Technology simply put, is a tool. Any tool can be used for good or for bad, it simply depends on how one uses it. This is a generalization of course, but on a macro scale this rule applies. The problem is that technologically advanced societies and states also tend to have extensive wealth and affluence, which leads to more consumption and a larger ecological footprint in general. So, while usually technology will first lead to an expansion in the scale of ecological impact, there is no reason it cannot be used to reduce the impact afterward. For instance, it is only with highly advanced technology and materials can we produce efficient wind turbine technology. In addition, it will be difficult to undo much of the pollution and harm we have done without advanced technology. Another important factor to remember is that the internet (i.e. technology) is a useful tool for communicating the facts of the environmental cause, educating people across the globe about environmental issues, and organizing for action. In addition, it is only with advanced computer models that we can really model the impact and effects of much of our environmental impact. Clean coal technology is yet another example of how technology can be used to reduce harm and impact. These are just a few examples, but they help illustrate how technology can be a force for environmental good when applied in the right manner.
The problem is not necessarily with technology, but with we the users, who use it to abuse or harm the environment rather than protect or reduce impact. After all, if we recall Nash's article, he depicts an ideal future of minimal environmental impact made possible only with highly advanced technologies. Indeed, if we put focus into increasing general technological efficiencies across the board, it might be possible to keep a relatively high standard of living while reducing environmental impact to a long-term sustainable level. In addition, technological advances can help supplement reductions in the workforce enabling us to sustainably reduce population. As previously stated, technology is merely a tool, and the real challenge will be learning how our society can use it appropriately and for the right purposes.
1 comment:
I couldn't agree more. Technology is most definitely a tool, and, if looked at in isolation from Man, is benign. The problem is, that Technology cannot possibly be viewed in isolation. It is by definition a product of Man, up to this point inextricably tied to Man. Thus, when examining technology, one must take into account its creators: us.
Examination of the relationship between Man and technology is far more practical than viewing either in isolation. Technology is an extension of Man - to borrow Edward T. Hall's phraseology from Beyond Culture. In essence, each technological advancement is in effect equivalent to the addition of another muscle, appendage, sense, bone, etc. This idea is reflected in Bill McKibben's analogy of each American consuming the caloric equivalent of a sperm whale - to operate our technological extensions.
To have any sort of useful discussion on the topic, we must first all be discussing the same thing - that is we must have the same definition of Technology. Do we mean the narrow definition employed by "techies" of ipods and laptops? Do we mean the scientific advancements such as the so-called discovery of the atomic bomb? The technological extension definition refers not just to cars, laptops, sunglasses, or the ability to manipulate matter at the subatomic level but also to amorphous things such as language and social conventions. The extremely broad question of whether technology is "good", "bad" or even "benign" leaves the definition of technology far too vague.
To make such statements - to label anything "good" or "bad" - is to make a value judgement on it. These value judgements reflect the perspective of their maker. I went to the Capital Climate Action protest today. For the protesters, coal is the epitome of what is wrong with both US and global energy policies. But, for the counterprotesters, coal was praised: "Coal powers our economy" and "Celebrate Coal". Thus, attempts to label technology, or in this case coal, as good or bad, depend entirely on perspective.
To tackle this question from an environmental standpoint, technology is not good or bad or benign - it is all of them. Using the technological extension definition, labeling technology any one of these is impossible.
As it relates to the environment, who would call language good or bad?
Even among environmentalists, there is no consensus on issues such as nuclear power.
The fact that labeling things is determined so much by perspective hints at the ultimate answer to the questions of whether technology is good or bad, and whether it is the solution to environmental problems. The solution to the problem is not laid out for us. Rather, it is precisely what we choose to make the solution that will be the solution.
The relationship between perspective and this answer may seem fuzzy, so I'll lay it out as best I can. The fact that one technology, let's say, nuclear power, is viewed variously as good and bad by so many different people hints at the fact that the technology itself is not inherently a solution or not to our problems, rather, it is what each individual chooses to make out of the technology that determines its course and viability.
In other words, Technology can be a solution, but only if we choose to make it so. There are certainly other options, hinted at in the I=PAT equation, and even within the realm of technology there are multiple options. Really, the solution is what we want it to be.
Post a Comment