Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?

I admit that I am generally optimistic about the ability of technology to develop and make our lives more environmentally friendly. I don't think it "saves us" in the sense that we can allow technology to develop without looking at our lifestyle and population growth and making changes in those areas as well. This argument reaches back to our discussion about the I=PAT model and which of the factors is most important. I came to the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that all of the factors must be affected at least a little bit in order to reduce impact.

However, I am also a bit more optimistic about technology than I am about consumption or affluence because better, cleaner technology is not an end adverse to market mechanisms. While arguments concerning the emptiness of GDP and market indicators are well-taken, I don't think arguments from a growth/development vs. environment prospective are in the long-term interests of environmental solutions. I hate the term sustainability because it has become a bit trite and meaningless in colloquial use, but there must be a way so serve man's comfort and acquisition interest without killing the natural resources. Tempering man's instinct is certainly important, but the readings for this week indicate that we are willing to trade only so much. We were able to reduce CFCs because we could find viable alternatives that did not destroy industry. Carbon emissions are a bit stickier because we are only starting to explore alternative options, and none have yet emerged as a clearly cheep and reasonable alternative. The unavoidable trend to me is if the question is development or environment, we choose development, but if we can create a development and environment solution, our outlook is much brighter. If there is a way to create the latter option, I think technology holds the key.

Alli Gerhart