When people talk about technology as the saving grace for humanity, they likely are referencing one of two scenarios: either that innovation will allow us (the developed world) to continue to generally live and (and more importantly) consume as we do while making little to no impact on the environment or that technological advances will allow humans to navigate, mitigate, and even completely negate any negative effects of environmental damage and climate change.

Technology as a way to perpetuate our way of life is relatively straightforward. Americans have proven resistant to making substantial changes in their lives for the sake of consuming less and reducing environmental impact. And as we have discussed in class, it is political suicide to suggest that as a nation we reduce our consumption, the lifeblood of our ailing service economy. Technological advances that could allow us to, say, live in sprawling suburbs or to continually buy disposable electronics with little to no impact then seem ideal. If such innovation occurred, no longer would those in the developed world be living beyond their means. No real changes would have to be made. And consumers would be forced to buy new stuff. As a bonus, new technologies could even be made in the United States once again and offer a lifeline to American manufacturing.

It is obvious that the sheer level of innovation that is required to achieve this goal, in the time frame climatologists have given us, is simply not possible. Real changes do have to be made in the amount of resources consumed and wastes produced immediately, which requires a reevaluation of American consumer culture. Alas, it is all too easy to get seduced by the lack of sacrifice such a scenario requires.

It is important to note, however, that there are technologies such as fusion power, though years off, could very well bring humanity close to the point described above. Infrastructure improvements and the even the greater adoption of existing technologies, very doable actions, are able to significantly reduce our impact on the globe in a shorter span of time. While this does not obviate the need for behavioral changes, some combination of the two may be enough to stave off the worst of global climate change. Green technology certainly offers an economic opportunity for this country as well. So overall, an approach that encourages conservation and innovation is the most prudent. In the long-term, technology may hold the answers. In the short to medium term, it does not.

The second viewpoint is more along the lines of science fiction. I believe it to include humans colonizing other planets after trashing our birthplace and undertaking massive geo-engineering projects to achieve such aims as reversing the effects of climate change. Again, these solutions allow humanity to continue to burn fossil fuels and use the earth to a greater extent than it can withstand while not making actual sacrifice. It goes without saying that there is little hope here, especially within the important century before us.