The core message I found from this article was that, to be a valuable participant on the discussion of improvement in society, when it comes to industry, is: ba

The core message I found from this article was that, to be a valuable participant on the discussion of improvement in society, when it comes to industry, is: based on Chesterton's Fence principle, we need to inform ourselves of the good industrialization have brought us (and accept it), and from there acknowledge their short-comings/side effects so that an proposed solution does not undermine the good that was added by it. This includes pointing out where industrialization is not doing much good (such as fashion and its CO2 emission as someone pointed out) Isn't being pedantic about each bullet point (that obviously can't go in to fine detail because of short summary) kind of ignoring the overall point? Is the core argument such an emotion inducing controversial point that justify almost straw-man-like criticism? edit: I now understand that it seems to be a bit of a politically heated topic. For me, a non-american, I saw similarity in "Industrial Literacy" and what Hans Rosling[1] told us a couple of years ago: "Hey, it is not as bad as you think" [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg