You cannot compare a hammer with other technologies.
In the same way as you , i think hammers are neutral technologies.
And you think money isn't because you were taught some political brainwashing from the 1800s? It's not about money, it's about liberty. It's also about creating value and trading it.
You could consider this barter using stocks and that would be more accurate. As long as value is created somewhere in the chain then it's worth it to trade that value. We create value just by existing and contributing to the knowledge pool. Most of the value generated by people on the Internet is unaccounted for, and most people in the world are having their utility wasted because society doesn't know how to account for it.
To say we should not grow value is to exclude billions of people from being able to go online and contribute their time and effort. Bitshares can be used to shape certain things like a mold and because of that it's politically neutral like a hammer which hammers certain things. To be more precise Bitshares is just a sort of digital derivatives / information market. It does not care about the isms of the user.
But take in consideration other types of technologies.
The necessity of growth of the system impulsed the development of a certain type of technology with specific characteristics.
Legacy technologies are a problem but growth isn't the root cause of the disaster. The root cause was that they put it on a treadmill and then sped it up so people would have to run faster and faster to keep up with previous generations. This made people consume more, work longer hours. Credit was then given to make people consume even more and work loner than ever to pay off debts.
None of that has anything to do with capitalism, these are just instruments or tools developed by bankers. These are monetary policies. Capitalism can be redesigned from the ground up in different communities who want to attempt it but to say growth is the problem is a bit bizarre.
When new people are born these people have demands, wants, so to give them what they want there has to be growth. This kind of growth is very nature. But the kind of growth based on credit, longer working hours, and all these other tricks to keep people wanting more, that is part of the problem.
This necessity of growth doesnt only implies the necessity of incrementing productivity but also the necessity of incrementing the mechanisms of social control.
The development of techniques and technologies in capitalism is result of a political process of social forces.
Some techniques or policies may not be good ideas. Inflation is not popular around here because we know that inflation does have the disastrous social effects you are talking about.
The problem is mainstream economists and policy makers think deflation is evil, that inflation is desirable, that mindless consumption is the highest social goal.
Much of the characteristics that tecnology had adopted is not result from a technology that have evolved autonomously independent from a social context.
Some technological tools emerge from stigmergic processes. We will see a lot of that in this space.
Is result of a technology concieved to be used as political weapon.
Technologies are not neutral because it changes the world, it affects individuals. Its not possible to separate a capitalist technology from the use we made of it.
This makes no sense. Technology doesn't force you to use it. It doesn't tell you how to use it. Think like a hacker and you'll find that you can use any technology in ways the developers never intended for it to be used. This applies to anything really.
Capital ideology is incorporated and hidden in technologies.
Give me some examples of this because this is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory.
If capitalist ideology can be embedded then can't you embed your ideology as well and then the technology which wins out is the one which had the better ideology embedded in it?
Why not let the technologies compete and then use the scientific method to evaluate for success or failure? I see no reason to form any emotional or ideological connection to a technology. A capitalist or communist hammer is still just a hammer. In my hands any technology will be used in my way even if I have to jailbreak it.
Now, most of the characteristics that have adopted technologies of information is result of a technology conceived to be used as a mechanism of social control.
Where are you getting this from? Social control by who and what? Are you talking about Apple? Microsoft? Closed source technology is about control.
You cannot think in "growth" as something independant to the natural world.
You cannot have growth for ever, thats the problem .
Tell me why you cannot have growth in intelligence for millions of years? Is there a physical limit to computation? I would say perhaps there is one, but it's unlikely we'd ever exhaust that kind of growth.
So while intelligence isn't infinite, it can accumulate forever. And how would it be bad if we had growth there?