NERO FIDDLED WHILE Rome burned: we will discuss wine. Again. Mr. Carl Sutton, proprietor of Sutton Cellars in Santa Rosa, wrote recently to take issue with my disquiet over screw-cap wine. "Technophobia" was his diagnosis. He went on to argue that screw caps are preferable to synthetic (i.e., plastic) corks, which tend to leak.

Technophobic issues aside, we do seem to agree that the traditional, cork-oak cork is on its way out because of its tendencies to fall apart with time and to host bacteria that taint wine. The true parting of ways seems to have to do with the nascent rivalry between two technological innovations: the screw cap and the plastic cork.

Since I do favor plastic corks – hence innovation – I exonerate myself from the charge of technophobia. Mr. Sutton claims that a number of winemakers have abandoned synthetic corks "due to high incidence of leakage." I had not heard this before, and I have never seen an example of it. What I have noticed is that more and more bottles of wine I find myself opening – whether from California or Europe – have been corked with synthetic corks. They seem, if anything, to be better suited to the task than traditional corks; they manage to be both tighter fitting and easier to remove. Synthetic corks are, after all, manufactured specifically for the job, and if there should be a leakage problem, it isn't hard to imagine a simple tweak to fix it.

Screw caps are simpler, no doubt, and perhaps cheaper. But their very idiot-proofness is an argument against them. I happen to think that the romance and ritual of uncorking a bottle of wine is an essential part of wine culture and part of the pleasure of having wine. Mr. Sutton might well think otherwise. But he would agree, surely, that it is not a good thing for this society to be chucking yet another skill, however minor, into the cultural trash bin. People have a way of living up or down to expectations, and the unmistakable message of the screw cap is that people are untrustworthy boobs fit to perform only simple, harmless tasks. This may well be the case, but that does not mean it is wise to send a message saying so.

Wider point: technology makes no sense without reference to human experience. Technology is supposed to serve us, not develop its own galloping logic while we struggle to catch up. There is a strong tendency afoot to suppose that "advances" in technology are by definition desirable and that the cold perfection of the machine is preferable to the flawed warmth of the human touch. I say fiddlesticks.

Paul Reidinger