« Business | Main | The Beginning. »
November 12, 2005
Technological "fixes"
The miracle drug?
Daily, we stand in awe of man's ingenuity in mastering the elements and are enamored to the technology it develops—747s, cell phones, genetic engineering, Teflon, solar cells, titanium hips, etc. Furthermore, whenever we encounter a problem, we eagerly expect technology to instantly come to our rescue and, without fail, to work its miracles. However, the lure of seemingly clear technical solutions to our problems blinds us to the fact that frequently lurking within the "solutions" are the seeds of new problems. These germinate in quiet, only to eventually burst forth and blossom into a new crop of troubles that further exacerbate the original issue and force us to devote yet more attention and resources to resolving them.
To see one example of a technological "fix" and some of the unexpected problems it introduces, click Continue reading "Technological 'fixes'" immediately below (or simply scroll down if there is no link).
As we proceed into the future and encounter new problems, we resort to finding new technological fixes to resolve these problems. Power shortage? Erect a power plant. A pest infestation? Create an insecticide. Traffic jams? Widen roads. Enemy seeking underground refuge? Design a bunker blaster. City susceptible to flooding? Construct a higher dike. Insufficient oil? Drill another well.
We place a lot of faith in technology. Probably too much. We don't seem to realize that, for every fix, numerous downsides are often created, downsides that, in turn, will require further fixing. Things rarely are as simple as they appear. We therefore need to carefully assess the problems we encounter, give considerable thought to proposed solutions, think through what might be unexpected downsides of the proposed fixes, and be wary of any fixes that appear too obvious.
Consider the problem of inadequate food production to meet the world's nutritional needs in light of expanding populations. While land is available, rainfall is often inadequate to grow food on a reliable basis. Irrigation is then promoted as a technological fix, one that is typically seen as bestowing only clear-cut advantages upon the beneficiaries.
But, as with medical remedies advertised in magazines and on TV for this or that ailment, each description of a technological fix or cure—irrigation, in this case—should be followed by a description of the risks and adverse reactions associated with its use. The figure below illustrates some of the risks associated with irrigation, here considered a solution to low agricultural productivity.
But adverse impacts are not limited to those shown in the illustration. Another adverse impact, that arising from the gradual depletion of aquifers, is that they are beginning to destroy the livelihoods of farmers that development programs had been hoping to assist in the first place! This is described in the accompanying newspaper article.
A more insidious impact associated with irrigation is alluded to in the illustration. Initially, promoting increased irrigation leads to increased agricultural production. But this increased production veils major threats to mankind—unbridled population growth and the increased burden this places on the environment. Rather than solving the thorny issues associated with population growth without delay while they may still be manageable, increasing agricultural production merely temporarily reduces the urgency to do so.
But as demand for water continues to expand and aquifers face depletion, agricultural productivity gains will eventually reverse and re-emerge as a critical issue affecting societal well-being and stability. Over the long run, irrigation will have done little to continue feeding the world's population. It may actually have exacerbated the situation because, in the intervening years, not only will water resources have been exhausted and the land possibly been degraded, but the population will have been given the chance to mushroom yet further. This new reality will make the original goal—the production of sufficient food for the world's people—even more difficult to achieve. Our supposedly benign intervention in the beginning will, in the end, result in an unexpected tragedy.
As an ever-increasing number of problems facing us demand solutions, we must continually be wary of, and query, technological fixes proffered to us, even by the "experts", especially if they seem too good to be true . . . because they often are. If our intent is to make genuine contributions to society, then we must go beyond the rhetoric and endeavor to do our best in ensuring that interventions we are promoting are not temporary "fixes" that prove counterproductive over the long term.
In the case above, the only fix that would address, on a sustainable basis, insufficient agricultural production would seem to be a proactive intervention toward reducing both the population growth of the planet and the excessive consumption of that wealthier segment of the population that has access to more than adequate food. Anything else is just biding a little time before society collapses.
Posted by Allen at November 12, 2005 11:38 AM
Comments
This entry raises some comments from me, specifically the excessive consumption from the wealthier segment of the global population. I will hazard a guess and say that you are referring to consumer consumption, and not just food consumption. However, simply because there are wealthier people in the western world does not mean that we necessarily eat more, it means that we eat differently. We have a wider range of options of what we eat and what we place into our bodies, from frozen meals to organic chicken. I will say that there are select few on both sides (starving in Asia, gorging in the North America), which which do skew the equation.
In terms of consumer consumption, I will have to agree. The western world, and slowly the eastern ones, are acclimated to consumerism. This consumerism does do damage to the environment and society as a whole, but I hesitate to blame the consumer. They do have a choice, of course. The trouble is western capitalism. We are constantly being fed information and media that tells us we have to choose what's best for us, even though we may not need something, we want it, and confuse the two. The power to choose given two options is not really a choice, since we were given those options.
If we are to suspend environmental decay, we will have to educate the populace about their choices, from well-being, to population control, to general education.
Posted by: Aruna ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.inversin.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 18, 2005 12:04 PM
Yes, I was referring to consumption in general, not just food. But regarding food consumption, I also think that, on average, consumption by the "wealthy" makes a much deeper dent in the environment than that of the "poor". Just look at the amount of meat devoured by the "wealthy", the size of typical restaurant portions, the amount of food we throw out, etc. Just consider that it takes 10 portions of plant protein to generate 1 portion of meat protein (or some ratio like that). Just consider the amount of petroleum it takes to transport (and sometimes refrigerate) the food we eat from around the world to our dining table compared to the poor who live largely off their gardens. Etc. Taken all together, the "wealthy" clearly consume many more resources (food and otherwise) than the "poor".
Regarding consumption of consumer goods, corporations are clearly in the business of making money and will do most anything to achieve this result. That is what Madison Avenue (i.e., advertising firms) is all about. But this does not excuse the consumer. The consumer doesn't have to look at the ads before tossing them out. He or she can decide what will clearly contribute to his or her life and what is not worth it, even thought the item may be cheap or Joe next door might have it! In the end, who has control over what he or she does, the ads or that person him- or herself?
You are correct that to reduce, or better still reverse, environmental decay requires an educated populace. But educating them is unfortunately not easy, both because of Madison Avenue is always looming everywhere and because of the lure of "things", especially if one doesn't already have those specific things. Usually people only change when they are forced to, until they hit the wall. Unfortunately, by then, it is too late. (Just like with histories of Easter Island and Chaco Canyons).
Posted by: Allen at November 27, 2005 02:40 PM
There are even more problems concerning the so-called irrigation development project. I'm thinking of the Chixoy Dam project, financed by the World Bank and the Guatemalan government (and Inde). This shows some of the socio-political horrors that may be attendant to dam and irrigation constructions. Whole villages of Maya Indians suffered as a result of this, and reportedly hundreds were murdered, while others still pay taxes for their lands that have been submerged. Resettlement did not take, and when it did presented other catastrophes. Sacred sites were submerged; ancient trade routes blocked and sources of living eradicated. Is this progress?
Ruth
Posted by: Ruth at November 30, 2005 02:43 PM
Yes, dams are another technological fix which can have numerous adverse repercussions. We have sufficient examples of this from around the world, so there is no reason for not having learned our lesson. But many of these repercussions (murders, paying tax on submerged land, resettlement, not getting fair compensation, eradication of livelihoods, etc.) could be addressed by the government IF it truly had the well-being of the Mayan Indians in mind (which historically it didn't). Other repercussions (such as social dislocation, submergence of sacred sites) are more difficult to address and might be the price for "progress". However, this price should be borne by those who benefit from the dam (city dwellers who get electricity, commercial farmers who get irrigation water, etc.), not by the Mayan Indians.
Posted by: Allen at December 1, 2005 07:35 PM