 | This articlemay beunbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please helpimprove it by adding information on neglected viewpoints. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.(April 2016) |
Technogaianism (aportmanteau word combining "techno-" fortechnology and "gaian" forGaia philosophy) is abright green environmentalist stance of active support for the research, development and use ofemerging and future technologies to help restoreEarth'senvironment. Technogaianists argue that developing safe,clean,alternative technology should be an important goal ofenvironmentalists andenvironmentalism.[1]
Typically,radical environmentalists hold the view that all technology necessarily degrades the environment, and thatenvironmental restoration can therefore occur only withreduced reliance on technology. By contrast, technogaianists argue that technology gets cleaner and more efficient with time, not necessarily progressing to the detriment of the environment. One example used ishydrogenfuel cells. More directly, they argue that such things asnanotechnology andbiotechnology can directly reverseenvironmental degradation.Molecular nanotechnology, for example, couldconvert garbage in landfills into useful materials and products, while biotechnology could lead to novelmicrobes that devour hazardous waste.[1]
While many environmentalists[who?] still contend thatmost technology is detrimental to the environment, technogaianists argue that it has been in humanity's best interests to exploit the environment mercilessly until fairly recently, following accurately to current understandings ofevolutionary systems; when new factors (such as foreignspecies ormutantsubspecies) are introduced into anecosystem, they tend to maximize their ownresource consumption until either,a) they reach an equilibrium beyond which they cannot continue unmitigated growth, orb) they become extinct. In these models, it is impossible for such a factor to totally destroy its host environment, though they may precipitatemajor ecological transformation before their ultimate eradication.[citation needed]
Technogaianists believe humanity has currently reached just such a threshold, and that the only way for human civilization to continue advancing is to accept the tenets of technogaianism and limit future exploitive exhaustion ofnatural resources and minimize furtherunsustainable development or face the widespread, ongoingmass extinction of species.[2] The destructive effects of modern civilization are to be mitigated by technological solutions, such as using nuclear power. Furthermore, technogaianists argue that only science and technology can help humanity be aware of, and possibly develop counter-measures for,risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth such as a possibleimpact event.[1]
SociologistJames Hughes mentions Walter Truett Anderson, author ofTo Govern Evolution: Further Adventures of the Political Animal, as an example of a technogaian political philosopher;[3] argues that technogaianism applied toenvironmental management is found in thereconciliation ecology writings such asMichael Rosenzweig'sWin-Win Ecology: How The Earth's Species Can Survive In The Midst of Human Enterprise;[2] and considersBruce Sterling'sViridian design movement to be an exemplary technogaian initiative.[1][4]
The theories of English writer Fraser Clark may be broadly categorized as technogaian.[according to whom?] Clark advocated "balancing the hippie right brain with the techno left brain". The idea of combining technology and ecology was extrapolated at length by a South African eco-anarchist project in the 1990s. TheKagenna Magazine project aimed to combine technology, art, and ecology in an emerging movement that could restore the balance between humans and nature.
George Dvorsky suggests the sentiment of technogaianism is to heal the Earth, usesustainable technology, and create ecologically diverse environments.[5] Dvorsky argues that defensive counter measures could be designed to counter the harmful effects of asteroid impacts,earthquakes, andvolcanic eruptions.[5] Dvorksky also suggest that genetic engineering could be used to reduce the environmental impact humans have on the earth.[5]
Technology facilities the sampling, testing, and monitoring of various environments and ecosystems. NASA uses space-based observations to conduct research on solar activity,sea level rise, the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans, the state of the ozone layer, air pollution, and changes in sea ice and land ice.[6]
Climate engineering is a technogaian method that uses two categories of technologies-carbon dioxide removal andsolar radiation management. Carbon dioxide removal addresses a cause of climate change by removing one of thegreenhouse gases from theatmosphere. Solar radiation management attempts to offset the effects of greenhouse gases by causing theEarth to absorb lesssolar radiation.
Earthquake engineering is a technogaian method concerned with protecting society and the natural and man-made environment from earthquakes by limiting the seismic risk to acceptable levels.[7]Another example of a technogaian practice is an artificialclosed ecological system used to test if and how people could live and work in a closedbiosphere, while carrying outscientific experiments. It is in some cases used to explore the possible use of closed biospheres inspace colonization, and also allows the study and manipulation of a biosphere without harming Earth's.[8] The most advanced technogaian proposal is the "terraforming" of aplanet,moon, or other body by deliberately modifying itsatmosphere,temperature, orecology to be similar to those ofEarth in order to make ithabitable by humans.[9]
S. Matthew Liao, professor of philosophy and bioethics atNew York University, claims that thehuman impact on the environment could be reduced bygenetically engineering humans to have, a smaller stature, an intolerance to eating meat, and an increased ability to see in the dark, thereby using less lighting.[10] Liao argues that human engineering is less risky thangeoengineering.[11]
Genetically modified foods have reduced the amount ofherbicide andinsecticide needed for cultivation. The development of glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) plants has changed the herbicide use profile away from more environmentally persistent herbicides with higher toxicity, such asatrazine,metribuzin andalachlor, and reduced the volume and danger of herbicide runoff.[12]
An environmental benefit of Bt-cotton and maize is reduced use of chemical insecticides.[13][14] A PG Economics study concluded that global pesticide use was reduced by 286,000 tons in 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%.[15] A survey of small Indian farms between 2002 and 2008 concluded that Bt cotton adoption had led to higher yields and lower pesticide use.[16] Another study concluded insecticide use on cotton and corn during the years 1996 to 2005 fell by 35,600,000 kilograms (78,500,000 lb) of active ingredient, which is roughly equal to the annual amount applied in the EU.[17] A Bt cotton study in six northern Chinese provinces from 1990 to 2010 concluded that it halved the use of pesticides and doubled the level ofladybirds,lacewings and spiders and extended environmental benefits to neighbouring crops of maize, peanuts and soybeans.[18][19]
.jpg)
