The limits of technology

I think both Lisa and Stephen did a great job pointing out some important points answering this question, and I'd like to address what they said a bit. I agree with Stephen that, even if we suddenly all became technological genuises tomorrow and started devoting ourselves to aligning technology with environmental issues, technology will never be enough. We must take an honest and critical look at our lifestyles and how we can change them if we're serious about solving the environmental problems the world is facing. I think I spouted off about this in class last week: Even if technology could "save us," the notions of what we would have to do to the planet (geoengineering like "farming" oceans with iron) are sort of ludicrous and make me wonder what other sorts of problems we would inflict on this poor planet in the name of saving it from global warming.

I also think Lisa had a really great insight - what do we mean when we say technology can "save" us? Save us from global warming? At what cost? If we infer "save us" to mean keep our consumeristic lifestyle while not trashing the planet, then we're in trouble. It's not plausible to think we can have our cake and eat it, too. The overwhelming majority of the time, that doesn't work. I think the environment is a lot like a diet - stuff in has to equal stuff out, or bad things happen. Even with increased technological efficiency, if we keep using up the planet's "stuff" (resources) at a rate faster than the planet can replace it, that's a problem. Technology, as Stephen said, can help, but it's in no way the only answer, and if we think it is we're probably kidding ourselves.

To answer the part of ozone depletion, it seems to me like the success of those agreements was actually based as much on cutting back technologies which contained CFLs as it was about finding new technologies to offset or make more efficient our CFL use. I think what that tells us is exactly what Lisa and Stephen have hinted at - we simply can't rely on technology alone to save us. CFLs were great because they were cheap and convenient, but when we realized the harm they were doing to the environment really the only solution was to cut back on them, and doing so has obviously helped. That same example can be applied to a lot of the technologies today which are, in part, contributing to global warming. More fuel-efficient cars would be helpful, but ultimately it's not going to be better efficiency but, rather, fewer cars that will be the solution, as difficult as that is to accept.

Now, if only we could get the rest of the country (and the politicians, Obama included!) to feel that way.