upvote
> It's worth having deep conversations about the impact and value of technology in modern society. It's also hard to take a sermon seriously when it's being preached by a hypocritical curmudgeon.

Yes! Making informed decisions about technology is vital, but when his writings appear to boil down to "technology bad, old things good", well, why bother to even engage when there are better thinkers out there?

reply
You have never heard of him before now, but feel confident in boiling down his large body of writing and laying judgment on the quality of his thought?
reply
Yes, and I have seen nothing in this thread, nor on Wikipedia, to change my mind
reply
>Wendell Berry's writings about technology are harder to tolerate once you learn that he made his wife type up his manuscripts for him to be sent on to publishers.

Why is that? In his essay (that's linked above) him writing with his wife is one of the reasons he explicitly names as to why he didn't use a computer. As he says, it would have not just replaced something, but someone. He valued working his wife, and she in all likelihood did too.

There's no hypocrisy, dependence on other people was why he shunned technology. It's very telling that we now have a generation of people grown up on machines who think having to rely on another person, in other words community, is some offense to what he argued for.

reply
Therein lies the friction, I embrace technology because it reduces my reliance on other people, and I don't value local community over global community (in fact, just the opposite). And I want to end human labor, so you can see why I have profound dislike for his philosophy.
reply
that's a friction between your philosophy and his philosophy, not between his philosophy and his practice. He lived exactly what he preached and so I don't understand in what sense he is a "hypocritical curmudgeon". He didn't doordash his food or hate his neighbors, he spent 60 years of his life on a small homestead farming in Kentucky, as far as I know engaged with his community.
reply
> He lived exactly what he preached

“He lived exactly what he preached” is an empirical claim, not an interpretation. Can you substantiate “exactly”?

reply
[dead]
reply