Raised right, Living left

In his essay and response, Wendell Barry raises a variety of important questions.  I completely agree that reducing our energy consumption is key to conservation, but like his detractor, James Rhoads, I think that ignoring the product of energy isn’t necessarily the way to change the practices of the energy companies.  Finding alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels is the change that needs to occur, but that’s a different topic all together. 

I also agree with Barry that if computers or any media interferes with something precious, like family, that is not worth the efficiency gained by employing that media.  But, here’s the thing…I was raised in a household where several televisions were owned and were on, and we still sat down at the dinner table as a family every night and talked to each other about our days and laughed.  The television, or computer in this case, did not cause a family rift because my parents turned it off.  This does not seem so out of the ordinary to me.  Perhaps the issue here isn’t one of computers or televisions interferring with the family so much as it is the family not having appropriate boundaries. 

Any time talk of ignoring the technology that is used in the work place and for social networking comes up, I always think of my Dad.  Bless his heart, computers have always confounded my father, and in his role as high school administrator and athletic director, he fought tooth and nail against using e-mail to send notes to his teachers and coaches.  He always preferred to scrawl his notes in his serial killer handwriting on random, raggedly torn pieces of paper and have them hand delivered by student aides.  It was his system, and it had worked for thirty years.  When his newest boss informed him that he had to use e-mail, Daddy was terrified and embarrassed by his lack of technological savvy.  He had my brother write down step-by-step directions for sending and replying to e-mails, and he still called my brother everytime that he sent an e-mail that first month.  Now, he’s a little better.  He still asks my mom to write important e-mails for him, but he has figured out that he can now keep better tabs on me and my brother through e-mail.  Thank God that only my mom knows about Facebook. 

As hard as this transition to technology is for me, the generations before me that are having to make the switch, first out of convenience and now out of necessity, have to be struggling.  As Barry asks, why abandon a system where the old way is still functioning just fine.  I do disagree that the new tool, as Barry refers to computers, does work more efficiently than the old way, but I recognize that pen and paper is still an effective means of communication.  I also think that Barry only discusses the use of computers as a word processing tool, and he doesn’t really take into account the information available through the use of computers that is unequalled by a set of World Books.

Now, to McKibben.  Like the Dove/Axe conudrum from two weeks ago, I find merit in both sides of the argument about the use of Ghandi in a print ad.  I totally agree with McKibben that Ghandi is to be reverred and perhaps the side of a bus or a billboard overlooking a smoggy highway isn’t the best way to accomplish that goal, but Ms. Schulman also makes a good point.  If the Apple ads are bringing attention to people who made a positive impact on society and the world, then I think that’s okay.  Yes, it sucks that the attention is being brought for capital gains, but at least people are talking about Ghandi and Rosa Parks and turning their attention away from the Hills and Paris freaking Hilton for 30 seconds.  Ms. Schulman also brought up the point that the Apple corp. had to gain permission from the estates of these folks prior to using their images.  So, if the families of these principaled people think it’s okay, maybe it’s not so bad.