17 ms·

Why I am not going to buy a computer (1987) [pdf]

169 points by johntfella 4y ago

goatsneez 4y ago
I liked the read despite its predictable, unoriginal, oft-repeated decry of technology with respect to its (perceived) environmental burden. There are several replies by Berry's contemporaries which vocalize their disagreement with his position and his justification. With the distance in time to this piece, I think the point to add to the discussion is that a key implicit assumption of Berry (and in fact even to his opponents) is false. The assumption that the default mode of civilization is prosperity for all. Same mistake we make till today on all levels of politics and education. Poverty is the natural state of "cosmos", and perhaps an equivalent of physical entropy concept. In a closed system a dis-order increases until we are all equally poor (there is NO natural/social law/system in the cosmos where would guarantee all of us equally rich/valuable by default). At the same time full and complete poverty for all can never be reached because (some) life-agents itself will try to utilize energy within (social/environmental) system to create pockets of prosperity, naturally syphoning out energy from the rest of the system. I do not want to imply a political of economic system within a conceptual paragraph -- that would be overextending the idea. The point is in my view that Berry does not ask the right question, or assumes the wrong default.
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > The assumption that the default mode of civilization is prosperity for all. First off, I'm not sure where you're getting that from reading this article, but maybe I'm missing something. Secondly, Berry is a Christian so of course he believes that there can be enough for all - this is (at least used to be) a central tenet of Christianity. Christ said: "25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? 28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these." Berry is coming from the worldview that God created a world of great abundance and that if we share, there is enough for all.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > Berry is coming from the worldview that God created a world of great abundance and that if we share, there is enough for all. Sure, but he/they are simply wrong about that. The natural state of living systems is to propagate until they reach a natural limit imposed by some resource constraint or other. Our current technological civilization is an anomaly produced by the sudden release, over a period of a few hundred years, of solar energy stored over a few hundred million years, with a concomitant rise in CO2 levels and global temperatures. That party cannot be expected to last much longer, computers or no computers.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      Alternatively, the anomaly is no anomaly at all. Its origins were fortuitous, but rather than a reversion to the baseline of misery it was an unlocking of a new normal though a series of irreversible (or very unlikely reversible) inventions, much like agriculture was. We used one source of energy to power our leap forward, we'll use a different one to sustain a baseline of plenty, or maybe unlock a new level soon. I see no reason whatsoever why this is less likely than the doom and gloom currently so in vogue.
      - lisper 4y ago
        Well, I hope you're right. But I'm not sanguine about civilization's prospects for surviving >2C temp increase, which seems to be where we're headed.
    - UncleOxidant 4y ago
      Berry has written extensively about environmental degradation. Notice the caveat above: "if we share". Human greed is the fly in the ointment. Again, he's written extensively on the impact of human greed on the environment. It's not inconsistent to think that there is enough for all and also to think that when we try to grab too much of that stuff for ourselves (more than what we need) that that mutual enough-ness (I hesitate to use the word "prosperity" here because it's accreted a lot of baggage in our hyper-capitalistic modern world) is threatened.
jimhi 4y ago
Holy cow - this guy still does not own a computer. From: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/going-home-with-wendell-berry https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/g... "Berry, who is now eighty-four, does not own a computer or a cell phone, and his landline is not connected to an answering machine. We corresponded by mail for a year"
- kurthr 4y ago
  Well, at least only the truly old school Nigerian snail mail scams will get to him! Seriously, if you have parents going into their 70s and 80s you need to really start limiting exposure to scams or the ability to send them money. Otherwise, you won't know until it's too late, their bank account is empty, and their CC are maxed out on cash advances. Also, immediately contact the IRS and Social Security, because they've probably redirected returns and payments to their accounts.
  - spennant 4y ago
    My dad is in his 80’s and has all the tech. (computer, iPad, iPhone, etc…) Thing is, he doesn’t believe anything (true or false) from his devices. He just thinks that everything he reads is from someone trying to sell him something and/or part him with his money. I’m not sure if he’s wrong.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      There are two types of offers that are made to me: Scams, and bad deals. If a good or service was worthwhile, it wouldn't need to try to get my attention.
      - q-big 4y ago
        > If a good or service was worthwhile, it wouldn't need to try to get my attention. This might hold under the assumption that you invest nearly all of your free time informing yourself about possibly interesting offers. But this is clearly not the case.
phendrenad2 4y ago
I don't own a computer. I have a pocket tablet that shows me the newspaper (and makes phonecalls). I have a screen on my desk that plays old Nintendo games. I have a typewriter which I use to write computer code. But I have no interest in owning a computer.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  What is the reason for writing the code?
- dbtc 4y ago
  your pocket tablet is a computer
  - julianz 4y ago
    Whoosh.
- akho 4y ago
  How do you compute things
dang 4y ago
Related: Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer (1988) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598811 - Jan 2021 (3 comments) Wendell Berry: Why I am Not going to buy a computer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108463 - Jan 2011 (11 comments)
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. This was written in the late 80s, but I'd guess they're still using that typewriter over 60 years after it's purchase. Not saying I completely agree with his whole essay, but there's not a lot of computing equipment still in use (or considered usable) from that era. > But the cost would not be just mone- tary. It is well understood that technological innovation always requires the discarding of the "old model" He's not wrong. Just try to go dig up an old laptop from ~20 years ago that you might have laying around somewhere. Yes, it might work (after you replace the battery), but can you transfer files to/from it now if it didn't have USB ports then? Or if it didn't have the current USB port that all your current devices use? Floppies were ubiquitous in the 90s, but try reading one now - it's not impossible, but you'll probably have to find some service to help you do that since it's not likely that you've had a floppy drive for close to 20 years. As an example, I'd like to get an e-reader that would be usable in 20+ years. But that doesn't seem likely. The batteries aren't easy to change in most of these devices anymore and they'll likely fail long before that. Many of them use android and when support for your device is over... you could probably use it for a while, but eventually it's going to be difficult. All that to say that Mr. Berry's choice doesn't seem all that crazy to me.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  Most eReaders use Linux. Kobo still provides software updates for models reaching all the way back to 2011. For something like an English novel Epub 3 is backwards compatible enough that it'll still work fine enough even on something like a Sony PRS-505 that only does Epub 2. And there's loads of tools like Calibre to back convert files if need be. Really the battery is the only problem but some models do still have 3rd party replacements available.
  - stanski 4y ago
    "All the way back to 2011" made me chuckle. Practically ancient times!
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
sudobash1 4y ago
Tangentially related, Wendell Berry's short stories & novels are an excellent read. They all take place in the same fictional small town and are remarkably consistent with one another in terms of timeline, genealogy, and geography. I would highly recommend them.
- RaoulP 4y ago
  Thanks, I didn’t realise he was a writer. That does provide some context.
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Remarkably consistent huh? I wonder whether the process has much to do with that: "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" Seems like an old school "behind every great man" thing.
  - themadturk 4y ago
    It helps to realize that Berry's whole outlook on life was wedded to the idea that the best life is one anchored around one's home -- hence his ideas that good technology is purchased close to home, and repaired close to home, and that one's first best editor is found at home. Most published writers, especially those published before the golden age of self-publishing, worked with editors, and his wife was (and probably still is) that editor. It's not as if he doesn't give her credit for her part in his literary work. (Plus, men of his era didn't usually learn to type unless they had reason or inclination to.)
    - _carbyau_ 4y ago
      It is absolutely a situation born of it's time. Financially no doubt she was covered. Should worse come to worst, by the 1980's divorce could net her significant financial worth of the partnership. But social credit for her achievements were rather small. It is one thing to have an editor, but quite another for the editor to be wedded to the job for just one writer. Every story/book bore his name, no matter that he happily credits her work in his personal missives. And so social standards changing in this regard is for the better. But it's not like I think he is a monster - he is a product of his day as much as we are of ours.
geocrasher 4y ago
The original Computer Vegan, complaining about the coal used to power a computer while at the same time using a typewriter that is made of steel that had to be fired and forged probably using coal. I'm not saying he's wrong, but unless he mines his own metal and has a solar powered forge, he's fooling himself.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  I don't know. If we're just looking at it on the basis of how many natural resources it cost to build the thing, you may have a point (although, computer chip manufacturing is a notoriously dirty business -- look what it did to the orchards of Silicon Valley). But, consider what it would take to run the thing. Unless you power your computers by solar energy or somehow have a nuclear reactor in your back yard, you're probably expending non-renewable energy to power it. The typewriter, being made in 1956, is almost certainly a manual model and only uses ribbon and paper to keep it going. I daresay the typewriter has a lower lifetime environmental impact than any computer.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > although, computer chip manufacturing is a notoriously dirty business -- look what it did to the orchards of Silicon Valley If I wanted Silicon Valley to have good air and soil quality, I would simply not have built suburbs and auto infrastructure on top of all of it. The idea that single family homes aren’t pollution and industry is comes from 70s boomer environmentalism, which is part “if I don’t see it, it’s not happening”, part pastoralist NIMBY (because you just read Cities as Growth Engines), and part explicitly trying to stop people from having children (because you just read The Population Bomb). I would’ve said the modern examples are Marin County NIMBYs and MCU’s Thanos. But it seems like the guy in the article is an even more orthodox example. Note that the Bay Area’s residential only zoning may be commonly thought to keep away dirty industry, but since it was invented here in Berkeley you can just look up what the inventors thought they were doing, and they just wanted to keep out Chinese people. “Residential zoning” meant “no home businesses” and by that they meant “Chinese laundries” with a side of “immigrant corner shops”. It wasn’t about factories.
- 4y ago
sydthrowaway 4y ago
We should not celebrate this luddite.
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Essay: Thomas Pynchon, "Is It O.K. To Be A Luddite?" — https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...
- jjj123 4y ago
  Why not?
julienb_sea 4y ago
I'm amused at the mix of condescension and vehement beliefs contained in this essay. There is some irony as his beloved typewriter is a consumer-good technological invention which happens to be his "established" tool. There are legitimate critiques in the piece, especially around repairability, supporting the local community. Blanket disregarding the reality of technological advancement and the prosperity it can bring is an ideologically extreme position. Billions of people can grow far beyond their circumstances of birth with access to inexpensive cellphones. We can be thankful that consumers and technologists pressed onwards with their efforts despite the dramatic moral take presented by the author.
uncomputation 4y ago
> 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 can’t speak to writing, which I actually do find much easier on a computer since I can backspace, rearrange, spell-check, but there is certainly truth to reading. I find reading to “stick” longer in my brain when off of hard paper than a screen, most likely something to do with the physical location of the words.
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  Although he probably didn't mean this, it's worth stating that if you have any kind of disability with your hands the only way you might be able to put pen to parchment proverbially speaking is through voice dictation, so his entire premise is invalid.
karaterobot 4y ago
None of his points in this piece are wrong, including the one about him not buying a computer. They may be arguable, in fact may be highly debatable, but they're at least positions a reasonable person could have, even if other reasonable people disagree. Indeed, reasonable people can hold a variety of differing opinions, and understanding the ones you disagree with is a really satisfying activity. Good for him, not buying that computer.
- RaoulP 4y ago
  Well said!
iRomain 4y ago
I laughed so hard at Gordon Inkeles' response. Wendell Berry: 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. Gordon Inkeles: Wendell Berry provides writers enslaved by the computer with a handy alternative: Wife - a low-tech energy-saving device. Drop a pile of handwritten notes on Wife and you get back a finished manuscript, edited while it was typed. What computer can do that? Wife meets all of Berry's uncompromising standards for techno- logical innovation: she's cheap, repairable near home, and good for the family structure. Best of all, Wife is politically correct because she breaks a writer's "direct dependence on strip-mined coal." History teaches us that Wife can also be used to beat rugs and wash clothes by hand, thus eliminating the need for the vacuum cleaner and washing machine, two more nasty machines that threaten the act of writing.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Wife is also partially self replicating and somewhat field repairable in austere conditions too. A level of technology unlikely to be achieved by computers anytime soon.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    - calvinmorrison 4y ago
      Highly recommend using good lube, totally changed my approach to keeping noisy barrels quiet. Graphite works well.
- Jun8 4y ago
  Sometimes it does come in handy, case in point, Sophia Tolstaya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Tolstaya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Tolstaya): “ Sophia acted as copyist of War and Peace, copying and editing the manuscript seven times from beginning to end at home at night by candlelight after the children and servants had gone to bed, using an inkwell pen and sometimes requiring a magnifying glass to read her husband's notes.” Stop and think about that: WaP in Russian is 1225 pages. Seven times!
quickthrower2 4y ago
He is kind of like the original RMS, as he talks about repairability and things being made for the user (like really for the user, not kinda for the user, kinda for the corporation).
DanCarvajal 4y ago
Wendell Barry is not for everyone, I have only read a few of his essays but I’ve read most of his Port Williams series which I think everyone should at least read a book from. I grew up pretty rural and there’s no better series is my mind that captures the complicated feelings of loss and nostalgia for a type of living that’s long gone, but also may never have existed as we remember.
siraben 4y ago
One reply seems quite prescient for its time, clashing against the attitude of the original author. We should support alternatives both to coal- generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. But I am reluctant to entertain alternatives that presuppose the traditional subservience of one class to another. Let the PCs come and the wives and servants go seek more meaningful work. -- Toby Koosman, Knoxville, TN
- leetrout 4y ago
  I looked her up. She worked with the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis recently. I wonder what she was doing back then... :D
- cataphract 4y ago
  That's an uncharitable reading of the essay. So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them? Sure, relying on the wife is not an option, or not a desirable option, for most writers. But the article is named "Why I am not going to buy a computer". His wife helps him and reducing his dependence on "strip-mined coal" eases his conscience. Good for him, though I don't think that the article has a lot of relevance for the rest of the world.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them? I don't know the distinction you're making here. Help and service are the same thing. The point is that it's easy and not notable to eschew computers if you have servants. There's no closer analog to "Let them eat cake!"
    - JasonFruit 4y ago
      I can serve someone while being neither a servant nor subservient.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > We should support alternatives both to coal- generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. So he's saying that workers in the coal industry should just learn to code? That's certainly a prescient attitude.
pddpro 4y ago
People decry the energy wastage brought about by the Crypto Mining, rampant invasion of privacy & trust by mega corporations, ubiquitous presence of misinformation and vitriol in social media, mismanagement of e-waste, global climate change and the impending doom upon the entire human civilization, and a thousand things more, and yet find this article condescending. This is not to say that I agree entirely with it either but, I find myself empathizing with the author at some level. If nothing more, it's a fun mental exercise to imagine what life today would be like had there been no personal computing.
- totetsu 4y ago
  Our understanding of climate through global climate modelling would be nowhere without computing also.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pddpro 4y ago
    True, but notice how I said personal computing and not computing in general. There's no denying that much of the scientific advances today would be impossible without computers in research facilities and/or universities.
pmoriarty 4y ago
Also see this Ted Nelson interview from 1979: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI
npalli 4y ago
To be fair, if you are a writer it might be better to work primarily with paper and pen as it allows quite a bit of flexibility in how you organize/edit the text while keeping everything in front of you. Having done the paper/pen work, final editing, spell check etc. can be done on a computer which would be far superior to a typewriter at this point.
jklm 4y ago
His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech. And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise. --- What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar. Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments rehashed in different ways. E.g. EVs hurt nature because of battery disposal issues, crypto uses a ton of energy for a slower database. Food for thought: are we really all that different from Wendell in 2022?
- mattwilsonn888 4y ago
  I believe, assuming it exists, the flaw in this style of thinking is the unwillingness to hop on or believe in something new, when its marginal utility is still questionable. Of course, for many reasons, being early on what will become better enough to be an established part of society has advantages.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Is there anybody claiming that cryptocoins destroy jobs? Because that is the one most desirable quality in tech, and you are mixing with undesirable platitudes like if they are the same.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Those arguments are directed at all tech that is bad, not just your pet technologies. They encompass all possible flaws of a thing. 1. It has negative externalities. 2. It's too expensive. 3. It's not an improvement/doesn't work. The fascinating thing is that people see these criticisms and it counterintuitively bolsters their confidence that their tech is special, because things that turned out to be special were also criticized. 1) The number of crap things or even actively destructive things that have been criticized on these same not-so-narrow grounds are far more than the number of things that turned out to be good that got criticized. Why? Because there are far fewer good ideas than bad ones, and the bad ones get criticized more (at least on average.) 2) Not only are the listed three the only ways to criticize things, but everything is going to be criticized eventually. So, the mere presence of criticism can't be evidence of anything because everything gets criticized.
schoen 4y ago
Nathaniel Borenstein, one of the people who wrote a letter in response, co-invented MIME! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein
joerter12 4y ago
“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.” Damn.
Ruq 4y ago
I really like when he points out his own Standards for Technological Innovation. They are very good points regardless of the current age. Particularly to me, are the points of repairability, and interfering with real-world relationships. There are few exceptions to the rule where most systems today cannot be self-repaired, much less taken to a local shop and repaired with off-the-shelf parts (thankfully this is slowly changing for the better.) In terms of relationships, it would seem to be a mixed bag. In some respects you can communicate across vast distances without a second thought. In others it would seem we are headed to our own doom due to toxicity, disconnect and disassociation from those around us, etc.
MrYellowP 4y ago
Actually Wife is far more energy/work intensive than a computer. She requires constant maintenance, she has plenty of alarm bells that can't be turned off at all, her speaker constantly makes noise that can't be turned off either, costs way more to keep and, on top of all of that, has way more downtime.
- goldorak 4y ago
  > she has plenty of alarm bells that can't be turned off at all, her speaker constantly makes noise that can't be turned off either. Well.. you can but only once, but it's immoral/illegal.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Berry's nine standards for technology are worth considering: 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. I'm not sure even his own tool choices (typewriter and wife) meet the criteria. The typewriter replaced the quill pen, and at least initially failed conitions 1, 4, 8, and 9. There might also be other factors for consideration. I'm not prone to jump on the latest technologies, but do own several computers (and a typewriter). Net effectiveness, suitability to task, expansion of possibilities, and other factors are amongst those I'd consider. Many of Berry's concerns would seem to me to come from the realm of unintended consequences, and might be better considered in that light. His is a useful meditation, whether or not you adopt its conclusions.
- ajuc 4y ago
  I can't think of 1 invention in history that fullfil all of these.
  - andi999 4y ago
    if a new soap bar is cheaper and smaller, I think it fullfils all criteria. (if it adds sawdust which increases the functionality)
- DoctorNick 4y ago
  Referring to his wife as a tool… I have to wonder if that marriage lasted
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
coldtea 4y ago
How right was he... If he indeed didn't buy one, he was spared 30+ years of technology catchup, crappy updates, encroaching on everyday life, privacy issues, and more...
fedeb95 4y ago
I like this kind of discussions and as members of society it's hard to reason on things that are widely accepted. If one shares his point of view but doesn't want to give up his personal computer, one way may be to buy an used computer or repair one if possible. You'd still use energy, but at least won't support the making of new electronics which is a waste too
bencollier49 4y ago
> It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships. The man was bang on (for example, with reference to the discussion of intimate relationships posted here today).

169 points by johntfella 4y ago

I liked the read despite its predictable, unoriginal, oft-repeated decry of technology with respect to its (perceived) environmental burden. There are several replies by Berry's contemporaries which vocalize their disagreement with his position and his justification. With the distance in time to this piece, I think the point to add to the discussion is that a key implicit assumption of Berry (and in fact even to his opponents) is false. The assumption that the default mode of civilization is prosperity for all. Same mistake we make till today on all levels of politics and education. Poverty is the natural state of "cosmos", and perhaps an equivalent of physical entropy concept. In a closed system a dis-order increases until we are all equally poor (there is NO natural/social law/system in the cosmos where would guarantee all of us equally rich/valuable by default). At the same time full and complete poverty for all can never be reached because (some) life-agents itself will try to utilize energy within (social/environmental) system to create pockets of prosperity, naturally syphoning out energy from the rest of the system. I do not want to imply a political of economic system within a conceptual paragraph -- that would be overextending the idea. The point is in my view that Berry does not ask the right question, or assumes the wrong default.

UncleOxidant 4y ago
> The assumption that the default mode of civilization is prosperity for all. First off, I'm not sure where you're getting that from reading this article, but maybe I'm missing something. Secondly, Berry is a Christian so of course he believes that there can be enough for all - this is (at least used to be) a central tenet of Christianity. Christ said: "25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? 28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these." Berry is coming from the worldview that God created a world of great abundance and that if we share, there is enough for all.
- lisper 4y ago
  > Berry is coming from the worldview that God created a world of great abundance and that if we share, there is enough for all. Sure, but he/they are simply wrong about that. The natural state of living systems is to propagate until they reach a natural limit imposed by some resource constraint or other. Our current technological civilization is an anomaly produced by the sudden release, over a period of a few hundred years, of solar energy stored over a few hundred million years, with a concomitant rise in CO2 levels and global temperatures. That party cannot be expected to last much longer, computers or no computers.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Alternatively, the anomaly is no anomaly at all. Its origins were fortuitous, but rather than a reversion to the baseline of misery it was an unlocking of a new normal though a series of irreversible (or very unlikely reversible) inventions, much like agriculture was. We used one source of energy to power our leap forward, we'll use a different one to sustain a baseline of plenty, or maybe unlock a new level soon. I see no reason whatsoever why this is less likely than the doom and gloom currently so in vogue.
    - lisper 4y ago
      Well, I hope you're right. But I'm not sanguine about civilization's prospects for surviving >2C temp increase, which seems to be where we're headed.
  - UncleOxidant 4y ago
    Berry has written extensively about environmental degradation. Notice the caveat above: "if we share". Human greed is the fly in the ointment. Again, he's written extensively on the impact of human greed on the environment. It's not inconsistent to think that there is enough for all and also to think that when we try to grab too much of that stuff for ourselves (more than what we need) that that mutual enough-ness (I hesitate to use the word "prosperity" here because it's accreted a lot of baggage in our hyper-capitalistic modern world) is threatened.

jimhi 4y ago

Holy cow - this guy still does not own a computer. From: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/going-home-with-wendell-berry https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/g... "Berry, who is now eighty-four, does not own a computer or a cell phone, and his landline is not connected to an answering machine. We corresponded by mail for a year"

kurthr 4y ago
Well, at least only the truly old school Nigerian snail mail scams will get to him! Seriously, if you have parents going into their 70s and 80s you need to really start limiting exposure to scams or the ability to send them money. Otherwise, you won't know until it's too late, their bank account is empty, and their CC are maxed out on cash advances. Also, immediately contact the IRS and Social Security, because they've probably redirected returns and payments to their accounts.
- spennant 4y ago
  My dad is in his 80’s and has all the tech. (computer, iPad, iPhone, etc…) Thing is, he doesn’t believe anything (true or false) from his devices. He just thinks that everything he reads is from someone trying to sell him something and/or part him with his money. I’m not sure if he’s wrong.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    There are two types of offers that are made to me: Scams, and bad deals. If a good or service was worthwhile, it wouldn't need to try to get my attention.
    - q-big 4y ago
      > If a good or service was worthwhile, it wouldn't need to try to get my attention. This might hold under the assumption that you invest nearly all of your free time informing yourself about possibly interesting offers. But this is clearly not the case.

phendrenad2 4y ago

I don't own a computer. I have a pocket tablet that shows me the newspaper (and makes phonecalls). I have a screen on my desk that plays old Nintendo games. I have a typewriter which I use to write computer code. But I have no interest in owning a computer.

quickthrower2 4y ago
What is the reason for writing the code?
dbtc 4y ago
your pocket tablet is a computer
- julianz 4y ago
  Whoosh.
akho 4y ago
How do you compute things

dang 4y ago

Related: Why I Am Not Going to Buy a Computer (1988) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598811 - Jan 2021 (3 comments) Wendell Berry: Why I am Not going to buy a computer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2108463 - Jan 2011 (11 comments)

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> My wife types my work on a Royal standard typewriter bought new in 1956 and as good now as it was then. This was written in the late 80s, but I'd guess they're still using that typewriter over 60 years after it's purchase. Not saying I completely agree with his whole essay, but there's not a lot of computing equipment still in use (or considered usable) from that era. > But the cost would not be just mone- tary. It is well understood that technological innovation always requires the discarding of the "old model" He's not wrong. Just try to go dig up an old laptop from ~20 years ago that you might have laying around somewhere. Yes, it might work (after you replace the battery), but can you transfer files to/from it now if it didn't have USB ports then? Or if it didn't have the current USB port that all your current devices use? Floppies were ubiquitous in the 90s, but try reading one now - it's not impossible, but you'll probably have to find some service to help you do that since it's not likely that you've had a floppy drive for close to 20 years. As an example, I'd like to get an e-reader that would be usable in 20+ years. But that doesn't seem likely. The batteries aren't easy to change in most of these devices anymore and they'll likely fail long before that. Many of them use android and when support for your device is over... you could probably use it for a while, but eventually it's going to be difficult. All that to say that Mr. Berry's choice doesn't seem all that crazy to me.

goosedragons 4y ago
Most eReaders use Linux. Kobo still provides software updates for models reaching all the way back to 2011. For something like an English novel Epub 3 is backwards compatible enough that it'll still work fine enough even on something like a Sony PRS-505 that only does Epub 2. And there's loads of tools like Calibre to back convert files if need be. Really the battery is the only problem but some models do still have 3rd party replacements available.
- stanski 4y ago
  "All the way back to 2011" made me chuckle. Practically ancient times!
  - dredmorbius 4y ago

sudobash1 4y ago

Tangentially related, Wendell Berry's short stories & novels are an excellent read. They all take place in the same fictional small town and are remarkably consistent with one another in terms of timeline, genealogy, and geography. I would highly recommend them.

RaoulP 4y ago
Thanks, I didn’t realise he was a writer. That does provide some context.
_carbyau_ 4y ago
Remarkably consistent huh? I wonder whether the process has much to do with that: "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" Seems like an old school "behind every great man" thing.
- themadturk 4y ago
  It helps to realize that Berry's whole outlook on life was wedded to the idea that the best life is one anchored around one's home -- hence his ideas that good technology is purchased close to home, and repaired close to home, and that one's first best editor is found at home. Most published writers, especially those published before the golden age of self-publishing, worked with editors, and his wife was (and probably still is) that editor. It's not as if he doesn't give her credit for her part in his literary work. (Plus, men of his era didn't usually learn to type unless they had reason or inclination to.)
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    It is absolutely a situation born of it's time. Financially no doubt she was covered. Should worse come to worst, by the 1980's divorce could net her significant financial worth of the partnership. But social credit for her achievements were rather small. It is one thing to have an editor, but quite another for the editor to be wedded to the job for just one writer. Every story/book bore his name, no matter that he happily credits her work in his personal missives. And so social standards changing in this regard is for the better. But it's not like I think he is a monster - he is a product of his day as much as we are of ours.

geocrasher 4y ago

The original Computer Vegan, complaining about the coal used to power a computer while at the same time using a typewriter that is made of steel that had to be fired and forged probably using coal. I'm not saying he's wrong, but unless he mines his own metal and has a solar powered forge, he's fooling himself.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
I don't know. If we're just looking at it on the basis of how many natural resources it cost to build the thing, you may have a point (although, computer chip manufacturing is a notoriously dirty business -- look what it did to the orchards of Silicon Valley). But, consider what it would take to run the thing. Unless you power your computers by solar energy or somehow have a nuclear reactor in your back yard, you're probably expending non-renewable energy to power it. The typewriter, being made in 1956, is almost certainly a manual model and only uses ribbon and paper to keep it going. I daresay the typewriter has a lower lifetime environmental impact than any computer.
- astrange 4y ago
  > although, computer chip manufacturing is a notoriously dirty business -- look what it did to the orchards of Silicon Valley If I wanted Silicon Valley to have good air and soil quality, I would simply not have built suburbs and auto infrastructure on top of all of it. The idea that single family homes aren’t pollution and industry is comes from 70s boomer environmentalism, which is part “if I don’t see it, it’s not happening”, part pastoralist NIMBY (because you just read Cities as Growth Engines), and part explicitly trying to stop people from having children (because you just read The Population Bomb). I would’ve said the modern examples are Marin County NIMBYs and MCU’s Thanos. But it seems like the guy in the article is an even more orthodox example. Note that the Bay Area’s residential only zoning may be commonly thought to keep away dirty industry, but since it was invented here in Berkeley you can just look up what the inventors thought they were doing, and they just wanted to keep out Chinese people. “Residential zoning” meant “no home businesses” and by that they meant “Chinese laundries” with a side of “immigrant corner shops”. It wasn’t about factories.
4y ago

sydthrowaway 4y ago

We should not celebrate this luddite.

flenserboy 4y ago
Essay: Thomas Pynchon, "Is It O.K. To Be A Luddite?" — https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/r...
jjj123 4y ago
Why not?

julienb_sea 4y ago

I'm amused at the mix of condescension and vehement beliefs contained in this essay. There is some irony as his beloved typewriter is a consumer-good technological invention which happens to be his "established" tool. There are legitimate critiques in the piece, especially around repairability, supporting the local community. Blanket disregarding the reality of technological advancement and the prosperity it can bring is an ideologically extreme position. Billions of people can grow far beyond their circumstances of birth with access to inexpensive cellphones. We can be thankful that consumers and technologists pressed onwards with their efforts despite the dramatic moral take presented by the author.

uncomputation 4y ago

> 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 can’t speak to writing, which I actually do find much easier on a computer since I can backspace, rearrange, spell-check, but there is certainly truth to reading. I find reading to “stick” longer in my brain when off of hard paper than a screen, most likely something to do with the physical location of the words.

throwaway675309 4y ago
Although he probably didn't mean this, it's worth stating that if you have any kind of disability with your hands the only way you might be able to put pen to parchment proverbially speaking is through voice dictation, so his entire premise is invalid.

karaterobot 4y ago

None of his points in this piece are wrong, including the one about him not buying a computer. They may be arguable, in fact may be highly debatable, but they're at least positions a reasonable person could have, even if other reasonable people disagree. Indeed, reasonable people can hold a variety of differing opinions, and understanding the ones you disagree with is a really satisfying activity. Good for him, not buying that computer.

RaoulP 4y ago
Well said!

iRomain 4y ago

I laughed so hard at Gordon Inkeles' response. Wendell Berry: 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. Gordon Inkeles: Wendell Berry provides writers enslaved by the computer with a handy alternative: Wife - a low-tech energy-saving device. Drop a pile of handwritten notes on Wife and you get back a finished manuscript, edited while it was typed. What computer can do that? Wife meets all of Berry's uncompromising standards for techno- logical innovation: she's cheap, repairable near home, and good for the family structure. Best of all, Wife is politically correct because she breaks a writer's "direct dependence on strip-mined coal." History teaches us that Wife can also be used to beat rugs and wash clothes by hand, thus eliminating the need for the vacuum cleaner and washing machine, two more nasty machines that threaten the act of writing.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
Wife is also partially self replicating and somewhat field repairable in austere conditions too. A level of technology unlikely to be achieved by computers anytime soon.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Highly recommend using good lube, totally changed my approach to keeping noisy barrels quiet. Graphite works well.
Jun8 4y ago
Sometimes it does come in handy, case in point, Sophia Tolstaya (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Tolstaya https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Tolstaya): “ Sophia acted as copyist of War and Peace, copying and editing the manuscript seven times from beginning to end at home at night by candlelight after the children and servants had gone to bed, using an inkwell pen and sometimes requiring a magnifying glass to read her husband's notes.” Stop and think about that: WaP in Russian is 1225 pages. Seven times!

quickthrower2 4y ago

He is kind of like the original RMS, as he talks about repairability and things being made for the user (like really for the user, not kinda for the user, kinda for the corporation).

DanCarvajal 4y ago

Wendell Barry is not for everyone, I have only read a few of his essays but I’ve read most of his Port Williams series which I think everyone should at least read a book from. I grew up pretty rural and there’s no better series is my mind that captures the complicated feelings of loss and nostalgia for a type of living that’s long gone, but also may never have existed as we remember.

siraben 4y ago

One reply seems quite prescient for its time, clashing against the attitude of the original author. We should support alternatives both to coal- generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. But I am reluctant to entertain alternatives that presuppose the traditional subservience of one class to another. Let the PCs come and the wives and servants go seek more meaningful work. -- Toby Koosman, Knoxville, TN

leetrout 4y ago
I looked her up. She worked with the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis recently. I wonder what she was doing back then... :D
cataphract 4y ago
That's an uncharitable reading of the essay. So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them? Sure, relying on the wife is not an option, or not a desirable option, for most writers. But the article is named "Why I am not going to buy a computer". His wife helps him and reducing his dependence on "strip-mined coal" eases his conscience. Good for him, though I don't think that the article has a lot of relevance for the rest of the world.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > So if we help our spouses that makes us subservient to them? I don't know the distinction you're making here. Help and service are the same thing. The point is that it's easy and not notable to eschew computers if you have servants. There's no closer analog to "Let them eat cake!"
  - JasonFruit 4y ago
    I can serve someone while being neither a servant nor subservient.
zozbot234 4y ago
> We should support alternatives both to coal- generated electricity and to IBM-style technocracy. So he's saying that workers in the coal industry should just learn to code? That's certainly a prescient attitude.

pddpro 4y ago

People decry the energy wastage brought about by the Crypto Mining, rampant invasion of privacy & trust by mega corporations, ubiquitous presence of misinformation and vitriol in social media, mismanagement of e-waste, global climate change and the impending doom upon the entire human civilization, and a thousand things more, and yet find this article condescending. This is not to say that I agree entirely with it either but, I find myself empathizing with the author at some level. If nothing more, it's a fun mental exercise to imagine what life today would be like had there been no personal computing.

totetsu 4y ago
Our understanding of climate through global climate modelling would be nowhere without computing also.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pddpro 4y ago
  True, but notice how I said personal computing and not computing in general. There's no denying that much of the scientific advances today would be impossible without computers in research facilities and/or universities.

pmoriarty 4y ago

Also see this Ted Nelson interview from 1979: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI

npalli 4y ago

To be fair, if you are a writer it might be better to work primarily with paper and pen as it allows quite a bit of flexibility in how you organize/edit the text while keeping everything in front of you. Having done the paper/pen work, final editing, spell check etc. can be done on a computer which would be far superior to a typewriter at this point.

jklm 4y ago

His arguments are, paraphrased: 1. It hurts nature. 2. It's too expensive and destroys existing jobs. 3. It's unlikely that it's better than the current tech. And that he won't fall for the "propaganda campaign" that says otherwise. --- What I find super fascinating here is that the arguments back then and now are...extremely similar. Look at any cutting-edge tech - EVs, crypto, etc. - and you find the same arguments rehashed in different ways. E.g. EVs hurt nature because of battery disposal issues, crypto uses a ton of energy for a slower database. Food for thought: are we really all that different from Wendell in 2022?

mattwilsonn888 4y ago
I believe, assuming it exists, the flaw in this style of thinking is the unwillingness to hop on or believe in something new, when its marginal utility is still questionable. Of course, for many reasons, being early on what will become better enough to be an established part of society has advantages.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Is there anybody claiming that cryptocoins destroy jobs? Because that is the one most desirable quality in tech, and you are mixing with undesirable platitudes like if they are the same.
pessimizer 4y ago
Those arguments are directed at all tech that is bad, not just your pet technologies. They encompass all possible flaws of a thing. 1. It has negative externalities. 2. It's too expensive. 3. It's not an improvement/doesn't work. The fascinating thing is that people see these criticisms and it counterintuitively bolsters their confidence that their tech is special, because things that turned out to be special were also criticized. 1) The number of crap things or even actively destructive things that have been criticized on these same not-so-narrow grounds are far more than the number of things that turned out to be good that got criticized. Why? Because there are far fewer good ideas than bad ones, and the bad ones get criticized more (at least on average.) 2) Not only are the listed three the only ways to criticize things, but everything is going to be criticized eventually. So, the mere presence of criticism can't be evidence of anything because everything gets criticized.

schoen 4y ago

Nathaniel Borenstein, one of the people who wrote a letter in response, co-invented MIME! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Borenstein

joerter12 4y ago

“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.” Damn.

Ruq 4y ago

I really like when he points out his own Standards for Technological Innovation. They are very good points regardless of the current age. Particularly to me, are the points of repairability, and interfering with real-world relationships. There are few exceptions to the rule where most systems today cannot be self-repaired, much less taken to a local shop and repaired with off-the-shelf parts (thankfully this is slowly changing for the better.) In terms of relationships, it would seem to be a mixed bag. In some respects you can communicate across vast distances without a second thought. In others it would seem we are headed to our own doom due to toxicity, disconnect and disassociation from those around us, etc.

MrYellowP 4y ago

Actually Wife is far more energy/work intensive than a computer. She requires constant maintenance, she has plenty of alarm bells that can't be turned off at all, her speaker constantly makes noise that can't be turned off either, costs way more to keep and, on top of all of that, has way more downtime.

goldorak 4y ago
> she has plenty of alarm bells that can't be turned off at all, her speaker constantly makes noise that can't be turned off either. Well.. you can but only once, but it's immoral/illegal.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Berry's nine standards for technology are worth considering: 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. I'm not sure even his own tool choices (typewriter and wife) meet the criteria. The typewriter replaced the quill pen, and at least initially failed conitions 1, 4, 8, and 9. There might also be other factors for consideration. I'm not prone to jump on the latest technologies, but do own several computers (and a typewriter). Net effectiveness, suitability to task, expansion of possibilities, and other factors are amongst those I'd consider. Many of Berry's concerns would seem to me to come from the realm of unintended consequences, and might be better considered in that light. His is a useful meditation, whether or not you adopt its conclusions.

ajuc 4y ago
I can't think of 1 invention in history that fullfil all of these.
- andi999 4y ago
  if a new soap bar is cheaper and smaller, I think it fullfils all criteria. (if it adds sawdust which increases the functionality)
DoctorNick 4y ago
Referring to his wife as a tool… I have to wonder if that marriage lasted
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago

coldtea 4y ago

How right was he... If he indeed didn't buy one, he was spared 30+ years of technology catchup, crappy updates, encroaching on everyday life, privacy issues, and more...

fedeb95 4y ago

I like this kind of discussions and as members of society it's hard to reason on things that are widely accepted. If one shares his point of view but doesn't want to give up his personal computer, one way may be to buy an used computer or repair one if possible. You'd still use energy, but at least won't support the making of new electronics which is a waste too

bencollier49 4y ago

> It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships. The man was bang on (for example, with reference to the discussion of intimate relationships posted here today).