>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.
You did a bit more than that, you said that you thought industrial technology required a capitalist society:
"A coal plant implies a system of industrial capitalism. It requires
laws to force workers to mine coal, a state to enforce property
rights for coal owners, and a command and control economy to move
coal to the plant and deliver electricity."
Since you are anti-capitalist, I put two and two together. Brian did too, tentatively, but sought clarification. You ducked the question. No, you "never said anything about industrial society or going back to the land", but if you:
a) reject capitalism, a command and control economy, etc; and
b) insist that this form of social organisation is necessary to
industrial production,
then by implication you are rejecting industrial production.
Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. But it isn't good enough to merely not say anything about abandoning industrial production of goods and services and going back to the land. In the circumstances you actually need to say something about that. Anything you don't say will be taken down and used against you.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas