Can a nation preserve its history, originality, and humanity by submitting itself totally to the sovereignty of [technology]?

...if there is an awareness of and resistance to the dangers of Technopoly, there is reason to hope that the [we] may yet survive [our] Ozymandias-like hubris and technological promiscuity. Which brings me to the [idea of a] "resistance fighter..." Those who resist...are people who:

• pay no attention to a poll unless they know what questions were asked, and why;
• refuse to accept efficiency as the preeminent goal of human relations;
• have freed themselves from the belief in the magical powers of numbers, do not regard calculation as an adequate substitute for judgment, or precision as a synonym for truth;
• refuse to allow psychology or any "social science" to preempt the language and thought of common sense;
• are suspicious of the idea of progress, and do not confuse information with understanding;
• do not regard the aged as irrelevant;
• take seriously the meaning of family loyalty and honor, and when they "reach out and touch someone," expect that person to be in the room;
• take the great narratives of religion seriously and do not believe that science is the only system of thought capable of producing truth;
• know the difference between the sacred and the profane, and do not wink at tradition for modernity's sake;
• admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest possible form of human achievement.

A resistance fighter understands that technology must never be accepted as part of the natural order of things, that every technology — from an IQ test to an automobile to a television set to a computer — is a product of a particular economic and political context and carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore require scrutiny, criticism, and control.

Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, First Vintage Books Edition, 1993, pp. 183-185