Claim: Tech that is highly advantageous to use is obligate

(Source - see Proposition 4.)

Once someone invents the plow, and unlocks the increased food production it affords, in the long term you have a choice between also adopting the plow, or being killed/displaced by those who have.

(Because increased food production –> fortifications to protect food surplus –> specialization as security force –> specialization as weapons maker –> army to maraud and enslave the simple folk living in the country.)

See also: needing a smartphone in order to have a job.

Candidly I don't want this to be true, so at a minimum I want to understand the boundaries - what are (all) the possible exceptions?

Given Technology doesn't necessarily solve a real problemTechnology doesn't necessarily solve a real problem
The Neil Postman "What is the problem to which cruise control is the answer?" anecdote is a good example.

Even when a technological innovation does solve a real problem, remember to Consider sid...
, it's probably worth digging into the definition of "advantageous."

It seems to have a short time scale, since it's hard to Consider side effectsConsider side effects
Here's an example of a side effect: Every place on earth has unsafe levels of plastic in the rainwater.

Seems bad. How do we do less of this?

When considering a change, especially a technolog...
of new technology, or even know them.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be advantageous to everyone - the plow creates "guy who owns the grain" and "guy who works the field." The former receives more of the advantage.