I was being a bit cheeky, but I’m not really arguing that individual inventions can be determined as good or bad. My point is it comes from the same underlying mode of production. "Claude is useful" and "the way we have organised society that led to its creation may be ecologically catastrophic” can both be true.

It doesn't really matter if you can justify the technological developments because they are inevitable. What matters is what society does with those advancements. So a utilitarian perspective might work, but we have to apply it to the social response to technology, not the development of technology.

The turbojet or maybe some material science that made the turbojet feasible is a technological advancement. It can provide benefits to socity in the form of clean(er than coal) power or affordable transportation. Using that technology to build private jets while maintaining a social class that uses them for harmful purposes is a social problem, not a technological one.

It's a similar argument for the machine gun or nuclear weapons. Arguably if you make a terrifying enough weapon people will refuse to fight wars. So from that perspective inventing the Maxim gun (technological) was moral but using it to fight WWI (social) wasn't.