> For your argument to be valid, you would have to show me a technology (as
> apart from an application) that has no positive use. You have to show me
> your Ring of Mordor before you can credibly suggest that something as
> obviously useful as a power plant or an automobile implies something evil in
> and of itself. When you say that technology is not neutral in and of itself
> you are indeed suggesting that it is evil in and of itself. I say it isn't.
No, I'm not saying that technology is evil in and of itself. Many of us here will agree that certain technologies are inherently evil. Like the atomic bomb. But that is because we have a worldview that judges the use of the atomic bomb as a bad thing. Most Americans see this differently. They believe that it is a good thing to have atomic bombs, because a) they ended WW2, and b) they ensure the American Way of Life(tm). In fact, right after 9-11, many Americans were calling for the use of nuclear bombs against America's perceived enemies.
I think that it is important for eveyr person to maintain a critical stance towards technology. It's important to understand your tools and everything that is involved in making them exist. One thing capitalism is very successful at is mystifying how thing come ot be. Most Americans go to the supermarket and give no thought to where the food comes from. I just got back from good ole Wal-Mart, which had American flags on all the walls, but every shoe I picked up in the shoe department had been manufactured in China.
I don't see why left activists, who have no problem supporting sweatshop activism, which is based on the idea that where something is made and how it is made is important, can't transfer the same critical thinking skills towards technology.
And can we discuss this issue instead of responding to me with personal arguments?
Chuck0