What's Wrong With a Techno-fix?

Since almost everyone agrees that we need more and better technology to cope with the world's problems why would the idea of a techno-fix meet any opposition?

The problem arises when tech is seen as the total solution, as if our need for waste should be continued and our goal of unlimited growth is beyond question.

The multi-dimensional impact of our huge footprint on the planet will not be solved by providing lots of energy, or growing GM food on the moon, even if we could.

Maybe we could build a system to run our SUV's on solar/geo/wind power, but just to be hyper-active? To keep up an image? If that's what we really want maybe we could. It would be a feat. Lots and lots of batteries and other high maintenance dirty items, for billions of people around the world driving SUV's? It would be a mess.

With plentiful oil energy was nearly free. To replace oil we will have to collect, process, and store all that energy. It would be best to scale down our energy needs using conservation as much as possible.

Everyone is a radical, because radical just means getting to the roots of our problems. Who is against that? We disagree about the roots, but we agree that the only effective solutions consider the roots.

Our 'need' for growth and our waste of resources are due to our attempts to stay busy after we had machines to do our work. When we face the unemployment our technology makes possible we take a step toward being radical. The population problem is a root cause of war, poverty, pollution, and resource depletion. We can't begin to talk about these problems without being radical.

To avoid being radical we can hope for a techno-fix. However, if we don't get to the roots of problems we can not fix them. Meanwhile, the techno-fix for oil has diverted us from limiting population and pushed us closer to depletion of this planet's other limited resources. There are limits to growth. Don't be blinded by the techno-fix.

Barry Brooks

Back to Mr Peak Oil