Uh, my comment was nothing to do with technology. Rather people's attitude regarding how a photo is created.
And it certainly was not anti-progress/new-tech, anything but in fact.
Being a pretty young photographer, I talk with many other young and aspiring photographers. I kind of see a shift in how an image is created with some people, but the serious shooters still have a vision and then work on producing that vision. Sometimes it is almost all through the lens (like me), and other times it is more post production.
Now with modern cameras , it is allowing people to use ambient light and then produce what ever vision the mood brings afterwards in post. However those working this way are not the serious aspiring photographers, and have an inconsistent body of work that does not invoke trust to the serious art buyer. It is just that we see it more because of the availability of better cameras and the "good enough" buyers, who do not have a vision either, that are all too ready to go with the cheapest bid.
With that being said, I was recently at a retoucher demo in my area and, well, I am not sure if I was more impressed with what retouchers could do in post or more disappointed in some pretty big name photographers after seeing their before shots. (It was obvious one of those big name guys had little to no professional skill in manipulating light.)