| Your frame of reference is a bit off. To wit: You say: "technology isn't just programs, [it is] also change... a lot [of people] are victims who lose their jobs..." When in fact, the "victims" of this process aren't subject to the technology, qua technology (technology is simply a tool - derivative of the Greek "tekhne" for "art" or "craft"), which is to say, one doesn't create a technology which then has a mind of its own (yet), but rather, they create tools that other individuals then have a choice to either use, or not. And so when you say "technology gives[,] and technology takes," what you really mean is "people chose how to spend their [time/money], and [those choices have consequences]." Which is to say that you are implicitly saying "We ought to decide how people chose to spend their [time/money]". Would your reaction be the same to the ironworker who made a living on horseshoes two hundred years ago? Of what do you wish to be "Critical"? Of choice? Of giving people the ability to spend less of their time and energy on certain tasks? Five hundred years ago human beings spend most of their time producing life-sustaining staples -- growing what for bread, chickens and cows and hogs for protein, vegetables for vitamins and nutrients. Now we can buy a week's worth of sustenance (which used to quite literally consume 12 hours of labor per day), grown to higher standards, in greater quantity for less than $50 -- the equivalent of a single day's labor at minimum wage. Do you wish to be "critical" of this tekhne as well? |
You are proving my point by applying the very flawed logic of the luddite fallacy that I am really critiquing.