| I also agree. However, as far as I'm concerned, new technology is
| better than older technology the great majority of the time.
|
|
| Until someone finds the caveats in it, and shines a light on it.
|

Indeed. In addition to your list, just off the
top of my head:

* Keurig coffee makers that produce waste for no reason.

* Pre-primed wood moldings, made of glued up scraps
that later fall apart.

* Acrylic deck stain, which wears away nearly as
soon as it's painted on.

* Dryer sheets and plug-in air fresheners that fill the
air with noxious "fresh" scent.

* Roundup-ready corn and soy, designed to tolerate even
more toxic herbicide than regular grain, while also being
a patent-protected life form, so that farmers are banned
by Monsanto from saving seed. (Even if they did, it's
also designed to be sterile.)

* Frankenfood in general. I read the other day that Panera
Bread hopes to remove the 350-odd chemicals they use in
their products. One example: Titanium dioxide, the stuff
that makes white paint white (along with chalk) is used to
keep the cheese looking light colored as it ages. Normally
it would turn brown. The Panera people think removing
the fake ingredients will be good for business. But they're
having trouble: No one knows what their suppliers suppliers
suppliers are actually putting into the product. Bon Apetit.

Thinking of bad technology is like shooting fish in
a barrel. The truly odd thing is that most people will
think these technologies are good, based on nothing
more than exposure to marketing.