Question Everything

Nuclear bombs are technology and are bad, hence technology can't be inherently good. Some techs are good, others are bad. Both the technophiliacs and the primitivists err in making broad overgeneralizations about technology. Different technologies have different properties. Some are good, some are bad. I find the medical arguement a persuasive position against the primitivist rejection of all technology, but we do need some major changes in the kind of technology we have. There's a whole raft of harmfull technology that should be abolished, and some technologies promote centralization and should be dismantled. Others are better and should be kept. We need a Kropotkinesque decentralization of industry. I find luddite theories of technology are often more helpfull than technophiliac theories in determining what techs are good & bad because the later is often based on cliches and straw men.