" Under democratic technics, the only occupation that demanded a lifetime's attention was that of becoming a full human being, able to perform his biological role and to take his share in the social life of the community, absorbing and transmitting the human tradition, deliberately bringing the ceremonies he performed, the food he planted, the images he shaped, the utensils he carved or painted to a higher degree of esthetic perfection. Every part of work was life-work. This archaic attitude toward work was widespread; and despite all the efforts Western man has made, since the sixteenth century, to corrupt and destroy this basic culture, it still lingered in peasant communities, as well as in the surviving tribal enclaves that were intact at the beginning of the present century. Franz Boas noted the high regard for craftsmanship among supposedly primitive peoples; while Malinowski emphasized the same attitude among his near-neolithic 'Coral Gardeners.'
Machine culture in its original servile form did not share these life-enhancing propensities: it centered, not on the worker and his life, but on the product, the system of production, and the material or pecuniary gains therefrom. Whether kept in operation by the taskmaster's whip or by the inexorable progression of today's assembly line, the processes derived from the megamachine worked for speed, uniformity, standardization, quantification. What effect these objectives had upon the worker or upon the life that remained to him when the workday was over was no concern of those who commanded these mechanical operations. The compulsions produced by this system were more insidious than outright slavery, but as with slavery, they finally debased the controllers as well as the working force so controlled. "
― Lewis Mumford , Technics and Human Development (The Myth of the Machine, Vol 1)