Tori Niewohner

ENVS 456

Proceed with Caution: Technology Should Be Pursued Carefully

Life is unendingly complex and I don’t know if we can ever fully understand it. We use science to

attempt to explain the world, but many people forget that science is a slow process of adding to a

collective body of work in many different fields. Science doesn’t necessarily uncover the hidden

mysteries of the earth, but instead adds another piece to the ever growing puzzle. With our slowly

collected body of work called science, we create things. Specifically, we create technologies. This makes

science and technology inextricably linked. In fact, the dictionary definition of “technology” is “the use

of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems” (“Technology”).

The logical progression of science is into new technologies, but someone who fears technology may still

be in favor of science. Daniel Sarewitz, in “Liberalism’s Modest Proposals”, says that “we think about

science…as a source of facts and knowledge that can bring problems to light and tell us how to go about

solving them”. However, the people who rely heavily on science as a diagnostic tool are often opposed

to using technology to solve problems (Sarewitz). For example, many have relied on science to inform us

about global warming, but are skeptical of potential technologies such as geoengineering and instead

proclaim that we need to dramatically reduce our consumption. It is true that we consume a lot and that

part of the solution should be in some reduction of that, but why not also consider technological

options? Even though technology has many unintended consequences, it has also solved a lot of

problem. We should pursue technology cautiously as a part of the solution to the problems we may face

in the future, as well as in the advancement of the quality of life for those all around the world.

So what types of unintended consequences can technology have? Some of the most prominent

ones are environmental issues such as global warming, ocean acidification, the influx of chemicals into
the environment, and many more, most of which are human caused or influenced by our use of various

technologies. Science and technology have led us to where we are today, and without them, most of

these problems wouldn’t exist or at least not to the same degree. In his essay, “Love Your Monsters:

Why We Must Care for Our Technologies As We Do Our Children”, Bruno Latour discusses how the

“modernist” looks towards “humankind’s emancipation from Nature”, due to the fact that our

involvement with nature through technology has caused all kind of unintended consequences. Many

modernists are those who rely on science, but are skeptical of technology. Latour says that the

modernist desires less attachments between “things and people”, but simultaneously creates more

attachments through the way of life that exists in a developed country. David Owen brings up this

problem in his book, The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good

Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse. Owen shared how as a lecturer on

climate change he travels via airplane to many locations to give lectures, which gives him a rather large

carbon footprint. He acknowledges that “even when we act with what we believe to be the best of

intentions, our efforts are often at cross-purposes with our goals” (Owen 5). This is exactly what Latour

described: preaching for less attachments, while creating more of them. Owens says the real problem is

over-consumption and that increased efficiency in technologies (which is commonly believed to be a

partial solution to some environmental issues) simply makes consumption cheaper. So, is the answer to

our environmental problems to break our attachments and consumptive habits? If this is the case, then

science and technology, which have led us to our attachments and ability to consume, are the cause of

environmental issues and have created more problems than they solved. But, this isn’t the full picture.

In addition to Latour’s definition of the modernist, he brings up a different attitude, that of the

“compositionist” who believes that we are part of nature and that unintended consequences are a

normal part of life. If we look at ourselves as separate from nature, than it seems as if all that we have

done with technology and science has created innumerable environmental problems. However, we
originated on this earth and belong to it. By thinking about ourselves as separate from the rest of the

earth, it seems that all we do is mess things up. But, since we are a part of the earth and many

technologies solve problems for us, we shouldn’t judge them simply for their negative consequences,

but also the benefits they provide. Various technologies mean that many of us no longer die of

starvation or viral or bacterial diseases. We also have a much higher standard of living than we used to.

In solving those problems, we have created other ones, but the compositionist would say that these

problems are unintended consequences, which are very normal. Michael Shellenberger and Ted

Nordhaus in “Evolve: A Case for Modernization as the Road to Salvation” would be inclined to agree.

They say that “one common objection to technology and development is that they will bring unintended

consequences, but life on Earth has always been a story of unintended consequences” (Shellenberger

and Nordhaus). I agree with this as well, as I can’t think of something which doesn’t have unintended

consequences. The world is so complex that any one thing could cause another, and these connections

often aren’t predicable or avoidable. When we first discovered fire, I doubt anyone imagined the

unintended consequence of carbon dioxide emissions leading to an increased greenhouse effect. In fact,

nobody would have even known the science behind combustion, only that it worked and provided

warmth and a way to cook food. I think there will always be more to learn and without a full and

complete understanding, how can we ever avoid unintended consequences in anything we do? When

someone has a child, there is possibility of an unintended consequence that they end up a serial killer.

However, you don’t see most people decrying reproduction because your children might grow up to be

awful people. This is partially because most children are raised in a way so as to avoid having them

become criminals. If we can minimize unintended consequences in our children by raising them, why not

do the same with technology? Latour says that “our sin is not that we created technologies but that we

failed to love and care for them. It is as if we decided that we were unable to follow through with the
education of our children”. Maybe instead of persecuting technology for what it has done, we should

carefully create it and make changes to it when necessary.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus mention an important question which need to ask ourselves: “what

kind of planet we will inhabit?”. They go on to say that if we would like a planet with “wild primates, old-

growth forests, a living ocean, and modest rather than extreme temperature increases”, that only

“continued modernization and technological innovation can make such a world possible” (Shellenberger

and Nordhaus). Basically, they are saying that modernization and technological innovation has caused

environmental issues and in order to fix them, we must continue to modernize and technologically

innovate. Technology has put us in a better place than we once were, but we shouldn’t simply sacrifice

everything else on the earth in order to continue advancing ourselves. One of the ways to deal the

unintended consequences of our technology without sacrificing our way of life is through more

technology. These new technologies should be loved and cared for in the way Latour described in order

to minimize any further issues. However, is there a limit? Are there technologies or advancements which

we should not pursue and simply create more problems than they solve?

In his book Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, Charles Perrow defines

“normal accidents”, which are inevitable accidents in systems that have interactive complexity and tight

coupling (Perrow 5). Perrow gets at the idea that certain technologies and systems are incredibly

complex and parts of those systems can interact in unpredictable ways and thus it is inevitable that an

accident will occur at some point. One of the examples that Perrow uses is the nuclear power plant

accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. In the chapter of the book called “Normal Accident at Three Mile

Island”, he describes in depth everything that happened in the accident. The gist of it is that nuclear

power plants are extraordinarily complicated with an incomprehensible amount of ways in which

different failures can interact and produce a catastrophic accident (Perrow). The documentary by

Frontline, Nuclear Aftershocks, further proves that nuclear power plants are a high-risk technology
because of the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011, where a series of failures led to the eventual release

of radiation. Unfortunately, there are many technologies that are at risk of having “normal accidents”

occur, including things that many people use quite regularly, such as airplanes. Do the risks of a normal

accident outweigh the benefit that the technologies in question provide? One thing that is important to

note is that a normal accident does not mean that it will happen frequently, just that it is inevitable

because of the complexity of the system. Since a normal accident doesn’t necessarily mean it is

happening frequently, it is difficult to quantify the problems it causes versus the problems it solves.

Maybe a better way to look at it is in terms of replacement. Nuclear power plants often take the place of

fossil fuel burning plants, which, in the long run, cause many more issues than the normal accidents at

nuclear plants have thus far. What about airplanes? The alternative to them is the sacrifice of human

mobility and to a certain extent, globalization. There probably are many technologies that currently pose

more risks than is worth it, but instead of banishing them from existence or running away from

technological advancement, we ought to take Latour’s advice and link the unexpected consequences to

the technology and tweak things to minimize the consequences you wish to avoid (Latour). If after

tweaking the technology and not seeing desired results, maybe then it is a technology which should be

abandoned. However, this does not mean that all technology should be abandoned, just that a new

technology should be cautiously pursued. One caveat to what I am discussing is that there are certain

technologies which I believe should be wholeheartedly abandoned, such as weapons of mass

destruction. I believe it comes down to motives; if a technology has unintended consequences, then it

should be altered and revisited in a new light, but if those consequences are intended, that changes

things. As humans, we innovate and develop new technologies, but there is a point at which technology

makes us worse off.

One important point to bring up is why we are able to have this discussion. Technological

advancement and whether or not it solves or creates problems, as well as whether or not we are better
off with or without it, is something that we can talk about because we have the luxury of a very high

quality of life. Living in a developed country with advanced technology and a low fear of death or injury

allows one to ponder moral questions such as this one. I suppose it is possible that someone who is

dying of starvation may think about issues such as this, but usually if someone is dying or in discomfort

in any way, their sense of self-preservation kicks in. When it comes down to it, we are animals who still

have a sense of self-preservation and who will often do whatever it takes to ensure our own safety and

comfort. I think that the idea of self-preservation can also be extended to not only the preservation of

ourselves in an individualistic sense, but preservation of our way of life. We can talk about whether or

not technology solves or causes problems and what we should do about it, but when it comes down to

it, we are quite dependent on technology in developed countries and I believe it would be difficult to

separate ourselves from it at this point. For example, people are very concerned about the impact that

dams have on salmon populations. When actually faced with the decision between removing all the

dams, resulting in very high energy costs, or retaining the dams, thus causing potential issues for

salmon, but maintaining current energy prices, I believe most people would pick to keep the dams.

Maybe this is a pessimistic view of humanity, but when it comes down to it, I do believe we are

creatures driven by our own self-preservation and by extension, our current way of living. So even if we

felt that technology caused more problems than it solved and made the environment worse off, I don’t

think we could separate ourselves from it. Even if we could remove ourselves from our technology, I

don’t think we should. By advancing science and technology, we have progressed our species and our

own individual well-being, which isn’t something that we should take for granted. We are humans and

we benefit from our own technology, so why turn our backs on something which has helped us so

much? This is not to say that we should charge forth without considering the rest of the planet or the

risks that technology imposes, but I believe there are several ways we could move forward with

technological innovation in a controlled way to minimize the unintended consequences.

 “A Road Map for Natural Capitalism” by Amory B. Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken

proposes an idea for a structural change in the way we run businesses and innovate called “natural

capitalism”. Natural capitalism would involve increasing natural resource productivity, creating closed

loop systems to reduce waste, providing services instead of goods, and investing in natural capital

(Lovins, Lovins, and Hawken 146 & 148). This change would call for not only new advancements in

technology, but also structural changes in the economy. Natural capitalism could potentially help create

a framework in which technology could advance and people could continue to live their current

lifestyles, but in a way which has less unintended consequences to the environment. Another way to

minimize unintended consequences or to alter their form would be for people to take a more active role

in deciding what technologies to pursue. In Simon Nicholson’s chapter in the book The Environmental

Politics of Sacrifice called “Intelligent Design?: Unpacking Geoengineering’s Hidden Sacrifices”, he talks

about how our society engages in technological somnambulism, which is the idea that we sleepwalk our

way through technological decision making and treat technological development as autonomous

(Nicholson 275). Nicholson talks about how there many hidden sacrifices involved with technological

fixes, but also great potential (Nicholson 288). However, by recognizing these sacrifices and the

potential for unintended consequences as well as playing a more active role in technological

development, it could help lead towards technologies that minimize environmental effects. Since

technologies often have unexpected effects, it might be better to only pursue the ones that we think will

actually help solve problems. Daniel Sarewitz and Richard Nelson wrote an article called “Three rules for

technological fixes” which describes when you can predict whether or not a technological fix will create

substantial change. The three rules are as follows: “the technology must largely embody the cause-

effect relationship connecting problem to solution, “the effects of the technological fix must be

assessable using relatively unambiguous or uncontroversial criteria”, and “research and development is

most likely to contribute decisively to solving a social problem when it focuses on improving a
standardized technical core that already exists” (Sarewitz and Nelson 871 & 872). If a technological fix

breaks one of these rules, then it is unlikely to make a difference. So, we should pursue technologies

that are likely to cause change so as to minimize unintended consequences, instead of investing in

technologies that probably won’t work and might lead to negative effects.

The issue of technology is an extraordinarily complex one. No matter what we do, technology

will always have unintended consequences. However, the alternative to technology is going backwards

and away from all that humanity has accomplished and potentially living lower qualities of life.

Therefore, it seems best to cautiously and thoughtfully move forward with technological advances, but

always remain aware of the possible effects, known and unknown, that technology might bring. To do

this, it would be best if certain structural changes were made in our society, as well as more awareness

on an individual level. As I said earlier, life is unendingly complex and I believe that every portion of it

can have unintended consequences. We should not shy away from technology because of its potential

issues, because everything we will ever do has the possibility to go wrong.

Works Cited

Excerpt from: Owen, David. The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our

Energy and Climate Problems Worse, 1st Riverhead trade pbk. ed.. New York: Riverhead Books, 2012.

Latour, Bruno. “Love Your Monsters -- Why We Must Care for Our Technologies as We Do Our Children.” The Breakthrough

Journal, no. Winter 2012 (2012).

Lovins, A., H. L. Lovins, and P. Hawken. “A Road Map for Natural Capitalism.” Harvard Business Review, no. May-June (1999):

145–58.

Nicholson, Simon. “Intelligent Design?: Unpacking Geoengineering’s Hidden Sacrifices.” In The Environmental Politics of

Sacrifice, edited by Michael Maniates and John M. Meyer. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010.

Nuclear Aftershocks. Prod. John Palfreman. Frontline, PBS, 2011.

Perrow, Charles. “Introduction.” and “Normal Accident at Three Mile Island.” In Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk

Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Sarewitz, Daniel, and Richard Nelson. “Three Rules for Technological Fixes.” Nature 456, no. 7224 (2008): 871–72.

"Science" Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus. “Evolve: A Case for Modernization as the Road to Salvation.” Orion Magazine,

October 2011.

"Technology" Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.