Tack-nology: Effort, material things, and their appreciation.

Does anyone else not feel that technology can cheapen the value of certain otherwise important things?  Am I alone in thinking it tends to make them seem more tacky, less dignified or important or respectful than that which they are due?  Or am I simply clinging onto an old fashioned and essentially useless piece of nostalgia when I say I like books better than ebooks?  I find Facebook page memorials to the recently deceased of someone close to be disturbing.  From where does my discomfort arise?  What is the root of my charge of a lack of respect?  Perhaps it is related to the ease or lack of effort it takes to create such a memorial.  Maybe I feel as thought the effort put into something or someone should be directly proportional to its or their importance (and dignity for the latter case).  To simply click a button, with little effort, in their memory seems to reflect a small amount of love or appreciation of the life of and with the departed.  Of course there is usually a genuine heartfelt motive behind the action, however I feel they may undermine their own intentions in doing so.

Beautifully bound books reflect extensive care, original thought, and sizable efforts in their production, all of which are a manifestation of our love for the ideas contained within them.  Perhaps the same goes for thoughtful architecture of buildings and people that are contained within them; the concept of architecture relates to a love for the potential of humanity.  Perhaps this is also why a postcard will always be more dear to the recipient than a hasty email from overseas.  It takes more effort to lift a pen, write on paper you selected and bought, the find a post office, buy a stamp, search for a home address then mail it, than it does to sit, type, and click send.  Even after mailing, though the sender is no longer present, much work goes into flying, sorting, and delivering the postcard.  Hence we tend to appreciate something into which much effort and therefore love has gone into - even despite its appearances, as a parent does with their preschool aged child who toiled for half a morning over a santa claus christmas card made from cotton balls, Clag glue, and Paddle Pop sticks.

I wonder whether there is also an aspect in higher appreciation of a postcard as an object of love compared to an email in the sheer physicality of the former.  Emails as objects in themselves are immaterial, theoretically they do not erode with time.  Therefore, we find it difficult to relate to the nature of an email.  Postcards are more like people; they are physical, tangible material, they are able to tear, break, have ideas imprinted in them, and have flown on a plane before.  So, perhaps on some abstract level we usually love postcards more because they are more similar to us.  Hence, we are more readily able to appreciate or treasure them than an immaterial letter which is so different to us in form.  I fancy that this echoes an analogy of the objections to Descartes' theory of the mind as immaterial and body as material.  Many philosophers base their objection on the problem of interaction between two supposedly distinct substances, for we infer the mind affects the body and vice-versa.  It follows that there seems to be a similar problem of interaction, or opposition, between our great ability to love material objects and our recent reliance on immaterial methods in which to send and receive objects of love.