Ian Bogost is using the decline of the manual transmission to make a larger complaint about modern technology: people touch fewer of the mechanisms that run their lives, and he thinks that loss carries a cost.
In an excerpt from The Small Stuff, reprinted by Wired with permission of Atria Books, Bogost argues that design choices, business priorities, and automation have pushed ordinary tasks away from direct physical action. His example is gloriously specific: the stick shift, once a cheap and practical way to drive, is now heading toward museum-piece status.
Bogost writes that manual transmissions were once attractive because they cost less, were easier to maintain, and used fuel more efficiently than automatics. That advantage faded as engineering improved. According to CarMax figures cited by Bogost, more than 15 percent of the retailer’s new and used cars had manual transmissions in 2000. By 2020, that share had fallen to 2.4 percent.
Automakers are not pretending this is a temporary dip. Bogost notes that Mercedes and Volkswagen have announced plans to phase out manual transmissions worldwide, with other manufacturers following. The electric vehicle shift makes the trend harder to reverse because EVs do not use the same drivetrain logic as combustion cars. Gas engines need gearing to deliver useful power to the wheels. Electric motors can send power more directly, so the old clutch-and-gear ritual becomes an affectation rather than a requirement.
The mechanism is the message
Bogost ties the argument to philosopher Matthew Crawford, whose books Shop Class as Soulcraft and Why We Drive treat repair work and driving as forms of human agency. Crawford, as described by Bogost, argues that people need a tight loop between action and perception: press, feel, adjust, repeat. In one example, Crawford test-drove a 400-horsepower Audi RS3 with a paddle-shift automatic and found the car capable but emotionally disconnected from its driver.
Car culture has been having this fight for years. Bogost cites Car and Driver’s 2010 “Save the Manuals” campaign, which argued that learning to operate more of the car made driving better. Fine, yes, gearhead nostalgia is an easy target. Bogost’s point is broader than clutch worship: the manual transmission became a common symbol of the body working with engineered machinery.
He also gives the automatic transmission a history instead of treating convenience as magic. Oldsmobile offered what Bogost calls the first viable automatic transmission in 1940, at an added cost equal to about $1,250 today. World War II diverted General Motors resources into military production, including automatic transmissions for tanks, delaying broader consumer adoption. After the war, suburban commuting, freeway driving, and the American preference for automotive comfort helped automatics spread.
A postcard becomes evidence
Bogost extends the argument with a postcard sent by a reader named Christopher after Bogost wrote about stick shifts for The Atlantic in 2022. The card used old French stationery and old US stamps, including an Olympics 84 stamp and a blue bighorn sheep stamp. Christopher wrote that he had worked as a valet in the 1980s, while his father drove a semi in the 1950s and his grandfather drove an ambulance in World War I France.
For Bogost, the card stood for the same kind of disappearing tactile routine as shifting gears: handling stamps, writing by hand, sending physical mail, and operating small systems directly. He argues that modern life has become easier and, in many ways, better, while also offering fewer chances to feel the tools working under our hands.
That is an argument, not a measurement. Bogost does not prove that licking stamps or shifting gears makes people happier. He does show how many small controls have been designed out of daily life, usually in the name of ease. The machines still work. The user just gets less to do.
This story draws on original reporting from WIRED.
