I wonder if “industrial literacy” might turn out to be a misleading frame, or even kind of dark artsy.
We can have a disagreement over empirical facts about the state of industry. Or about how to model the economy. Or about how we value aspects of the economy. Or about how to express all of this.
If I disagree that a 6% improvement in battery capacity is “downright exciting,” am I industrially illiterate? Or just not responding to your particular industrial aesthetic?
To me, “literacy” has to mean understanding foundational truths. To accept that current agricultural output levels depend on industrial farming practices is a matter of literacy.
But to accept that it must always be so, or that current approaches are “sustainable,” or that the trade offs with biodiversity and animal suffering are acceptable, is not a sign of “illiteracy.” It’s a legitimate disagreement over facts and values. Both sides in such a dispute should not use normative language to shame their opponents, as in the “illiteracy” flip side of the concept handle.
I think what you’re going for here is more like “industry positivity,” akin to “body positivity” or “sex positivity.” Being able to openly embrace what’s good about these important parts of life.
Good points. I sympathize with the concern. A term like this could turn into an insult to shut down conversation, like “denier” is sometimes. I don’t want that.
Also, you don’t have to be exited about battery density. That’s a personal choice. I made a point of saying “can be” exciting, not “must be”. The point was not to degrade people who don’t get excited about a specific thing but to show how a seemingly technical thing can be exciting when you make the right conceptual connections.
I agree that “literacy” should mean a sort of basic education, and that is what I intended here.
I agree that there are related concepts—you suggested “industry positivity”, we could also think of “industrial appreciation” or “industrial pride”—that go beyond literacy.
And so, yes, I think a person can be industrially literate without being industry-positive. I would argue that they are wrong, but if they knew the facts and just interpreted them differently than I do, I wouldn’t accuse them of industrial illiteracy.
I wonder if “industrial literacy” might turn out to be a misleading frame, or even kind of dark artsy.
We can have a disagreement over empirical facts about the state of industry. Or about how to model the economy. Or about how we value aspects of the economy. Or about how to express all of this.
If I disagree that a 6% improvement in battery capacity is “downright exciting,” am I industrially illiterate? Or just not responding to your particular industrial aesthetic?
To me, “literacy” has to mean understanding foundational truths. To accept that current agricultural output levels depend on industrial farming practices is a matter of literacy.
But to accept that it must always be so, or that current approaches are “sustainable,” or that the trade offs with biodiversity and animal suffering are acceptable, is not a sign of “illiteracy.” It’s a legitimate disagreement over facts and values. Both sides in such a dispute should not use normative language to shame their opponents, as in the “illiteracy” flip side of the concept handle.
I think what you’re going for here is more like “industry positivity,” akin to “body positivity” or “sex positivity.” Being able to openly embrace what’s good about these important parts of life.
Good points. I sympathize with the concern. A term like this could turn into an insult to shut down conversation, like “denier” is sometimes. I don’t want that.
Also, you don’t have to be exited about battery density. That’s a personal choice. I made a point of saying “can be” exciting, not “must be”. The point was not to degrade people who don’t get excited about a specific thing but to show how a seemingly technical thing can be exciting when you make the right conceptual connections.
I agree that “literacy” should mean a sort of basic education, and that is what I intended here.
I agree that there are related concepts—you suggested “industry positivity”, we could also think of “industrial appreciation” or “industrial pride”—that go beyond literacy.
And so, yes, I think a person can be industrially literate without being industry-positive. I would argue that they are wrong, but if they knew the facts and just interpreted them differently than I do, I wouldn’t accuse them of industrial illiteracy.