The article's main argument is: "We are not obligated to love technology. [...] If we allow ["technology"] to stand as an umbrella term for everything from mode

The article's main argument is: "We are not obligated to love technology. [...] If we allow ["technology"] to stand as an umbrella term for everything from modern dentistry to the apparatus of ubiquitous surveillance, then we are forced to either accept modern technology in toto or reject it in toto. We are thus discouraged from thoughtful discrimination and responsible judgment." This seem uncontroversial -- I doubt even Steven Pinker would disagree with that. Maybe some internet trolls make low-quality arguments like "so you want to go back to horses and buggies?!?" but basically nobody is arguing that technology should reign unregulated. Who thinks civilians should be able to own nuclear weapons? All of this seems quite unrelated to the dispute between Pinker and Hickel of whether global poverty is decreasing or not.