Your frame of reference is a bit off. To wit:<p>You say: "technology isn't just programs, [it is] also change... a lot [of people] are victims who lose their jobs..."<p>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 <i>choice</i> to either use, or not.<p>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]."<p>Which is to say that you are implicitly saying "We ought to decide how people chose to spend their [time/money]".<p>Would your reaction be the same to the ironworker who made a living on horseshoes two hundred years ago?<p>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?<p>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.<p>Do you wish to be "critical" of this tekhne as well?