One Small Step for Mankind, but a Potential to be a Moderate Step

I think it would be premature to say that technology will save us. It is already clear how enormously complex the world is, with ecosystems so interconnected that a minor change in one area will affect a quality in another area. It is becoming clear how enormously complex the solutions need to be. Theories ranging from sustainable development, slowing population growth, to management of resources all prove that whatever the solution is, it will be just as complex as the ecosystems that are saved. Technology is just one component. It will only be one part of the solution (or problem).
It is true that technologies of the past and present, and most definitely the future, have and will continue to damage the environment, but this damage is a reflection of our own lack of foresight. Our industrialization did not take into account of the social impacts that the new technologies would inflict. While some would argue that technology is not neutral (saying that a nuclear power plant is not the same as a solar panel), they are missing the point that those technologies were conceived of in the human mind, and are a reflection of what we think. The capabilities bestowed upon them are capabilities that we as humanity chose to bestow upon them. They are not inherently bad or good. Humanity could develop much more far-reaching environmentally friendly technology, or technology that can resuscitate devastated environments, but that is left to humanity. Taking into account the earlier mentioned complexity, it can be said now that technology may play a part in saving us. The keys here are may and part. It is up to humans to decide what technology can do, and considering the complexity, whatever we develop will have to fit into a much larger framework of better resource management, alteration of habits, and education.
As for stratospheric ozone depletion, one must be cautious about drawing conclusions. CFC’s and other materials that damaged the ozone were part of technologies that did not consider their far-reaching impacts. It could be easy to say that we must reduce technology because we reduced CFC’s and helped lessen the damage to the ozone. However, that would label an entire class of objects (which have done many beneficial things) as inherently bad. To coordinate the meetings for the summits, world leaders no doubt relied on technologies which allowed them to communicate faster and travel. Without those technologies, such global coordination would be impossible.