The Tech Trap

Technology, I would argue, is generally a positive force.  Innovation  has assured our survival as a species and also greatly increased our quality of life though it could be argued, and is by some, that certain technological developments are currently driving us in the opposite direction.  A lot of this has to do with the goals of the the developers/drivers of the new technology.  Consumerism, as argued by both Meadows and Assadourian among others, is fundamentally detrimental to the environment.  As such, if a technology is developed for the sole purpose of selling it, it is a negative development.  The newly released iPhone 5, for instance, is an example of negative technology.  It represents new technology because it is shinier and has a few more bells and whistles than its predecessor, but it is negative because its release has convinced many iPhone owners that their phones are obsolete and that they must buy the new version.  Over the past week, I have rolled my eyes at multiple friends and acquaintances as they explain how their iPhone that they purchased just a few months ago is now worthless because there is something newer on the market.  The production of the new iPhones wastes resources as does shipping, marketing, etc.  Then there is the question of what happens to the old iPhones: do people sell them, throw them out, use them as coasters?  In short, new technology is a negative force when it is developed to be sold rather than to address a legitimate issue.

That said, technology can be a negative force as a consequence of the externalities that result from it.  The green revolution, for instance, caused a myriad of unforeseen environmental problems despite being driven by a benevolent goal.  We see this a lot: a new technology is developed and seems to effectively address a problem but causes  even more in the end.  This phenomenon occurs because we can never fully predict what effect a new technology will have down the road, and this is probably where innovation is most dangerous, which does not mean that it should be avoided. Rather, we should be careful to at least try to foresee more of the "unforeseen" consequences of new technology and then have systems in place to control them.

Finally, I do believe that technology holds the key to controlling and ultimately reversing environmental degradation. Frankly, it has to.  Returning to older practices, more in touch with nature, might be more effective in stopping more degradation, but it is viewed as regression, and as such, I do not believe that it will happen short of some Hollywood-esque post-apocalyptic scenario.  Further, this change would be extremely effective in preventing further damage, but we're at a point where we have quite a bit of cleaning up to do as well, and innovation is absolutely key in this respect.  I agree with Assadourian that people need to fundamentally change the ways they live, think, and consume and that green technology will not fix the problem if we do not fundamentally alter our behavior.  However, this shift is going to have to be framed as progress and accompanied by new green technological innovations. Technology got us into this mess, and it's going to have to get us out of it.