> These days I find myself arguing with environmentalist
> friends who insist there is "no technological fix for
> the problem of climate change." My view is quite
> different and runs in parallel to writer Bruce
> Sterling's: human initiated climate change is caused,
> at base, by the fact we acquire our energy from
> burning things. We need to develop an energy
> production system that moves us away from burning
> things. Also, our power and telecommunications
> infrastructure must be retro-fitted to withstand the
> increased stress load brought on by powerful weather
> patterns and rising sea levels (note the massive power
> outages in the US Midwest following snow and ice
> storms).
>
> Of course, this is a political and cultural problem
> but also a technological one.
>
> To my "small is beautiful" comrades, this is errant
> nonsense. To me, their vision of a neo 17th century
> village as the ideal endpoint for humanity is
> nonsense.
>
> We talk past each other...relentlessly.
No, it is simply that people like yourself make ZERO effort to familiarize yourself with the reasons, facts, and ideas of those you disagree with.
I have been a technophile for much of my life. Much of that has to do with my interest in science fiction. I'm still very interested in science and technology and I'm a fan of recent technological improvements. For a layperson I'm very conversant with current science and technology (it also helps that I worked for AAAS and Science magazine for almost 5 years).
At the same time, I'm very familiar with the works of people who are critical of technology, ranging from Wendell Berry to Illul to Mander to Zerzan and many others. Even if you set aside this considerable, solid body of criticism of technology, there are plenty of political reasons why climate change can't be solved by just new, or more, technology.
You choice of words belies your acceptance of several paradigms about technology and politics. You argue that "we" need to "develop an energy production system". Who is we? It ain't me, because I don't have access to any lab. Are you using the nationalist "we", i.e. Americans? That buys into the paradigm that somehow "we" Americans can somehow solve this problem through technological means. I assume that your use of "we' does not mean indigenous people and poor people around the world who don't have access to cars, iPods or electricity.
I don't need to note the massive ice storms that hit the Midwest this week. I can turn my head to my left, look out the window, and see all of the snow, sleet, and ice that were dumped on us. It's very pretty today, with the sun being out. It's cold as shit too. Our power and heat have run uninterrupted for the past week.
Your dismissal of "small is beautiful" demonstrates that you are the one who is talking past people about these issues. There are plenty of changes that Americans can make that would lessen our reliance on "burnign things." The most important changes that people could make don't involve technology at all. Eliminating capitalism and a consumer-driven economy would be a good start. I hope we can still advocate anti-capitalism on this list without being dismissed as 17th century village romantics. Globalization is another huge problem.
Here is one change that we could make that doesn't involve new technology: change the way that we build in cities. Stop this artificial separation of residential housing from our workplaces. Want to stop the American dependence on cars? Change zoning practices. Discourage sprawl. Stop giving tax breaks and TIF money to developers. Build better public transportation. Rip up roads and plant gardens.
None of this stuff involves going back to the 17th century.
Chuck