's certainly his right to be that way, of course. Oh yes, and an extremist. The rape of nature? WTF?
I don't mind someone's opinion. But refusing out-right to even use a computer a little? I could live without a computer, but I'd miss a whole lot of friends, and abilities.
I noticed my spelling getting bad, and am working my rear off, to fix that. If and when, I get a Braille display, I'm going to pay major attention, to how I spell.
I don't like the shortcuts, because it makes me feel lazy. I don't even use half of them.
However, I do believe everyone is entitled to their mind-set.
Blessings,
Sarah
still not sure what he means by, "the rape of nature."
He is probably referring to ecological disasters caused by human activity. A good example of this is slash-and-burn, where the vegetation is destroyed by farmers to make the land fertile.
He does mention that he is a farmer who does all his work with horses. So apparently he wants to come across as conscientious and unhypocritical about his subject. He also seems to feel guilty about depending strictly on "strip-mined coal. In short, it looks like he cares about nature.
Many minerals and metals are used to manufacture computers and other technology. People who care about planet Earth think these minerals are being plundered and fear that manufacturers are failing to take the consequences of this "rape" into consideration.
Not side tracking the topic, but why does one need a braille display to read braille? You really don't.
I don't have one and I read everyday with braille.
Ooh, let's go back to scratching words into clay tablets! This guy and Eleni21 would get along just dandy.
lol I thought of that, too. In fact, I believe this article actually got some
responses from folks, one of whom suggested he just go back to using a
fountain pen or something like that. The tool is cheaper than the typewriter,
after all.
Not so sure about that... there are some pretty high priced fountain pens out there,
and he'll want to get himself a solid workhorse of a pen if he expects to use it all day
every day... for a good durable pen that writes well, he should expect to spend at
least USD $50 or more for a basic pen. He'll also need a spare nib in case the one
that comes with it wears out or gets bent etc.
The cost of ink is also a consideration... he has two choices in this regard... ink that
comes in prefilled single use cartridges or ink that comes in a bottle from which he
would have to fill up a cartridge converter (the name for a cartridge device that can
be refilled over and over)... either way, the ink isn't exactly that inexpensive... a
30mL bottle of cheap but reliable ink will go for about USD $8.00 all the way up to
about USD $35 per bottle. Cartridges range in price from USD $3 for 6 1mL
cartridges to USD $8.75 for a box of 6.
I'm not sure what makes him so bad to some of you though. Sure, it's not a lifestyle choice I'd make. But equally I don't think he is harming anyone else by doing so.
I know plenty of older people that don't use computers, they enjoy what they do, and don't have a need for them.
You forgot about the expenses of the typewriter ribbons and carbon paper his wife uses. Lol
I'm not sure why anyone cares. This man's opinion and choices are harmless; he's entitled to feel about it any way he pleases.
If a person doesn't need a computer, why have one? If it wasn't helpful to me as a blind person, I wouldn't have ever delved into the online world. I wasn't eager to acquire a cell phone, either.
Reyami, if I were your father helping you with your homework, I'd be taking you outside the extremely narrow scope of technology vs. anti technology and actually learn a little something outside a very narrow space.
Farmers especially now blame technology, oil companies and a whole lot more for the ecological changes and climactic shifts that directly impact their harvests.
Many people are old enough to remember when computers ddn't work very well, when they had to spend thousands on a new machine every few years just to keep up.
Now, I'm a software developer. I make my living because of technology and because there are systems who depend upon it. But I fully recognize there are a lot of people who eschew all electronic technology, just as there are technology evangelists or people who treat it like some kind of faith everybody had better adopt or be called all sorts of names / be socially shunned.
But in truth, technology is just a set of tools. Like any set of tools, it serves some purposes. But that's all it is, tools. Tools I personally use, tools I'm personally grateful for. But then again, I also use a slate and stylus, although probably not as fast as some of the mythmakers proclaim everyone should.
If you want to win when writing this paper, at least put in some effort to understand the issues. Who is this person? A farmer. What do they do? Make a living off the land. That's a bit different than making a living writing code, or sitting in your academic environment writing papers. For us, the changing environment is largely abstract. If the weather changes, it can be inconvenient, but it does not impact our paychecks.
If you really want to push the pro-technology position in this case, and in particular to push it without any understanding of the article's author, your best case will be to promote the climate change denier position. I take it you're not in the hard sciences, so you can probably get away with such a position.
If you want a more balanced perspective, you could stop calling the guy names and build your argument around understanding the role of energy usage in dividing society, the digital divide, how electronic devices could provide someone like him with benefits whose costs are less than the benefits he's likely to obtain.
Everything in life has a cost to benefit ratio. Failure to recognize that and failure to learn the context of what your opponent is saying, is failure to convince people.
I personally think you could create a really well-written paper on this topic, based on this person's experience, from a very balanced perspective. It would be easier to just be dismissive and all, but could be very rewarding to come off with such a balanced perspective you could gain support from people you probably wouldn't have otherwise guessed.
There's a lot more to this issue than just how much we spend, who has what, who is willing to change and how much.
I hate to be a sour puss, but Becky this book is interesting but this kid isn't really off the grid. He's still got a computer and he still has access to all the stuff that's apparently out there now like audio description in theaters. Admittedly, things that I haven't known existed in the mainstream.
I've toyed with the notion of going off the grid for a month if I could afford it, but it was during my days of being paleo. Some buddies talked about taking off for someplace in the wilderness, eating nothing but fish and berries for a month, and running about in loincloths or scant clothes.
Cue every midlife crisis joke ever, I know. But at the time, had I the money / means / saved up vacation time and no domestic responsibilities I've have went with them, and probably come back leaner and with a month's beard growth.
I fully agree with Leo. Honestly, all of the points that this author mentioned are valid--older individuals are less reliant on computer systems, due to them not being prevalent in their generation. Now, however, computers are becoming as common as televisions; subsequently, prices are dropping, and if this farmer wanted to alter his ways, could certainly afford to abandon his typewriter. That being said, farmers are being affected via lack of government subsidies ( which the government provides a certain amount of money for crops.) In order to make your argument more persuasive, I would examine the current price trends of crops including cotton, corn, squash, wheat, and bartly. Next, calculate how expensive it is for a farmer to obtain a living given the fact that one tractor is nearly $80,000. Even farmers who have thousands of acres cannot afford such equipment out right,so become indebted quite fast. Unfortunately, the price of cotton is rapidly deteriorating, causing farmers to be plunged into foreclosures across the nation.
As others have stated previously, if I weren't blind, then I would have no need for a computer. Naturally though, it is another modern day convenience that makes life a little simpler.
Regarding Braille literacy, computers are not directly responsible--however, the teachers and other related professionals are.
Nathan.
I couldn't finish the Off the Grid book. I guess it is because I've been reading for years about people who actually do go off the grid in various ways. The book didn't hold me for whatever reason.
The literacy question is not a blind vs. sighted thing at all. I don't get why so many people think it is. Honestly, kids are using tablets and computers at younger ages, and these technological advancements are replacing certain things in schools, like cursive handwriting. So there's been a general decline in spelling and grammar, which has absolutely nothing to do with which blind people read Braille and which ones do the most yelling about how and when it should be taught. Do I think every blind kid should learn Braille? Absolutely, but, by the same token, every sighted kid should put down the tablet every once in awhile and learn how to write properly, too.
I think the Braille arguments are funny. Sure, I read Braille, always have since
kids learn to read. But I also remember how people used to accuse Grade II
Braille readers of poor spelling because of Grade II.
Green Turtle, you described it best: Yelling. Ideological yelling. That's it. Well,
I'd say foolishness too, but then again I suffer not well the fools who are so
ideologically inclined. And critical-thinking impaired. Sounds like a damned
disability to me though I don't think there's a nut check for that one.
And yes, even the Optacon in the 70s was said to drive kids away from Braille.
My oh my, the more things change, the more they sure stay the same.
For the life of me, I cannot begin to understand what makes this farmer shit on your shoe--I know I used to talk smack about Tiffinitsa, but who am I to tell her what she should use? No one; just as she is not within her right to tell me what works best for me in any given situation in life. I mean, the way many of you seem to think, it would be OK for the farmer to say all blind people should get guide dogs, and if they don't, they should be put away. Well, no that isn't his right, but people still seem to think they can be judgmental of him. Nonsensical!
What could be wrong with the Optacon?! It's a help to know what printed letters look like!
All I will say about cursive handwriting is: good riddance.
Now, the thing with sighted kids and their tablets, is that unless they use those tablets' method of speech or voiceover, they're going to have to learn to read the icons and things on those tablets. Now of course, with those tablets being so smart, those same sighted kids will not know their grammar very well, and well, who needs to learn to spell words when the tablet can do it for you, right? In that I definitely agree with a few of the above posters.
With blind people however, the reading is taken completely out of the equation. Instead of reading an item on the tablet, they will have the item spoken for them instead. A few, probably a small minority for now, but one that has the potential to grow drastically in this age of increasing accessible technology will think to themselves, "well, why should I learn to read these random collections of dots when stuff can be read for me?" Now that isn't to say that I am against progress. Technology should continue to progress, and I'm all for increased independence. It's just that I also happen to believe that there are going to be things that are lost. Whether these things being lost end up being bad or good, well, I will leave that to you, (hopefully) clever reader to figure out and withhold my opinions.
Why withhold your opinions, Mad Dog?
How is math taught, without Braille?
There's a place for both; sometimes it's faster to listen to a book.
However... Braille for all, I say, but I don't feel like writing an essay on it, at the moment.
I'd be lost without it, myself, I learn better if I see it in writing. And if my hearing should ever start to go, I'll still be able to read. If I couldn't read, I wouldn't want to be here! It's that important. And it's more restful to read in Braille, necessary sometimes not to have to hear chatter and someone else's interpretation of the words.
Well actually I have to admit that I withheld my opinions because I had already felt my previous post had become a bit too rambly, but I will voice them now! I think that there is a high likelihood that braille literacy is going to drastically decrease in the next ten-twenty years, because of these new tablets and their new unprecedented levels of accessibility. Yes, tablets and phones are definitely at an unprecedented level of accessibility. If you don't believe that, then you're a fool. After all, if someone told you ten years ago, yes, just ten years ago that there would be a fully accessible tablet or phone with a touchscreen that even blind people will be able to use without any physical keyboard, that poor person would get laughed at by everyone. Now, if someone manages to come up with braille displays in the next few years that cost hundreds of dollars instead of thousands, I will say that not all hope will be lost for braille.
I firmly believe that for the most part, braille is critical to a blind person's success. It is, as the previous poster said for instance, the only possibly good and reliable method that someone can use to learn math. Furthermore, I've said on a previous post, whether it was on this topic or another topic similar to it that I personally, retain information much better when I read braille, myself. It will also teach you to become a better speller (yes, even grade 2 braille). After all, with grade 2 braille, you still have to know what each specific contraction is used for. Before, people could argue that there were cons with braille, because of how bulky braille books used to be. Guess what though? Braille displays have been invented to counteract this very thing! Yes they're a bit expensive as I said earlier, but I still have hope.
There are definitely times when audio is good, to be sure. I don't mind saying that as I'm about to go to sleep, I usually put a book on from bard, and set the sleep timer to about 15-30 minutes depending on how tired I feel on that particular night. Heck, I know even a few sighted people who do something similar, though obviously not with bard books. Sometimes when I'm exercising and not in the mood for music, I also put on a nice audio book to listen to.
So, everything ultimately has its place in the end. I think that braille is being given a bad rep by the new generation as well as some people from the older generations who all seem to prefer using tablets, phones and talking computers (yes you knew computers would come in here eventually), but hopefully that will change over time when there are cheaper alternatives to reading braille that aren't as bulky as the huge braille books that we all use to read.
I would say that in the next 10 years or so, there will be Braille displays that cost less money. While the projects that are currently being tested out are really nothing more than rough betas, if that, I have faith that somewhere down the line, Braille displays will become less cost prohibitive.
Here is another example, where I work in call center its possible to do the job with out a braille display. however, when using a display your able to see punctuation markers not read out by your scfreen readers. Water marks, slashes together before a word and spacing. Also, when reading a phone number to a customer I have noticed this "hello customer, ... customer I need a phone number." "Okay, so the phone number is... 9...1... um...9, 423....23 um... 43." I think, so, "CS rep has screenreader reback via character" and say ya "that is it.." Do you know how dumb you really sound!, seriously.
I agree that blind people suffer more due to not reading braille then a sighted person.
You have to read the words on a computer or tablet, but not if you are blind.
I still read and enjoy braille over listening to an audio book, and even in bed, I can read my book just fine until it is reading me.
I do audio some, but I just enjoy braille.
Not only do I see it, but I can do other things while I read, like listen to music, or other things.
It is nice to leave Jaws chatter behind after a few hours, sit in the park, or outside on a nice day and read but listen to the sounds of whatever.
Blind people really should be taught braille period.
Even grade two is good.
Even if displays come down in price, it is just easier to listen, so I believe we as a group will still suffer if not made learn braille.
As to computers, even as a blind person, I could do without, but having one makes my life that much easier, and accessible.
I don’t think this issue is the person is older, because I know some young people that don’t have them.
They can’t afford them, nor the internet service due to varying reasons.
Some simply haven’t learned to use one.
Leo, she's old enough to be your wife, so helping her with her home work...
Just had too.
Smile.
Well, I think that unless braille can keep up with the times, it'll definitely
become less necessary. With the Mac's spell checker everywhere in the system,
I don't really have to know how to spell the big words I use, lol. But I do think
kids should learn braille, and people who learn other languages may find it
necessary too.