So it is elementary. Zerzan moves on, however, to a point that is not at all elementary. It is obvious why those who defend the high-tech death trap want us to believe that technology is somehow neutral. This is disingenuous hand-waving, I think, or else evidences an immense confusion. That is, when someone says that technology per se is neutral, they of course mean that technology does not by its internal logic have to serve only dominating elites.
Technology can serve any constituency including broad populations.
Technology can arise in any social setting and system, and can accomplish diverse tasks that can be beneficial or horrendous, humane or cruel, liberating or stultifying. Technology isn t necessarily prehistoric, or feudal, or capitalist, or anything else other than always a product of human design and labors, and having a human origin imposes on technology no particular social direction, no universal social stamp. Zerzan rightly notices that our contemporary technologies encapsulate forces at play in our societies. He wrongly concludes, however, that all technology must forever and always be as our technology is now. It is therefore not true that if we don t like specific instances of our technology now, to get rid of them we must dispense all technology per se.