In Economy, Thoreau has a rather poignant section describing the advancement of technology in his own time (19th century) and if it is necessary. Not to be confused with good mind you, as good things may not always be necessary (as Thoreau goes on to expand later in the section). The technology he's talking about, far from our internet, streaming services, smart phones, or other accoutrements of modern capitalism, is the humble telegraph. He mentions some motion to get a line connected from Texas all the way to Maine. His argument is simply “What's the need?” In Thoreau's opinion, most technological advancement seems to be “...improved means to an unimproved end…” and, comically, it may very well be that Texans have absolutely nothing to say to those in Maine! Thoreau goes on to clarify that “After all, the man whose horse trots a mile a minute does not carry the most important messages.” Now, on face, I disagree with Thoreau. Increased, long distance communication, though NOT always good (as our racist, prejudiced, or otherwise dumb-headed neighbors will attest), communication offers many benefits: - Faster news (important and otherwise) - Improved national security (both in times of war and natural disaster) - Better quality of life and improved range of travel - A broader understanding of an increasingly diverse world* That said, I do think Thoreau is merely using communication here as a useful way to explain the dangers of “convenience;” or, perhaps more generally, the dangers of technological advancement being made in the name of speed or convenience. For instance, I'm not sure that Thoreau would agree that the mass distribution of books, letters, or other mass communication methods would be equally bad. I should expand on that later. In the meantime we must ask: are these new technologies truly necessary, or do they merely debit us a bit of time but with a credit to society at large. “...it will be perceived that a few are riding, but the rest are run over…” We enjoy Uber Eats for being an all-in-one delivery app, but sacrifice better paying delivery jobs. We use online dating because of its convenience and “emotional safety,” but then lament the state of modern dating. We might dream of owning a private jet that can take us across the world in a moment, but then have to contend with the immense carbon footprint that requires. Essentially, convenience (and perhaps speed) should not be ends in-and-of themselves. They can be nice, yes; but have distinct disadvantages at every instance. Disadvantages that need not be made if we just accepted a little more “friction” in our lives. *Though, perhaps there is room to say that this is a “problem” created by long-distance communication generally, and without it we may not feel the same effects that it's had on our culture.