We tend to see technology as a generally positive (or at worst a benign) force in our lives. And for a variety of reasons, there seems to be a widely-held belief that technology holds the key to a resolution of our environmental crisis. I wonder what you make of this. For this week I’d like you to consider the following:
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
If you want another challenge, take a crack at this one: What does our experience with stratospheric ozone depletion (which you’ll be reading about for next Monday's class) have to teach us about technology?
Happy Blogging!
I see technology as a means rather than an end. It is a tool in our tool shed, along with cooperation, knowledge, institutions, etc. Technology opens doors to new solutions, but at the same time it can open a trap door we unwittingly walk into. This is not to say that technology is the ring and we must destroy it (though I can't think of a Mount Doom big enough), it just means that with great power comes great responsibility. Technology is an amplifier, not an object within itself. After wrapping my head around this, I can better understand the I=PAT equation, in that technology is a multiplier that increases goodness or badness, to use technical terms, of population and affluence. We can agree that a lot of people on this earth and a lot of consumption are not good for the environment, but technology is neither good nor bad. For this reason, we must be careful that we apply technology to good policies (alternative energy, consumption reduction, food production techniques, etc) and not to those that are environmentally destructive. The question shouldn't be "How much technology?" but rather "For what means will we use technology?" Technology can be a significant factor in where we decide to go, but it will not save us.
ReplyDeleteTechnology gave us the nuclear bomb, communication devices that have created a reclusive society, and edible/readable spam. On the other hand, technology has reduced infant mortality, has made us smarter, and given us a great sense of accomplishment. But again, technology only facilitated those things, it was humans who came up with them. I am hesitant to say that we should use more or less technology because both have negative ramifications. I believe using more technology would be a false solution. Policy makers would point to the increase in technology and call it a day, disregarding the other factors to environmental impact. While I like to think that technology will never make decisions for me, Bill Joy does have a point that it is slowly taking over our lives. Then a doing away with technology seems ideal, doesn't it? Going camping, living off the food we grow on our own land, relying on the community of people we live with... but it's a little late for that. We are already at such an advanced level—to stop now would seem counterproductive. To take away technological innovation would mean taking away possible vehicles for environmental improvement. Since technology takes on the character of whatever it is 'improving,' we cannot have overarching policies on the multiplier.
What we can do is decide what is worthy of our technology. Technology will play a significant role in the future because we have already assigned it a high position. What we need now is to become less dependent on technology and instead concentrate on the way we live our lives. If we make the decision to consume less, technology will be there to help the progress, enabling our good decisions. Technology will always play its part whether we intend it or not, so let's concentrate on other causes of environmental degradation.
Technology has become a necessary evil in today’s society. It is the cause of cars, trains, planes and other sources of pollution harming the atmosphere and environment, however it is also the source of scrubbers that clean pollutants in factories and hybrid cars that have turned car pollutants in the a greener technology.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is something that needs to be harnessed and channeled onto a good path. Technology can be the savior in the race against climate change, but humans are going to have to be responsible for this establishment. This means that we need to break our addiction to technology for convenience purposes. The world does not need another iPad, or useless invention such as electronic can-openers (in my opinion the laziest invention ever). We need to fuel down the compulsion to purchase cars that fit seven people for a four-person family and runs on 20 miles to the gallon.
If the world continues on this destructive path, technology will become the force of devastation for the world. We are too obsessed with the next technological innovation that will make our lives that much easier and faster. Instead of this mentality, technology can be used to halt the effects of climate change and try to reverse the damages. In the Paul Wapner reading for last week, the author suggests orbiting shades blocking sunlight and harmful UV rays from warming the earth, and introducing phytoplankton to oceans to absorb carbon dioxide. This is the kind of technology that we need to be focusing on. Innovations such as these will be progressive for the earth, and even if they are not successful it will get the ball rolling for others to brainstorm similar technology. We need to promote these inventions, to increase their popularity instead of the destructive ones that are prevalent nowadays. If these new green technologies become “fashionable” among the public, there will be more incentive and demand to create them. It is all about the public demand, so we need to raise awareness about the benefits in order to create a new “green technology revolution”.
There's a reason why, when discussing environmental issues, there are so many different perspectives on moving forward with "solutions." Mainly, because there are two fundamentally different assumptions about life and about living on planet earth. Either people believe (without necessarily being able to pin-point this argument) that we need to scale back progress and go back to living more simply, or they believe that by continuing to produce, and innovate, we will find a way to live in harmony with the natural environment through advanced technology. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just a matter of perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt's a slippery slope to think in absolutes. To say that technology will absolutely "save" us, or that it absolutely will not, doesn't allow someone to think about the bigger picture. To me, the bigger picture is re-defining the way we live on the planet. In my opinion, climate change is already underway, and the best we can hope for is to figure out how to deal with the changes. A couple years ago, I might have professed, with my idealistic vision, that we can change, and all we have to do is convince people that this is the right thing. But today, I see myself as more of a realist. I think that in order to move forward, need to cope with the changes that lie ahead. This doesn't mean that we should continue with our polluting, fossil fuel addicted ways, no. This means that rather than fretting over lost time, we need to look forward with a practical eye and say, "this is what we need to do next." Humans are creatures of habit. This means that unless we are forced, we are not going to willingly change out of the goodness of our hearts. Convenience, for most people, trumps all. I think that this is the mindset that people need to have in order to move forward. Technological innovation is going to be a part of society forever. Just like Eve, once you've had a taste of the apple, there's no going back.
The Green Technology Revolution is the perfect way to start moving forward. I think that creating "green" technologies is an economic goal that we can set our sites on. Improving our technology by minimizing its affects and impacts and figuring out ways to make it simpler and economically productive is the way we're going to move away from polluting our planet. Ultimately, we are going to run out of resources unless we use them more conservatively. However sadistic this may seem, I think that humanity will reach the breaking point before they are able to change. There will be a day where there is no longer a supply for the ample demand, and only then will people take a step back to assess the damage. I think that technology will "save" us to a degree, but the only way we are going to change is to live lives with less of an impact. I am personally torn about predicting, or even analyzing, the potential future. Logically, I think that the only way to "fix" things is to live more locally, and have less of an individual impact. However, I also know, logically, that people are not going to give up the comforts they have. So where does that leave us? I think the only way to move forward is to find a way to bridge the gap between environmental problems/solutions, and economic objectives. Green Technology is definitely part of that bridging.