> 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.
I see your argument so far as the last two sentences-- where there is something of a contradiction. You say that technology isn't inherently neutral. Wouldn't this position _require_ making moral judgements on the technology? And while you say you haven't made arguments about which technologies you prefer, you've made no secret of your distaste for coal and nuclear power plants.