The error is crassly undialectical. Carrol assumes first that all capitalist society is hell, sorry, "totally indifferent to human needs" and second, that capitalism is ubiquitous, and that therefore everything that happens is "totally indifferent to human needs". But if that were true, "human needs" would be entirely other-worldly, a phantom outside of all real experience.
Only in cyberspace could such tosh be repeated as good coin. Everybody (even the Unabomber) knows that there are good, useful technologies that happened to be developed for profit. The internet, personal computers, cotton, running water, keyhole surgery, tractors, iPod, manned flight, ABE books, printing presses are all capitalist products ... ad infinitum, but very fine things that make our lives immeasurably preferable to those of medieval peasants. Just try this simple thought experiment: let all the output of capitalism cease. Is life improved, or obliterated. After all, they are all ultimately the output of labour, and the preconditions of human existence.
Carl's logical argument against technology:
"For example, it is pointless, even seriously misleading, to discuss GM except on the premise that GM decisions are going to be made by companies that are totally indifferent to human needs. So an argument that GM _could_ be a useful technology is a false argument. Will GM as used in current agribusiness be a useful technology? That is the question, and really, the only question. If the answer is no, then for the time being we need to oppose _any_ use of GM technology."