I agree with your argument on the whole, but only if by "technology" you refer to industrial "high-tech" innovation, whether "green" or not. The word "technology" itself has a much simpler meaning, however. It derives from the Greek techne, meaning skilled artisanship, + logos, meaning logic, or formal study of the knowledge base that makes the artisanship possible. So "technology" is not the toys themselves (computers, solar panels, oil rigs, etc.) but, properly speaking, the theoretical and practical knowledge that makes these things possible. Understood thus, technology goes right back to the earliest humans--to the evolution of language itself, which enabled us to communicate the knowledge needed to master, and improve skills for manipulating our world. And ALL living things, from bacteria on up, have innate and learned skills for manipulating their world to their own advantage.

So the problem is not "technology" per se. It is how we use what we know. Essentially, the application of our knowledge and skills--our "technology"--is beneficial or harmful based on whether it is conducive to a parasitic or symbiotic relationship to our biological support system, Gaia. Since the Agricultural revolution, our relationship to Gaia has been parasitic, but now that this parasite--not "humans" per se but industrial civilization--is about to kill its host (and itself), we have no choice but to apply our technologies--our knowledge and practical skills--in ways that are symbiotic with, rather than parasitic upon, our biological support system. And that is a good definition of Permaculture: technologies (in the accurate sense of knowledge and skills) applied symbiotically, rather than parasitically, based on a prior understanding that we are a part of, not apart from, Gaia--like every other living organism.