Dear C.s,
On its own, ChuckO's argument amounts to nothing. By failing to claim anything more than that technology is "not neutral" he succeeds in saying nothing, as indeed he must if his implicit condemnation of technology as such is to survive even modest scrutiny. Clearly there are no examples of evil technology qua technology.
However, technology does present potent metaphors to which we are all subject, including me. Metaphor, which one may equate with an effort not to let the trees obscure the forest, naturally suggests the social context in which it was created. Under capitalism, the primary context is capitalist power. For Bush, this is a good thing - an aircraft carrier or a stock exchange are positive symbols of the power in which he invites his adherents to participate, if only metaphorically. For us on the left, it makes even the most common things - Chinese shoes at Wal-Mart - seem tragic. We see the violence and alienation inherent in the capitalist system METAPHORICALLY reproduced in its products.
I think that, by and large, it is the job of the socialist to pop the bubble of the capitalist metaphor, whether it is the metaphor of capitalism's triumph or its tragedy. The reason, other than to keep our own eyes clear, is that we, as socialists, intend to persuade the working, common people that they should inherit the earth. Who wants to inherit a tragedy? People have to understand that the tragedy of capitalism is not a necessary precursor to the production of what they want and need.
As the American military establishment is finding out, you cannot tailor the earth you intend to inherit. You tend to inherit that earth warts and all. So many leftists, like ChuckO and (if he still thinks this way) Old Lou Proyect, only want to inherit the bits of the earth they like; the bits they have sympathy and empathy for. But the task of socialism is not to ignore or ostracize but to transform. So I suggest that if you don't want to inherit the earth of money, SUV's and nuclear power, you don't really want to inherit the earth at all.
And don't try the "sustainability" dodge, either. Even and especially if you believe that the present industrial, capitalist order is "unsustainable" you must realize that you can't stop the indu-cap beast by holding up a sign that reads "Danger Ahead". You had better get about the business of embracing that beast so you can turn it from its present course. You won't embrace the beast at all if you see it as, well, a beast - a metaphor. It's actually a community of people who act for reasons which are perfectly logical, comprehensible and even, by and large, consistent with their better nature.
At one time socialists boasted that our world would be better and far more prosperous than the capitalist world. I find that in embracing "sustainability" (short for "de-industrialization and redistribution" or "more poverty more evenly spread") we have admitted the failure of our previous approach. Unless we are prepared to continue in that vein and admit the failure of our ideas as well, let's demystify the beast and bend him to the yoke. By this I mean to say that we should (as I'm sure you are ready to) throw away the beastie metaphors and consider the problem rationally, without regard to questions of what is "good", "evil", or even the dreaded "not neutral".
peace,
boddi
p.s. - As for people's incentive to produce more effectively, the rest of the world is a place where layabouts like us starve to death. Go to Bangladesh and see how much they don't want to do the work necessary to support production. How did you people ever get the idea that there is all this excess productive capacity in the world? Don't you read the papers? If not the papers, don't you read Brad Delong? He tells us that World GDP is about 7 grand per annum per capita at best. That's not exactly living high on the hog, now is it?