Given your definition of technology, I wouldn't be willing to give up all of it voluntarily either. Your definition includes all tools used by us, and also shelters that we create for our survival -- no matter how primitive (and what about other animals/organisms who 'hand-make' things? Is that technology for them? :-)). I do find it odd though that you lump art in with technology. But I get what you're saying - anything made by humans = technology.But I wouldn't be willing to give up technology voluntarily.
ACK!! Blasphemy!! As for not losing anything that can't be replaced...?? A planned garden is devoid of most life, and it's like a sanitized, lifeless version of the real thing (and also requires a lot of chemicals and labor to keep it in its sanitized state). ;-) So you can create an illusion of nature, but you can't create the real thing. Wildness/complexity = nature. Once it's wiped off the earth, well, it's wiped off. Now the earth then might evolve into a complex realm of roaches and rats, but I digress....I don't think we're losing anything that can't be replaced... have you ever seen the order in planned gardens? It's much nicer to me than just wild growth.
But yeah, clearly we have different concepts of beauty.
Ah...I don't know what Lawful Neutral is, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I'm probably not one myself.But you've got to remember... what idea of beauty do you expect from a Lawful Neutral?