We’re past the point of just going back to preindustrial tech with less negative impacts- but with a deeper understanding of reality we could, e.g. pull carbon straight out of the atmosphere to manufacture almost anything in a renewable way, while also understanding biochemistry enough to make things that won’t be toxic or persist in the environment, and are readily broken down and reused.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe (and I've never seen any convincing evidence) that we could EVER develop more human and environmentally safe technology. Primarily because technology always requires physical resources (mining) and habitat destruction, and because there are 8 billion people in the world and there will always be the unscrupulous who will use that technology for destruction. And even ignoring the unscrupulous, the existing habitat destruction from said technology use already (in my valuation) is too great to balance out some of the so-called positive uses of technology.
There is no fundamental reason to require such things. As Fuller said, the goal of technology is to “do more and more with less and less until you can do everything with nothing.”
In my view it’s not the idea of technology that has been the problem, but that it was done by people with no understanding of the impacts, or sense of responsibility. The reason our current tech is so nasty and damaging is because our knowledge has been too primitive to do better thus far, and now people are not willing to give it up.
Synthetic biology, for example can now pull carbon straight from the air and make it into nontoxic biodegradable building materials- or really almost anything. This can eventually replace all mining and toxic chemical factories, with basically just old fashioned fermentation in a vat, that neither produces or uses anything toxic- but can replace all of the nasty stuff we currently make from mining and petroleum. A deeper understanding of biology will allow us to further reduce risks and environmental impacts by really deeply understanding which molecules we can make safely without toxic impacts on humans or other species, and without environmental persistence.
It all comes down to probabilities, but when people find a more efficient way to use something, they use more of it.
Is there a nonzero probability that your closed economoy, zero-mining future is possible? I think so, but I think it's small. And even a 10% chance that your future will NOT come to pass is enough reason to limit technology and go for degrowth instead, which seems far more logical.
No doubt that our differences will ultimately come to valuations and what we consider important, not probabilities. There will be no reconciliation there.
Of course, what I am saying is probably entirely moot, because economy and science as it is today favors your position, and not mine. But I am willing to fight for my position regardless.
However, there is more than a small chance of the future I am talking about being possible where we can make virtually anything directly from carbon in the air, with little to no impacts. I am an academic scientist, and am focused on solving the specific problems that will make what I am talking about possible- and basically everything I mentioned is already working fairly well... and is already cheaper, safer, and more practical then petroleum chemistry and mining if you factor in externalities. However, the only real path I see to getting people to use it is to make it better still, so it is fundamentally cheaper and superior, without even factoring in the externalities and nasty impacts of our current way of doing things.
Degrowth is quite frankly not going to happen voluntarily, it's a cultural and political non-starter, and also leaves us with an inability to fix the massive damage to the planet we've already caused, and leaves us dying from diseases that we are very close to understanding how to prevent. We've decimated and poisoned our natural environment such that simple living is no longer even possible in most places- where I live the fish and other wildlife are almost all gone, and the few left are too toxic to eat. Let's instead go all in on understanding science so that we can in principle do almost anything we can imagine with little resources or impacts, and then also have much higher standards for what we actually choose to do with the knowledge.
Edit: I looked at your blog and agree with a lot of what you are saying, but also disagree with a lot, but see you are a deep thinker that cares a lot about this stuff. I think it would be interesting to talk to you more.
I really don't think you realize how cushy modern life is compared to even the hardships of a few hundreds years ago.
Come on now. Renewable energy is gaining on fossil fuels around the world. The air in London used to be thick with smog, and now it's not. Acid rain is a thing of the past. The ozone hole is shrinking.
Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too?
What matters to me is CO2. When we can drop that below 400, then I will be impressed. As for now, I'm waiting to see if this is not just a case of Jevon's paradox.
> Fire and the wheel are technology; are you against them too?
No, those are local technologies that anyone can make with some basic knowledge. I am not against primitive technologies. We will always use them. What I am saying is that we should be like the Amish: examine individual technologies for their long-term consequences, and not develop those. And, we should regress many as well. The discussion of which and how would be lengthy but we should have it (as a society).
However, I do wonder if they are still able to make coherent decisions about the net benefits of various technologies, without a deep level of technical and scientific training nowadays. Living up against a world of people not making the same choices as them would present a lot of new challenges- for example, if a chemical factory is placed nearby... are they learning how to use mass spec to see if they are being poisoned? Or to read scientific literature to see what the likely risks and impacts of that poisoning is? Sure they could hire external experts, but can they trust people that don't share their views and values to navigate those issues as they would?
Taking personal responsibility for if a technology is appropriate to use or not may require an even deeper level of technical and scientific knowledge than the usual approach of not being critical of technology.
