Technology

I have a real problem with condemning "technology" as a driver for environmental problems. The implication is that technological progress is bad, and that by reverting to simpler, less advanced technology we would improve our environmental footprint. While this might be technically true, it is utterly impractical and socially unpalatable, and is therefore driving environmentalism farther from the mainstream. Let's be serious: No one is going to go back to horse-and-buggy and give up their electricity, even if it means less fossil fuel use.

Frankly, I'm reluctant to even view technology as a force unto itself. Instead, I see technology as a manifestation of human will: it's our ongoing search for the best possible solution to the problems we encounter. I don't think it's fair to BLAME the chainsaw for deforestation, for example. Rather I blame our insatiable lust for clear farmland and lumber. Just as this desire drove us to invent a better solution for removing trees, a desire to achieve sustainable forest products could easily lead to a technological solution such as fast-growing genetically modified trees, or use of naturally sustainable materials like bamboo.

Simply put, "technology" is nothing more than us using our greatest resource, brainpower, to develop solutions to our problem. It is completely impractical for us to have LESS technology, and arguing for that is a good way to alienate pragmatists from environmentalism.