Looking at Technology from a Social Perspective, and why Technology is not the answer!

While recovering from cancer surgery I haven't been able to write or clearly focus my thoughts until now. I have attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage in a few of the discussions with my ole' conservative friends. Please bear with me as I write this opinion piece if I miss some obvious points of argument.

I have been following a number of discussions concerning the role of technology and the impact on our social systems, institutions and social structures. Even in the most cursory examination, it is obvious that technology, by itself, doesn't stand alone and is dependent on other variables.

As human beings, all human beings, we live in three macro environments: 1) The Physical Environment; 2) The Social Environment; and 3) The Technological Environment. The Physical Environment is the 'prime mover', creating the conditions and circumstances that the other two environments must respond to. Both the Social Environment and Technological Environment are adaptive responses (survival strategies) to assist humans in the journey of survival and sustainability.

From the first moment that our hominid ancestor picked up a stick or stone to assist in solving some survival problem, technology has been our constant companion for good or ill. Through the use of technology we have been able to overcome some of the most basic conditions that challenge our continued existence by changing and controlling elements of the physical environment. We know that adaptive changes to the social and physical environment most often move too slowly through the natural forces of adaptation and involvement, thus requiring quicker action only feasible through the use of technology.

Technology's characteristic of being able to be rapidly applied, more often than not, outstrips the ability to sufficiently discern all of the resulting probable consequences. We find ourselves in the situation where we must invent and deploy additional technology to solve the problems created by another, and so on and so on. There is absolutely no technology that can be utilized that doesn't impact the other two Macro Environments. The Industrial Revolution and Age are a prime example of the impacts of technology over a relatively short period of time.

The steam engine made the Industrial Age possible. Although wood could be used to fire the boilers for steam engines, it produced to few BTU s based on the volume of wood that was required to produce the power needed. The use of wood left denuded forests, which Europe had already stripped to support the Mercantile Age and Age of Exploration. A solution was to be found in the burning of an abundant fossil fuel, coal. Coal provided the raw fuel for the Industrial Age, which was soon followed by petroleum. When the Industrial Revolution began, little did anyone presuppose the changes and the consequences that would be wrought. Nearly a full two centuries later, we finally understand what we've created and that it now requires significant corrections. The use of fossil fuels has made significant changes to the physical and social environments. The results of the Industrial Age have resulted in a significantly polluted physical environment and drastic changes to human social organizations. During the Industrial Age we transitioned from a basic agrarian and mercantile model of extended families to a system of single nuclear families, which signify our current dominant social organization in developed nations.

Over the course of time we, as a civilization, have become more and more dependent on technology to provide solutions to the problems that confront us. As long as we can find a technological solution, we are saved from doing something difficult, like changing our own behavior. I remember some 40 years ago taking to a coworker who was a 'chain smoker'. I asked him if he wasn't concerned that he would develop lung disease leading to an early death. His response surprised me at the time. In essence, he claimed, that by the time he developed the disease, that medical science will have found a cure. Here it is 40 years hence and medical science has yet to come up with a technology to cure fatal lung disease, short of a complete and risky lung transplant.

If there is a shortage of trained labor or the cost of labor is too expensive, technology can sometimes provide the answer by developing machinery that replaces the human component in production. Technology has also provided advances in logistic chain management where it is feasible to take advantage of cheap human labor in almost any remote location and ship the finished goods to the market and still make a better ROI than if produced locally. Needless to say, implementing technology has social consequences that take time to work out when transitioning from one system to another. Just as we are transitioning from the post industrial period to the “Information Age”. However, this only represents the tip of the iceberg. Technology has created the biggest problem of all, over population.

Through the application of various forms of technologies, people are generally living longer and in a number of cases healthier lives. But for the most part, up to this point birthrates have not significantly changed.. Sheer population numbers alone make it a difficult problem to control. Although we don't view ourselves in quite the same manner as we view other species, we are subject to the same environmental forces. Before we, as a species gained the technology to alter the environment to mediate uncontrollable forces. Traditionally the human population balancing forces large enough to cause massive die offs, consisted primarily of following:

1. Natural disasters

2. Cosmic events

3. Droughts

4. Armed conflicts

5. Pandemics

Our uncontrolled population growth can't be differentiated from that of a simple bacteria colony. As long as the colony has access to a food source, it will continue to growth until it either exhausts all resources or the waste products builds and the waste overcomes the colony, causing a massive die off. This represents a natural regulation mechanism. Since our species survival isn't currently perceived as being imminently threatened, we as a species, have become complacent, relying on someone, somewhere to come up with a technology “fix”. The use of technology has more or less kept the 'wolf catastrophe' away from the door. The real problem is that people don't actually understand the risk they face by uncontrolled reproduction.

Technology has proven to be a useful tool in controlling the largest threats to our species. For the most part, we have learned to understand, not only the positive consequences, but also the negative. However, that same technology, which has been so useful, could be ripped from our grasp and cause a huge backslide into a nonindustrial society. By depending on technology to always rescue us from the consequences of our ill conceived actions and choices and this is why I bring up over population. I think, that it is time to look to other solutions rather than just technological.

As a cognitive species we are not entirely ignorant of environmental conditions. We fully understand the risks that we face and the solutions required. Most often it is not disagreements as to what the issues are, but the intensity and timing of tipping point events. Rarely, are we confronted by anything larger than regional crisis, giving us time to analyze, plan and implement actions necessary to avert, mediate or plan. This is a frustrating issue for those who are aware of what the future certainly holds. This is why it is so important to look beyond only technological solutions. By modifying and adjusting the social environment and social organization the total reliance on technology can be avoided.

To tackle the over population problem, social organization and institutions could and should be adopted where as people are encouraged to limit replacement levels to ½ of the sustainability population levels. This would require major changes in government tax policies as well as other institutional structures and policies. For example: The first child could be declared as a full dependent, but subsequent children would be non deductible. The education policy would have to be adapted where only the first child would be 100% paid for by the public and each subsequent child would be paid for by the family with a small public supplement. It would require a long period to draft and implement policies that would turn around the out of control replacement rate.

The changes to social structure and perceptions would necessitate a macro view and cultural identification would need adjustments to be successful. The goal of refocusing the perception can only be done through the education system. The populace must advocate such measures as to reduce the global population. I know those that oppose such changes in social structures will vehemently oppose such education goals, but if the species is to survive and return the Physical Environment to a sustainable balance, then we must voluntarily adjust our own social structures and expectations.

Many industrial developed societies are already at less than 100% replacement levels. Now the global concern should be to focus on developing societies and assist them in diffusing their population 'bombs'. This will mean the developed world's investment into these societies, bringing them forward into modernity.

Reversing over population is the real global challenge far beyond the 21st century. It is time to acknowledge the problems and leave partisanship aside and do what's necessary for human sustainability far into the future.