DeDevelopment Neg cfjmp lab’s DeDev File Uniqueness
Download 1.08 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Tech can’t solve—only improves efficiency of which materials are bing used and aff authors are ill-informed
AT: Tech solvesTech doesn’t solveTrainer 12 Dr. Ted Trainer is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales and a contributing author at the Simplicity Institute. ¶ (Ted, Simplicity Institute , “BUT CAN’T TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE SOLVE THE PROBLEMS? ¶ “, 2012, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/LimitsOfTechnologyTrainer.pdf //SRSL) There is therefore a considerable case that global problems cannot be solved by technical advance, mainly because the drive for affluence and growth has now created resource and environmental costs that are far too big. The problems can only be solved by moving to far less affluent ways and quite different social systems which do not generate them. ¶ The Simpler Way argument is that the pursuit of ever increasing wealth is a serious mistake, thwarting the development of satisfactory societies. These are more likely to be achieved if people cooperate in running stable local communities geared to meeting social and ‘spiritual’ needs, from local resources without any concern to get rich or raise the GDP. Tech can’t solve—only improves efficiency of which materials are bing used and aff authors are ill-informedNorth No Date engineer and with qualifications in economics and accountancy (Peter, Pacific Ecologist, “Can Economic Growth Save the Environment?”, no date, http://pacificecologist.org/archive/growthenvi.html //SRSL) Technology - the elixir of growth¶ While the environmental and resource situation on the planet has changed considerably in the past few years, the economics by which we run the world has barely changed at all. In the 19th century economics didn't need to recognise the world as finite, as the impact of the world economy was much smaller. Little regard was paid to resource limitations and none at all to the environment.¶ Though the finiteness of the earth is now a major issue, both in terms of handling waste and providing resources, the economic model of endless growth is still in vogue. In fact, the environmental and resource problems faced by the world are so blindingly obvious even economists have taken note. However rather than change the growth-based economic system, economists claim resources and environmental problems can be managed. As their solution, economists cite technology as the reason the economy can continue to grow indefinitely despite the restraints of the physical universe.¶ The word technology has become a mantra that now regularly makes its appearance in economic articles. Magicians of past eras would utter "abracadabra" to make things happen; today's economists and politicians think invoking the word "technology" will produce the miracles needed to overcome the shortcomings of their policies. Technology is the wand of growth economics. Merely by waving this magic wand, all the annoying impediments of growth are meant to disappear!¶ The technology explanation comes in three parts:¶ Technology improves the efficiency with which materials are used. Therefore, the use of resources will diminish.¶ When we run out of one resource, technology will find us a substitute.¶ Technology will find a solution to environmental problems.¶ Despite the economic "theory" on the subject, an enormous amount of evidence shows that historically use of resources hasn't diminished with economic growth and improved technology. Consumption of resources is increasing exponentially - though at about half the economic growth rate. Technology has improved the efficiency with which materials are used, but not sufficiently to curb the ever-increasing demand for resources.¶ In the short term, the second claim, that substitutes will always be found for depleted resources, is valid in cases where substitutes are available. Though if we accept that the earth is a closed economic system (some economists don't) then in the very long term it cannot provide for endless growth either. If growth has no limits - logic requires an infinite number of substitutes to supplement the supply of exhausted resources. But more importantly, there are some resources, such as fossil fuels and fresh water, for which substitutes are clearly not available. Technology is not alchemy. It can't create resources out of nothing. The non-availability of substitutes for vital resources that are running out is a major weakness of the claim technology will find substitutes for resources that become exhausted.¶ The third claim, that technology will solve the waste disposal problems of the growth economy, is not travelling well. Technology clearly isn't solving the world's waste problems. Carbon dioxide build-up, solid waste disposal, and liquid waste disposal, are all major unsolved issues that growth economists are currently ignoring.¶ Why don't our leaders act on the evidence?¶ One of the problems with growth economists, most politicians and most people now running the planet is that, as a group, they are mostly technologically and scientifically illiterate. Though growth economists state technology will provide solutions for the growth economy, few technologists share this view. No wide circle of scientists and technologists has agreed to discharge their duty of finding the solution to the problems growth economics is creating. In fact, scientists such as E.O.Wilson and David Suzuki say growth economists have taken leave of their senses (if they ever had any in the first place). Scientists in institutions like the CSIRO express similar opinions. Wilson, Suzuki and the rest, point out that the very scientists and technologists charged with the responsibility for creating the future technological fix to sustain the future, claim the miracle is unlikely to occur. The idea technology will fix the problems we have created is an expression of faith by the technologically ill-informed in the technologically informed, who are not normally consulted on the matter.¶ It is easy for the technologically illiterate to acquire an exaggerated idea of the power of technology. Technology has been the great success story underpinning industrial society. Technology has been very successful at the micro level, but at the macro level, its power is more limited. The forces of nature are still several magnitudes greater than the biggest engineering projects man can muster and this is unlikely to change. Technology has had little success in producing rainfall, controlling volcanoes, preventing hurricanes, taming tornadoes and abating global warming.¶ Scientists concerned about the effect on the natural world of the inexorable march of economic activity have rung alarm bells many times, pointing out the world's most intractable large technology problems are looking distinctly unfixable. Carbon dioxide "sequestering" by storing the gas in disused holes in the ground like exhausted oil wells and coalmines has in recent times become a buzz phrase amongst economists, but no technology has emerged to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an economic manner. Storage of solid wastes has not been solved; neither has the storage of radioactive waste, liquid or solid. Fresh water is in short supply everywhere. Deserts are expanding. The climate is changing. These are big problems that economists, who are for the most part technologically and biologically illiterate, blithely assure us technology will fix.¶ Prominent Australian Labor Party federal MP Lindsay Tanner, technically unqualified, as are almost all Australian politicians, believes in the technology wand. Mr Tanner authored a book, "Open Australia," to explain his vision for the future to promote an expanding role for Australia on the global stage. Mr Tanner dismisses environmental objections to endless growth in a single paragraph, part of which reads: "The one credible argument against a larger population is the restraints imposed by our geography. Yet even this argument rests on the fallacious assumptions that we can continue our reckless use of arable land and water resources, and that other countries have more of these resources per head of population, and that technology will not change." Based on his confidence in a technology he doesn't define, and probably does not understand, Mr Tanner recommends Australia grows its economy, increases its population thereby exacerbating the ecological problems the country is currently not solving.¶ The alternative view (entirely consistent with proven principles of good maintenance) is this. Before implementing policies, such as increasing the population that will exacerbate the environmental problem, surely we should first fix the problems populations cause. As pioneer ecologist, Dr David Suzuki, once remarked: "If you don't know how to fix something, don't keep breaking it."¶ Throwing in the Towel¶ The growth economy can exist for years on the assumption that problems it is creating can later be fixed. But every now and again, something emerges showing the assumption is erroneous, that the problems cannot be fixed. By this time of course it's too late to solve the problems the policies have caused.¶ For example, the problem of dryland salinity in Australia has been known about for at least a century. Yet the country has done very little to prevent it, in the belief the problem could one day be reversed. On 6 October 2001, a symposium, organised by the Australian Agricultural Resource Economics Society was held in Melbourne to discuss salinity. At the conference of distinguished economists, David Parnell, Professor of Agricultural and Research Economics of the University of Western Australia, broached the delicate subject of giving up on dryland salinity. Professor Parnell said: ". . .as painful as it sounds, we might have to sacrifice parts of the Australian landscape. The battle against salt is, frankly, too expensive.¶ The salinity problem illustrates the weakness of assuming technological fixes will come along in the future to fix the problems now being created. Global warming is in a similar category to salinity. For over ten years, conservationists lobbied for sensible economic and ecological policies without success. At the 2002 round of climate talks held in New Dehli in October 2002, the first signs emerged that conservationists were throwing in the towel on this issue. The industrial lobby groups were too strong. The growth economists had the ear of government - particularly the US government. It was considered all too hard to reverse, stop or even slow down the consumer economy. The emphasis of the New Dehli conference shifted from curbing carbon dioxide emissions to putting up with the consequences. No magic wand technologies had emerged to fix the problem. Download 1.08 Mb. Share with your friends:
|