Whats the point of technology? Is it equipment in the sense that it has suitability, appropriateness, and social normative conditions necessary for defining ourselves in the world? Or is the point that technology is supposed to result in a "culturally-rich, steady state, systems-literate, resilient society"? or both. I think both definitions, if fulfilled by technology, would suggest the technology is beneficial to us all. Such technology would bring us joy help define ourselves in culture, help create cohesive and rich culture. Such technology I like: Deepening quality of life. However there is another insidious definition where "technology" is conflated with market economy and economic growth...well that's always been the case since the plow I suppose...but growth is not forever, right? So technology that is grossly eroding the foundation capital all culture requires for survival; soil, water, climate, etc, is not so suitable or appropriate. Unfortunately much of this type of technology we now need and rely upon and requires growing amount of infrastructure, resources, human capital etc., just to maintain let alone accelerate. The main question was if we are losing instinct or gut reaction to technology, but I'd say as personal issues they aren't all that important (if one used maps and forgets how to get someplace, or doesn't learn to multiply) compared to the problem that much of our technology may be undermining the foundations of culture and societal resiliency for the sake of economic growth. So, place your technology in the appropriate definition is it suitable, appropriate, have social normative conditions, does it add to culture, help create a steady economic state, a resilient society, does it bring joy, or is it part of the toil and toll of being a citizen? Not so easy.
