This is an assertion made, necessarily, without evidence. It's also value laden in terms of what is considered "costly", and who should make the judgement.
Maybe if we look at the opposite assertion, that technological regress would improve humanity, we can arbitrate which is likely more directionally correct.
There’s also a third assertion which can help our thinking, and that is that we have just about the right amount and type of technology, so we should halt now (vs regress or progress).
So the question then is: which of these three assertions are likely correct?
The fact that moving from A to B is a net negative does not imply that moving "back" from B to A is a net positive. All 3 scenarios (net positive, net negative, neutral) are entirely possible.
"The right amount of type of technology" is again a value judgement, tied into ideas about what a good life involves. It is also complicated by long term side effects, as we are seeing with the use of fossil fuels - there was a fairly good argument for their use 120 years ago, but it turns out that whether that argument was or wasn't correct, planning to continue to use them "forever" is not only infeasible, but utterly detrimental.
OK. To make it concrete: do you think that if we reduced our technology and never increase it again, humanity would be in a better position than if we continued on the technology train?
So it's okay to perform the harmful act, knowing the harm it will cause, as long as you leave yourself the out of being able to say it'd have come to nothing had others declined to participate? I once heard a heroin dealer make a similar claim.
No, of course not; that would be foolish. I'm pointing out that this argument goes equally well to justify either practice, and a lot more ill besides. That makes it a weak argument, and it makes someone who uses it look likewise, because who'd go for this if they had anything better?
