|
Hah, I wish I took more time to read the posts I was responding to beforehand.
On the subject of nuclear energy, there is no technical reason to worry about nuclear waste storage. Reactors can work with most "nuclear waste," turning it all into energy and an extremely safe (still technically radioactive, but very safe) end material, whose radiation can be effectively and safely blocked by a sheet of paper. Or your skin.
"Dangerous" nuclear matter is dangerous because it is highly radioactive. However, this means that it has a short half-life (all of that radiation comes from the decay of the radioactive material), and does not need long-term storage. Material that does need long-term storage is not highly radioactive, because otherwise it would have a short half-life and therefore not need long-term storage! Incidentally, the "hot" stuff makes ideal fuel for nuclear reactors, so we shouldn't be burying it, we should be "burning" it!
The actual problem is political: Many European, Asian, and American countries have agreed not to use this sort of reactor, because one of the in-between fuels is weapons-grade plutonium. As off-topic as we've gone, I don't really want to talk about politics, so I'll stop here.
|
I won't argue the nuclear stuff here. I merely brought up nuclear energy to illustrate a point. Many technologies can substitute just fine in the same example. The 20th century was the century of chemicals. So many have been invented, and so many are used - and so many are very toxic. So again, we must carefully evaluate chemical based technology and the use of various chemicals. Americans used to have their lawns sprayed with DDT!!!!! And when Rachel Carson questioned it with her book, Silent Spring (a work which really boosted the environmental movement in the 60's), scientists attacked her, saying DDT was perfectly safe, that she was foolish for questioning it, etc etc. We now know that DDT is very toxic.
I'm trying to illustrate a point, not focus on particular technologies (which would be an exercise that would take millienia).
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 05 2008 03:59 nA.Inky wrote:
Jibba says "and I don't agree with not doing something simply because we are ignorant of the outcome."
I am saying we need to be critical, not necessarily conservative (although undoubtedly a more critical view will lead us in a more conservative direction, as we recognize some choices are simply not acceptable).
I think when there is any real question about a technology's safety (not necessarily ignorance, but rather the possibility that something might be really dangerous), we should err on the side of caution (what is known as the precautionary principle.) If we don't know how to truly safely store nuclear waste and ensure 100 percent that we can keep plants from melting down, then it is best to not go down the path of nuclear energy, for example, regardless of its supposed benefits. Those are fairly predictable outcomes and problems, though. We know mishandled nuclear waste has a lot of negative consequences. In the case of cars, or even roads, I don't think there was any way of knowing or even have the slightest understanding of the potential consequences 200 years later to our ozone layer or glaciers. For that, I can't be critical of them. But I agree, for willful ignorance or ignoring known possible consequences, we must be very critical. But scientists, when uninfluenced by politics, are typically excellent in that department.
|
Jibba says "Those are fairly predictable outcomes and problems, though. We know mishandled nuclear waste has a lot of negative consequences. In the case of cars, or even roads, I don't think there was any way of knowing or even have the slightest understanding of the potential consequences 200 years later to our ozone layer or glaciers. For that, I can't be critical of them. But I agree, for willful ignorance or ignoring known possible consequences, we must be very critical. But scientists, when uninfluenced by politics, are typically excellent in that department."
------------------------
When there is any doubt, we really ought to err on the side of caution. If we are ignorant, we must become informed, and as much as possible without investing entire nations in a new technology. Once informed, where there is doubt about the safety and sustainability of a technology (see my five criteria a page back for an example of some tests technologies should pass), the technology should not be embraced. IE, if there is a possibility that X chemical will cause cancer in women, we probably shouldn't go putting that chemical in household cleaning products.
At any rate, we have long since reached a point where the masses are not asked whether they want a new technology or not, or whether it should be adopted. Experts, politicians, and businessmen all make the decisions, and the people are strongly pressured through various means to accept the decisions of the elite.
At any rate, my point remains: the history of technology is a history of unintended consequences. Tech is created to solve problems or make life easier, but it so often creates problems, often problems that are worse than the one the technology was created to solve. So even given that scientists are aware of environmental pressures, I do not have faith (and that's really what it would have to be - faith) that technology can fix our present situation without creating some other dreadful situation.
And, to reiterate, while environmental issues are more on people's minds today than in the past, this is not the same as saying these issues are the priority. Politicians and businesses serve power and wealth first, and people/environment/etc second.
One way power can serve both aims is by marketing "green" products and services. Of course these things don't have to really be green, all that matters is that the masses can be convinced that these things are green. I've no doubt that we will see a lot more green merchandise in the coming years. Of course, it is my strong belief that this will amount to dressing up the same old mistakes in a green image.
|
BottleAbuser says "My objection to this is that although extrapolated consumption rates cannot be met by current production rates, a growth in production rates will meet the higher consumption rates, and therefore a reduction in our consumption of resources is not evidently necessary.
If it is unreasonable to expect a higher production rate in the future, I do not see how reasonable it is to expect a higher consumption rate as well."
---------
Correct me if I am wrong here. I believe Jared Diamond was referring to production rates of natural resources, ie lumber. So this is not a situation where one builds more lumber factories. Plant more trees, yes.... but even still, there are limits.
Those limits will indeed limit consumption - greatly. The issue here is that their is some rate at which resources replenish themselves. If we go beyond that rate, we can realize higher gains in th short run. In that case, we are borrowing against the future. What happens is that the pool of resources we draw from will ultimately decrease, thus limiting future consumption.
There is good evidence that this is happening now in the world. I fully expect massive economic crises in the coming decades, where food and water themselves are in short supply (you can read major news papers and studies saying that this is going to start happening - I urge you to look.)
---------------------------
BottleAbuser says "I think it is a weasel argument: the "environment" is bettered or worsened for the accommodation of humans, or for non-human organisms? If for the first, then most technologies would be considered good for the environment. If for the second, then most technologies would be detrimental to the environment (and therefore abandoned?). Would something be considered beneficial if it made the environment more friendly to humans by making it easier to see at night (street lights), but also damaged nocturnal animals' lifestyles? Anyhow, the criteria are not well defined, and it is difficult to discuss with so many ambiguities."
-----------------------------------
No weasel argument exists here: I've not changed my definition of a word or phrase in order to maintain an argument - and that is what a weasel argument is (changing meanings/definitions). If I have, you can point it out to me.
This dichotomy you set up makes no sense to me. Environment for people or environment for animals? I don't see a distinction. It is common in Western thinking to see the human organism as separate from all other life and all other objects, just as it is common to see the individual as separate from culture, institutions, etc. In short, Western thinking is all about disintegration and atomization - dichotomous thought (this is even said to be part of the warlike attitude of Western thinkers and people in general). I don't see those boundaries. We arise from this Earth and from it's abundance and diversity of life. We are part of this Earth, and part of its systems. We cannot separate ourselves from the well being of the planet. I am very concerned about what happens to animals and other life, and I am also concerned about what happens to us.
As Rachel Carson famously said (paraphrased): "Man is part of the Earth, and any war against the EArth is a war against himself." Our fate is not separate from the rest of life and the total environment.
|
I don' t have numbers, nor did anyone supply any real ones, on the consumption of limited-production resources. Of course, it could very well be that we are over-consuming a truly limited-supply resource, and the buffer will at some point run out with disastrous consequences. Without numbers, it is difficult to evaluate. I do not see strong evidence that we are over-using wood, for example. Deforestation is rampant, but not because people are using too many trees; rather, farmers are using slash & burn techniques to make (very poor) farmland. This may be an example of over-consumption in a different dimension, but I'm convinced that it is more a political than a technical problem. Also, let me point out that many products that in the past used wood-based materials are now using alternative materials, and many more will probably switch over to (more renewable, cheaper) synthetic materials in the future.
I'm a firm believer that technology in itself cannot be a "good" or "bad" thing: the effects of a tool are decided by its operator. A hammer may be considered beneficial to everyone when it is being used to drive nails for construction, but detrimental (at least to non-wielders) if used as a blunt weapon.
Despite this, we can see how technologies have been used in the past, and decide whether or not their use was beneficial or detrimental when everyone's interests are considered:
Antibacterial agents have been used to prevent and treat both potentially deadly and non-deadly sicknesses. In many cases, it prevented death of the treated. In some cases, it bred resistant strains. I argue that fewer people have died from infection by resistant strain microbes than were saved by antibiotics, and this was therefore a good thing. (One could argue that humans are extremely detrimental to everyone else, and therefore their deaths are a good thing, and by extension saving humans is a bad thing, but it's a rather convoluted and weak argument.)
I'm going to assume that microbes don't have interests, and therefore killing them is not ethically undesirable at all. Even with that assumption, that was not very cut-and-dried; other technologies are even more gray.
However, I think the vast majority of technology (from "gut feeling," as I have no data) has been a net benefit. The difficulty of completely evaluating the effects of a technology makes it effectively impossible to collect data and objectively analyze the situation. Of course, I welcome any suggestions for other approaches to this.
|
Also, given the model of solutions creating more problems, I see three possible cases:
The solutions tend to create more or bigger problems than the original problem. In this case, the positive feedback will end our race.
The solutions tend to create fewer or smaller problems than the original problem. Again, positive feedback will act, but this time we'll eventually reach some sort of utopia.
The solutions tend to create problems of equal magnitude to the original problem. In this case, the current world state will be preserved, which is quite acceptable to many people (but personally, not to me).
The biggest problem would be the first case, but (again speaking from faith) I do not believe this is the case. If it is, there is so very little I can personally do about it, so I'll just be along for the downward spiral into escalating problems and disaster. I really hope not, though, and emotionally I feel confident that this will not be the case.
|
BottleAbuser says: "I'm a firm believer that technology in itself cannot be a "good" or "bad" thing: the effects of a tool are decided by its operator. A hammer may be considered beneficial to everyone when it is being used to drive nails for construction, but detrimental (at least to non-wielders) if used as a blunt weapon."
--------------------
I'm glad you mentioned this. This is a very common belief, the idea that technology is inherently neutral. Cultural studies and the philosophy of science (the study of scientific thinking itself) can shed a lot of light on this subject (I am just getting into these two fields, so I won't pretend to be very knowledgeable.)
It can be argued that technology is NOT neutral. Consider the 5 criteria I listed on page 2 - I think they point at why technology is not neutral.
Consider atom-bombs. Not even considering their use (which should obviously - I think - be considered insane), it must be recognized that atom bombs do not merely come out of nowhere..... their very existence necessitates a certain kind of scientific/technological elite class, and some kind of political system/control system.
Is the car neutral? The technology of the automobile necessitates that MASSIVE portions of land be covered over by roads and parking lots. These roads and parking lots have environmental effects of their own (they alone raise temperatures and affect how water goes into the land and flows over the surface.) Furthermore, who makes cars? Can anyone produce cars? Can anyone own them? No - social systems are required. Likewise with the aforementioned roads and parking lots - they don't build themselves. In America, roads and parking lots are HIGHLY subsidized by the government, and this is not for your driving pleasure (lolz) - it is for commerce (not neutral!)
Consider time itself, which is a technology. Many cultures have a loose concept of time, but I am referring to time in the Western sense (very rigid time). There are theorists who state that time itself is a system of domination! (Certainly not neutral.) What does time do? It is a way of synchronizing movement. In other words, the purpose of time is to synchronize human activity, directing it to political and social ends. (this might be seen as a good thing, but the point is to recognize that there is a purpose here..... it is not neutral.)
I'm putting this whole thing together sloppily, but what I hope to show is that technologies....
1) require certain social/political systems (hunter-gatherers don't invent nuclear bombs)
2) focus and direct human behavior in certain directions (if you are a hammer, every problem is a nail.....)
3) often necessitate the use of other technologies, again calling forward a way of life with impacts on human thought, human relationships, and environmental conditions (in positive or negative ways - but not neutral.)
An atom bomb is not neutral. It has a political purpose, even if that is just mutually assured destruction - a form of "security"! Human attitudes/thoughts are imbedded in the very technology!
Trying to boil it down... What I am saying is that life is this massively complex web of connections and relationships. To take a technology (the atom bomb) and try to divorce it from everything else... all those other relationships.... is a useless exercise in abstraction. The reality is that NO technology is without bias.
This bias can be good or bad.
My conception of good involves fostering an abundance and variety of life (climax eco-systems), freedom and cooperation, so I keep these in mind in my critical thinking on politics, technology, and so on.
|
In short, technology is no more neutral than the words we speak. Really, the more I think of it, there is literally no such thing as neutrality - neutrality is a concept that itself is not neutral, it serves a political purpose (masking the real purpose of theories, actions, technologies, for example).
Edit: "Masking the real purpose of theories, actions, and technologies for example" - to this, let me add that we don't use neutrality to mask purpose merely from others, but also to mask our purposes from ourselves!
|
While this thread happily diverges in so many directions, I'll say this too: Ghandi once said that what scared him the most is "the hardness of heart of the educated."
What we so often learn in school is this kind of cold rationality - essentially a schizoid mindset. We learn to truly be nihilistic. This is how politicians can discuss what nuclear victory in a nuclear war might be (losing 200 million and killing 300 million of the enemy, for example) in a calm way. This is how someone can calmly say "well, if we are out of balance with nature, feedback will kill a lot of us off and things will self-correct." This cold rational thinking is supposed to be neutral, scientific, etc, when infact it is a justification for a certain political/social outlook. This is essentially stamping approval on a way of being in the world - a way of being that may result in great destruction.
Humans are condemned to choose. No one is neutral - not me, not you, not anyone. Whatever perspective you apply, whether it be a "rational scientific" perspective, or some other perspective, you must recognize the purpose of your perspective, and its social, political, and, in this case, environmental implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
