I read some of the documents Chuck posted about technology, but I am still confused. If one asserts that technology has inherent qualities, the question then arises "Who made the decision about what inherent qualities it has?" A collorary is "Who decides the value of these inherent qualities?"
I guess I have problems with essentialist argumentation. It seems to leave out the human and ethical aspects of existence. Being against elites, I am very uncomfortable with allowing "others" to define essential attributes and then expect me to go along.
Nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, sunlight, coal burning, wood burning are all sources of power. What inherent qualities do they have besides the physical laws imposed on them by being part of this universe?
Once a person or society decides to develop them for use, then ethical questions start to be raised and attributes begin to be attached to them: solar power leaves almost no waste (as far as I know), nuclear power leaves radioactive waste, etc., etc. I think it is at this point that a person can then say that nuclear power is unethical because of a, b, c. For example: that nuclear power leaves radioactive waste is a fact. That we consider the production of radioactive waste a destructive practice is an ethical judgement we attached to this fact. It is not inherent in it.
It is like my experience as a queer man. There are wackos out there (on both the left and the right) who will say that same-sex attraction is inherently wrong since it goes against God's or nature's design for human beings. Who suddenly empowered God or nature to define the inherent qualities of a human being?
Essentialist thinkers are just another elite to be combatted.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister