> Essentialist thinkers are just another elite to be combatted.
Then why did you start this discussion with the essentialist argument that "technology is neutral"?
I will agree that there are many questions that are raised and that it is dangerous to go with absolutist statements. I believe that it is important to be critical of technology in order to better make decisions about it's involvement in your life. Far too many people think that technology is neutral or good for us. Technology can be good for people, but it can also be bad for people, even the stuff that looks benign. And all technology implies a series of social, cultural and economic relationships (among many things).
For example, I would argue with that quote I forwarded that stated that solar energy was more decentralized and better than nuclear power. In many ways, solar energy is better than nuclear power, but let's not forget that even solar energy implies the existence of certain social and economic relationships. It implies a lifestyle that has a need for electricity. It implies that a system exist to mine (or recylce) raw materials and transport them to factories to create photovoltaic cells.
This example covers high tech solar power. An argument could be made that low tech and passive solar energy tech are actually DIY technologies that don't imply the same things as photovoltaics.
Chuck0