Discussion Question #5

Hmm....will technology save us? i think that in some ways, technology has proven to be both the cause and solution to many of the world's problems (use your imagination). I like to think that technologies can be grouped into adaptive technologies and convenience technologies (some both...but work with me here..). I think that depending how you assess which way to characterize a technology, has an impact on whether a technology is "good" or "bad", whether it will save us or not. While this assumption would technically apply to any technology, for the sake of our class lets make an environmental example --- FISHING: a convenience technology of the fishing industry is how commercial fisheries have developed net systems which allow them to trawl long stretches (of nets) and keeping them cast till as long as it takes to fill them. This is not a technology that will save us becuase although it is highly efficient and cost-effective for fisherman, it may result in overfishing, species extinction and loss of biodiversity for everyone else. On the other hand, i consider an adaptive technology for this industry to be the adoption of net systems which target the intended species of marine life to be caught; that is, there are nets which (and i am unclear how) but manage to allow species like dolphins and crustaceans to escape from the nets while keeping more intended fishing targets. the results of this would be quite the opposite from the first example....biodiversity has the opportunity to be preserved! As well, depending how you look at alternative fuel source arguements, you may see how some portray the arguements of decreasing dependency on fossil fuels, but others argue that dependence on ethanol would result in destroying good, natural agriculture soil. I guess...it's just how you look at costs and benefits, gains and losses from any respective eco-technology.

Also on the note of stratospheric ozone depletion, i assessed from our reading that the ozone-depleting chemicals which are in controversy on to the environmental community are again ones which fit into that characterization of making our lives easier (at an efficient or inexpensive cost); from the Global North's past use to the South's necessity to do the same now, there are certainly conflicts in place - for the North, how do you come to terms with harming the environment? do you change it? do you FIX it? do you find a way to do what you need to to, without harming the environment? ETC. with the South, how do you reconcile your opportunities to have the same abilities or achievement as the North? i think that there are conflicts of interest on many different levels here, and it is whether good or bad choices are made in response that will decide whether world society will be saved from environmental destruction or not -- that we need to all cooperate is a major necessity.