Wendell Berry is not alone in the world; there are actually quite a few people that hate computers and modern commodities. A few percent of the Western population are still refusing to bring television sets into their homes, for religious and other lifestyle related reasons. Within this group there are also some who prefer to live alone without electricity, modern cavemen would perhaps be a suitable term. Yet the preferences of the few should not have to influence or change the lives of others, a prospect not very realistic anyway. I will explain why. 

People choosing not to buy a computer usually list several reasons for this abnormal behaviour, often with one of the most vital arguments being that a computer would not make them better writers. Perhaps not, but most people who have tried both writing by hand and on a computer prefer the latter. Likewise are not all papers written in futile attempts to create works equaling Dante's Divine Comedy, because most people actually use computers to save time. For most college students, spending thirteen years on a paper, as Alighieri Dante did writing his masterpiece, would require extreme patience from both professor and student. In short I would ask those who aim for the Nobel Prize to borrow Berry's pen and typewriter. The rest of us might just as well continue writing our mediocre essays and papers on a computer, knowing that if we are not beating Dante on quality, we are beating him on time. 

Another argument against computers is that they don't bring us closer to ideals as peace and economic justice. Then again, being against everything that automatically does not create world peace and classless societies would make shopping an easy process; one actually would not have to buy anything. On the other hand is it tempting to question if writing by hand constitutes a more viable peace effort than using a computer does. Even though I should not be too bombastic on this point, I seem to remember having read there were wars even before the invention of the computer. In the same way could one argue that the relative loss of civilian lives is lower in the current age of modern warfare than it used to be. Even though the so-called surgical bombings in Kosovo do not avoid hitting a bus every other day, one might claim the situation would have been even less ideal if NATO had not had access to computers. 

The only viable argument I can see against computers is that they are of danger to the environment. Evidently a computer is in need of electricity, and people being against the latter should obviously avoid using one. In addition it seems to be common knowledge that all computers need a different number of windows installed every year, and these changes consequently demand quicker and smaller computers. Due to this process, computers have started filling up the world's garbage dumps. Yet this gives reason to believe people like Wendell Berry would be able to acquire a computer at absolutely no cost. Doing so would be of great benefit to the environment, this because a disposed computer less would end up polluting the environment. Actively using a computer, Berry would also enable himself to make insightful comments on how the environment could be saved from the many computers being thrown away. 

In conclusion I must admit that forcing someone to buy a computer would be a waste of time. We all have different preferences, and it might be true that many people would become better writers if they threw away their computer. Still there are many unreasonable arguments raised against computers, everything from the fact that they demand electricity to the accusation that our machines do not create world peace. Nevertheless computers are and will remain the same benefit to a student as a chainsaw is to a lumberjack. Using one is both efficient and convenient, and the saved time makes it worthwhile to speculate if Dante could have made an even better writer by using a computer.