The "No CGI" dynamic around films is odd and reveals, IMO, that mainstream anti-tech sentiment in capitalism only flies as a consumer's affectation.

I'd disagree with your assessment that wanting more practical effects (if that is your thesis) is "anti-tech". Generally, from what I see, it's pro-quality and pro-craftsmanship. In very few cases is cinematic CGI used because it looks as good or better than practical effects. It is used primarily to avoid paying the skilled artisans that learned the craft of stage and prop design or because a practical effect version of the desired thing is not, well, practical (think scenes in outerspace or hordes of orcs). With more digital VFX teams finally unioning-up, hopefully the cost difference (from materials, iterative flexibility, lack of soundstage rental, and vastly underpaying and overworking VFX crews) diminishes some.

In my opinion, productions that make good use of practical and CGI effects have the best chance of making a good piece of film.

Look at, say, modern(ish) superhero movies like the heavily-astroturfed Batman vs Superman. There are some good stills from that, if one likes Batman or Superman posing heroically. However, when things are in motion, especially fast motion, like fight scenes, there's so much digital motion blur and other intentional or unintentional digital VFX artifacts that it breaks immersion and makes the live-action film very cartoony and hard to visually follow. CGI is incapable, currently, of approaching the realism of a real prop or effect. It's getting closer every year but it's not there.

Then, look at The Whale, Brendan Frasier's critically-acclaimed comeback (CW: broken family and mental health issue). The Whale was done entirely with practical effects. It is a good film with compelling storytelling both through the characters and the visuals. But, a one-set film based in modern times doesn't really have to worry so much about things like heat-vision or unassisted flight.

Finally, look at the sci-fi series The Expanse. One might be surprised by the sheer amount of practical effects there are in that series (I certainly was). The ship interiors are mostly sets instead of green screen and especially impressive is that the zero-G scenes were nearly all done with practical effects (actors in wire harnesses, at weird angles, holding their bodies straight against gravity, while acting like it is completely effortless - impressive core strength on the lot of them!). Then, you have PDCs, railguns, and starscapes, not to mention augmenting the practical effects, making excellent use of digital VFX. The series wouldn't have been as good or had the same feeling had it all been done with digital VFX and green screen. The best actors in the world are going to give a different performance on a set that they build familiarity with vs a green screen - just for our brains work.

It's hard to say what the balance point is but I suspect it has a lot to do with the things that actors will interact with or be around. The more physical stuff there is for them on the set, the better the chance there is that they will be able to give a compelling performance. That's just that much less mental load while acting, allowing them to dedicate more to portraying their characters' emotions and personalities within the scene.