Highly topical criticism, such as the threat posed by wearable cameras or the revelation du jour from the surveillance apparatus, is difficult to engage because

Highly topical criticism, such as the threat posed by wearable cameras or the revelation du jour from the surveillance apparatus, is difficult to engage because it seems shallow. Many faults seem to be presented like misdemeanors by errant entities given too long a leash, rather than the inevitable consequence of a certain philosophy and lifestyle. It's shallow but easy to engage with, because that kind of criticism is actionable. You can ban Google Glass from your bar, or loudly demand (and perhaps even receive) substantial legislative change on some issues. But when someone tells you that this is something that started in the early 20th century and you must question the principles that have given you such conveniences as microwaves and mobile phones, not only is that criticism not actionable, it's easy to reject as merely theoretical. It's easier to feel in the right when you argue with someone claiming a century of creeping authority and technocracy, than to deny things that are manifestly true, such as the overreach that is supposedly the most recent result of that century. But questioning the equation of progress=technology has been going on for a long time, centuries, even millennia, and you may find yourself convinced if you read Bacon, or Burton, or Plato, who said things long ago that we are still saying today. The preface to the Anatomy of Melancholy is particularly insightful and beautiful despite being some 400 years old, and I recommend it to anyone interested in the idea of what ails "modern society" - it may be the same thing that ailed it in the early 17th century.