A Brief History of Tomorrow, page-8

"Too much of the work now being undertaken to understand and assess the ethical and political consequences of technological change flounders precisely because it knows only what it is against and not what it is for. It is inspired neither by any communal commitments or any explicit account of the good life.""

Perhaps he holds that opinion because of the criteria of his particular "theological and ecclesial commitments"., which I assume would be conservative but reformed Presbyterian Christianity ... though I don't really know what that is in any detail.

There are many working with various technologies who would feel they are making great commitments to community and improving the lives of those who benefit from the technology.
There are others who take the view that technology in itself has no particular bias (except for wanting funding !) and it is Humans that determine whether any changes caused are beneficial or not.

Of course it is not always clear who decides what is actually beneficial. Seems to me, much technological change often has a one step forward, one step back outcome and the predominant benefit is profit to those pushing it.

There seems an unexamined assumption these days, particularly with less experienced younger people, that all change is progress and automatically to be embraced without intelligent evaluation. As a generality I don't think they rate ethical or political consequences very high on the agenda ... more a case of what's in it for me.
This is not only with technology.

.