Technology: TBD

As a person living in the United States, I consider technology to be my ipod or computer, but it can also be thought of as anything that cannot be found in the natural world. Now, some people might be up in arms about this statement, but it is completely valid. For instance, when agricultural plows were first developed this was considered technology. Technology is relative to the time and the development of the country. For this reason, it is foolish to assume technology can or will save us. First of all, technology allowed us to prosper and thus leads to the degradation of the environment. Before technology ruled our lifestyles, life was simple, but fulfilling. People worked harder and this meant we knew the amount of work something took to create. With technology, we see buildings being constructed everyday because the old ones will not fit the human capacity demanded. Yet, we do not see where these materials come from or the way in which they are transported to the construction site. This notion of technology saving the world seems like a ploy created by big business to keep “business as usual”.

Technology, in general, is terrific and has allowed the United States and other developed countries to prosper. In terms of the environment, technology is not beneficial. Technology makes our lives easier and therefore we glamorize it. Yet, it is the reason why environmental degradation has sped up in recent years. For many, technology seems like the answer because it would be the logical choice to the problem. Technology helps us solve many of our problems in other parts of our lives, so then the question becomes why this would be any different from anything else. It is different solely because it is what allows for the problem to begin in the first place. In another argument, no one would use the problem as a solution, yet this glamorization of technology has brought many people to this very conclusion.

Many people have come to the conclusion that technology will save us, but it is impossible to predict the unknown. Who knows if it will? It may or it may not, but personally, I am not waiting for that cure-all piece of technology. Also, it is interesting that humans are putting all of their faith into something that will fails us from time to time. Readily, we forget the negative aspects of technology because it takes the pressure off of humans to fix our way of life.

Technology Alone Cannot Save Us

Technology alone cannot be the answer to the Earth’s present struggles. I find the Cornucopian belief that technology will progress enough to fix our major problems to be shallow. I personally have a difficulty in just sitting back and waiting for these life-changing innovations to pop up. And, if they do happen to pop up out of nowhere, then I don’t believe that they will rapidly integrate themselves into world policy because there will be too many obstacles. My disbelief is two-fold: technology is an aid but not an answer and implementation of technology is too difficult.

My mom used to always tell me that with every action there comes a reaction. I believe that this holds true for everything…including technology. Each new technological innovation also brings with it a negative by-product. With the burning of fossil fuels, there comes the depletion of stratospheric ozone. This is something that is very obvious to us right now, but at the time of the Industrial Revolution was minute if existent at all. Nuclear power creates a toxic waste, wind and water turbines kill the local wildlife, and electric energy ultimately leads back to coal burning for the most part. With these new technologies that we are developing, how will we know the exact long-term effects? What if something that we considered helpful is later discovered to have created a whole other environmental problem? The ecosystems around the globe are very fragile. A slight change of the long-term can amount to serious damage.

Also, I don’t believe that once a beneficial technology is created it will be implemented to the extent it demands to have any sort of dramatic effect. There are so many innovations around the world, and most of them remain with untapped potential. I understand the process of weeding our the less efficient and poor technologies, but I don’t ever see the process being completed by promoting one special technology to be implemented worldwide. As we’ve talked about in class, worldwide changes are difficult because opposition will exist until the environmental option becomes economically viable but that won’t happen until countries alter the structure of their economy. It is a vicious cycle that prevents the progression of green innovations from truly impacting the world market. I admit that it is grim, but I don’t see that changing rapidly.

In environmental terms, my impression is that in order for technology to “save us” it means that technology will support any lifestyle that humans want to live. I do not believe this is a possibility. Technology can only aid us in helping to resolve the environmental issues that we have created. The world has a chance to take advantage of the benefits of technology, because it is certainly not all negative. Ultimately, I place the responsibility in the world population. This is a positive; there is possibility for resolution. Without action from us, technology is merely there and for the most part inactive. Technology cannot be the catalyst that begins environmental progress; the world population needs to be the catalyst.

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.

Technology's False Positives

Technology is such a seductive option for the salvation of humanity from the terrifying world of environmental disaster-apocalypse that surely awaits us all in the future. I think the real appeal really just comes from the idea that with a little bit of science that you or I do not necessarily understand, we could Revolutionize Something. There are technological fixes out there for small scale problems, and the most successful and least disruptive of these seem to attempt mimicry of nature's systems. People need technological literacy on a global scale in order to see the self-restriction of technological industry. If Subsaharan Africans who faced mass starvation as a result of the 1970s Green Revolution funded by the IMF and World Bank had increased access to affordable technology, we could perhaps see a better rounded approach to the greening of agriculture as it effects global carbon emissions and the empowerment of local people.

Bill McKibben talks about the role of the internet in bringing together the global community, with the expansion of the internet's connection to more diverse peoples from ethnic and economic class issues it could be supposed that first world and third world might collide more creatively in terms of technological development. In this way, yes, perhaps technology could "save" us. However, the trend is ever towards extremes. As much as our communities are expanded, our access to each other as human beings increased, some of this inevitably moves us away from our contact on the -face-to-face level. When everything is from a distance I wonder how connected people feel to their own backyards.

Technology in terms of robots and environmental tech like what we discussed last class I am always skeptical of; how far has any of that kind of thinking brought us? Metal trees to replace real trees for carbon output sound make me sad. On an elemental level that is how I feel. The rising global population concerns me more for the CO2 levels than maximized efficiency trees. We need, rather, a return to older ways I would say. Good old fashioned education and proactive work. Sex and environmental education, on a global level. Education education education holds the height of technological hope for me personally. Only education and action can save us.

Technology and Environment

I would like to take the first part question: will technology save us? Why, or why not? and meaning of technology in terms of environment.

I would say technology will be a helpful development tool or investment to improve our environment in the long run. The first thing I came up with when I heard technology in environment was Kiznet's curve that we talked about in the second week of class. When people just started developing technology, they destroyed environmental quality more rather than improve it, and this happened because people did not know how to use technology well. However, at the particular point, they eventually could improve quality of environment more because of technology development, regulations or rules taken by government, and changing values and norms toward environment issues. The changing of norms and regulations would come first to connect technology development , but technology development is a part of factor of improvment of environment situation.
I believe that technology development will improve more to help us because technology would never go back. There are many countries which are still underdeveloped, and those countries could learn the developmet path which developed countries already experienced, but this means in positive way, learning from past failures. From developed countries's experience, underdevelop countries can take more greener actions for environment movement by technology development which is already developed by developed countries. In order to take the right path, the policy or regulation would be a key factor to motivate people to go greener.
In recent years, many environmental policies/ regulations and norms/ concept published, and technology often uses in order to achive these goals. For example, Corporation Social Responsibility(CSR) is the concept which private firms or corporations should not aim only own interest, but also need to achieve social responsibirities such as protection of environmental issues. This concept imposes on firms to improve the cause of environmental destruction such as reduction of CO2 emissions , and many firms utilize technology to achieve this responsibilities. In addition to that, eco business appeared like renewable energy and productions, those are impossible to achieve without technology develoment. Therefore, I believe that technology will work in positive, and achieve great improvement to environmental situation.

Clever but impractical

The US gives itself so much credit sometimes that it is easy to forget that these days, not only are we Not First at some things, we are not even in the top 5. Environmental care is one of these things. Furthermore, China certainly has no room to brag, I breathed in Beijing for 5 months, I know. When Friedman quotes Liu saying climate change “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.” she is not joking. People everywhere are dying of climate change and pollution in China. In reality, the country is saving itself an enormous (as opposed to just a really really large) national healthcare bill in about 10 years by making a real effort now to green its methods of growth. If China really wanted to deter the acceleration of climate change, the government would enforce pollution penalties, it would cap factory emissions and many other things. I would be interested to hear where the scientific labs used in the developments of these green products are dumping their waste. The Chinese do not recycle- the plastic mines Friedman discusses are other people's garbage landed on the PRC. Finding even one recycling can in Beijing was not only a hassle, but near impossible. Even if there is one recycling can in a neighborhood, I highly doubt that the thing is ever used correctly or conscientiously. This article is right, the Chinese do use greening to create jobs, something that the US badly needs right now. But that doesn't make China environmentally pristine.

The US could do from taking some practical wisdom from China- be practical, accept that which makes you better able to supply for your people and your nation's future. Stability, harmony and ingenuity are quick ways to an easy buck, why would you mess yourself up by getting in your own way? OH THAT'S RIGHT- Democracy. Governance is there for a reason, but in this country somehow that has been interpreted to mean that petty politics are the order of the day. The willfully maintained ignorance of global change will come to find these individuals one day and the best action we can take at this point is the local action that every one of our classes seems to come down to; you cannot count on the powers that be to make decisions that best serve you or the rest of the world. You have to be conscious every step of the day, and once you make environmentally friendly habits- like recycling, writing your congressman, or informing yourself, friends and family about the destruction your way of life could be wreaking on this world- it becomes easier. Ehri said in class the other day that in Japan recycling is a thoughtless process with maybe up to 11 bins to put your trash in. If the people of Japan can chose between 11 bins for recycling, we should be able to, too! The practical implementation of recycling programs needs nothing beyond the initiative of a few anxious people. Authority figures have been anticipating the ruckus about to made over their recycling for ages. It's time to validate those anticipations by aggravating them a bit. In the US nothing gets done until people decide to do something about it- in China there are so many people that if the government did not head up industry and employ people they would still be having farmer's revolutions against their landlords. Such is the nature of these nations.

We're Only Outsmarting Ourselves

I don’t believe that there is a “best” way to address climate change. Action is action. There are so many approaches that are possible, each with its merits. With our global situation at present, it is just necessary to take action; we can’t afford to be picky right now. And, as with any complex problem, it will not be one solution but a combination of many that truly attacks the problem. I also believe that the U.S. cannot discount the fact that other nations are making impacts and we are not. It is easy to scapegoat our obstacles to the government, but one of my classmates made the point that our representatives are essentially supposed to be representations of our beliefs. So, are the representatives not properly portraying our wants, is the public not concerned enough, or a little bit of both?

The global economy is based upon competition. So, it is understandable that this article would bring out this obvious competition between China and the U.S. However, I viewed this comparison as a chance for progress instead of the end result of an ultimate winner and loser. First, there are not just two parties involved in this article. Friedman mentions the European Union, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea as also having legislature put in place to deal with electronics recycling. This is important when talking about Biddle’s business because those are the places that recycle enough to make his work viable. Behind my house right now, there are electronics sitting in the back alley, because it is just hard to get rid of them. Also, Friedman gives the U.S. a lot of credit for our spirit of innovation, something that China lacks. But the trick is that innovation is only a part of the process; the other part is implementation. China is good at implementing ideas and tweaking them to make them most cost effective. In essence, the U.S. and China could work together…life is not always a race.

I’ve seen this recurring theme lately in environmental politics: if it’s not directly visible, then it doesn’t exist. Friedman criticizes American politicians, as he should, for debating whether climate change exists. For the Chinese, there is no debate. “People see, eat, and breathe pollution every day”, according to Liu in the article. The United States cannot wait until the changes are this obvious, it will be too late. Right now it is easy for Americans to ignore these problems, because they can go through their days without being directly, immediately affected. Climate change is real; it cannot be ignored. If it is, we will end up in a horrible situation where each day the climate hurts us significantly.