> Neither is silence on such a burning question neutral. It leaves the way open for your political opponents to speak for you without fear of contradiction. Which I hereby take the opportunity to do.
>
> You see Brian, Chuck has explained that industrial society itself is the problem, the solution is for the population to return to the country-side. The Chucko alternative energy plan for the future is, as his slip suggests, modelled on the distant past. Energy will presumably be sourced mainly from the burning of cow-pats and plant material metabolised by human and animal work-horses.
>
> So you can guess why Chucko prefers not to elaborate an energy plan. It isn't exactly going to inspire the masses.
>
> Fortunately inspiring the masses isn't central to the strategy either. I don't imagine anyone expects this version of anarchist bucolic utopia is to be achieved by the consent of the masses.
>
> Whatever you do, don't mention Pol Pot.
I see they haven't had a bullshit shortage in Tasmania recently.
See, I never said anything about industrial society or going back to the land or Pol Pot, for that matter. I challenged the simple-minded canard that technology is neutral.
Brian actually illustrated my point with his rumination about capitalism and industrial society. Industrial society requires many different technoligies to exist. Technologies require certain social and economic relationships to exist. A semiconductor can't exist without the eixtsence of a highly developed post-industrial society. A sword can't exist without a system of blacksmithing and mining.
I'm not making arguments here about which technologies I prefer. I'm just arguing that technology isn't inherently neutral.
Chuck0