The Inefficiency of Technology

Before discussing the "saving powers" of technology, let it be acknowledged that technology was what fouled us up in the first place. According to the IPAT equation, technology is "our capacity to use the planet," which is a technical an abbreviated way of referring to the human innovation which allows for more Joules per capita to be expended than mere muscle can account for. Our selfish (and mostly unnecessary) domination and overuse of the planet's primary productivity--as Manning is fond of calling it--is a result of mankind's use of technology to selectively and inefficiently monopolize the Earth's productivity potential.

To be blunt, technology will not save us. At least, not in a way that could preserve the romanticists view of our world and have our population of six billion and growing "return" to the level of impact on the planet of ages past--a level which preserves biodiversity and is sustainable. When cornucopians say that technology will "save us," they mean that some technological solution will prevent mankind from wiping ourselves out by ruining the planet until it becomes irreversably unhabitable.

When people speak of improvements in technology they are likely thinking of improvements in the efficiency of our--and not just capacity to--make use of the planet's productivity. While technology may be making improvements in terms of efficiency in our use of the planet to provide for us, the overall use of the planet is as inefficient as ever.

Or experience with stratospheric ozone depletion teaches us that while technology can help fix our mistakes, it was probably the source of our woes in the first place. That is to say: sure, we were able to replace the CFCs in our air conditioners and aerosol sprays with HCFCs, but it was several decades and a large hole in the ozone later before that swap took place. In addition, it should be understood that the "technological solution" of using HCFCs is not really a solution at all--at best, we're merely polluting less than we were. "Sustainable pollution:" it's not good, but it won't kill us.