Do you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?

...treat it as a panacea for environmental harms which fosters passivility and prevent the necessary social change that can stop resource depletion, thus defeating the point? Explain you position.Do you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?Yes and no. Fundamental social change is certainly absolutely necessary to handle our environmental problems but I don't share the pessimistic view in regards to science and technology. Advanced technology and new scientific innovations are a crucial part of the solution, as far as the irrational system we live under today not already prevents us from using the most advanced technologies to deal with environmental issues. It's a public secret oil companies all too often take patents on newer technology that would threaten their market share for example.



The irreconcilable conflict between the profit system and the very survival of humanity finds, in a literal sense, its most noxious expression in the crisis of global warming and the natural environment. The cause of this crisis lies not, as is falsely claimed by the bourgeois media, with population growth. Nor is it the result of science and technology – whose development is critical to the advance of human civilization – but, rather, with their misuse by an irrational and obsolete economic order. The impossibility of finding a genuine solution to the increasingly critical problem of climate change and other environmental problems within the framework of the profit system is an “inconvenient truth” that bourgeois politicians – even those who profess concern for the environment – deny. All scientific evidence points to the fact that nothing short of the socialist reorganization of the world economy – in which the planetary environment would no longer be held hostage to either the profit motive or destructive nationalist interests – will achieve the reductions in greenhouse gases necessary to prevent disaster.



By its very nature, climate change is a global problem, but it cannot be solved within the framework of the capitalist system. All rational plans for tackling this crisis immediately founder on the dictates of the profit system and the conflicting interests of the major capitalist nation states. To cut carbon emissions to the required levels requires nothing less than the complete re-organisation of the global economy—including the restructuring of energy generation and distribution, urban planning and public transport, agriculture and industrial production, waste disposal, and a host of other areas.



Such a reorganisation is only conceivable on the basis of a socialist movement of the working class. What is needed is a democratically-planned, world economy to satisfy long-term social needs and lift the living standards of ordinary people in every part of the globe.



The problems facing humanity are not primarily due to the lack of resources but the irrational character of the capitalist system, which squanders vast amounts of human labor and creative potential in order to enrich an already fabulously wealthy elite. The world’s productive and natural resources must be freed from the constraints of capitalist private ownership and the nation state system and marshaled in a scientifically planned, rational and democratic fashion to meet the challenges of the 21st century.Do you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?
Your question is logically false in that you assume that a social change is "necessary" to prevent a global cataclysm. That hypothesis is not proven nor universally accepted as fact so the question itself in invalid.



Additionally you cite energy consumption as a cause of resource wars and environmental disaster (since removal is seen as the only cure) but have not proven a causal link between the two: just because A occurs after B does not mean that B caused A. Secondly much of the violence in the world, it could be argued, is caused by a lack of energy to create resources such as fresh water and not, as you hypothesize, because of it.



In other words, the areas that engage in, as you call it, materialist thinking are generally more stable as a region and not suffering the effects you attribute to energy usage.Do you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?dude,stop with the lib bullshit.the USA has over 400 years of oil reserves .both coasts ,gulf of mexico and alaska plus the tar sands in colorado and adjoining states.the eco wackos and the marxist libs are strangling the country with stupid eco laws.the progressive radicals are on an agenda to turn the USA into a 3rd world shithole.human arrogance and stupidity is just overwhelming.it is not about saving the earth,global warming or some fkng animals or bugs.IT IS ABOUT POPULATION CONTROL BY THE ELITES ! visit http://climatechangefraud.comDo you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?
What are these people proposing? Going back to the horse and buggy? How can we? They fart too much C02. Will we be wearing some kind of photosynthesis mask that will turn our exhalations into oxygen and glucose?



I can't picture the future based on UN Agenda 21. It is supposed to equalize all peoples economically, environmentally, and socially and create total interdependence among countries. Globalization is a big part of Agenda 21 as is cap and trade and universal health care. They believe their agenda will save the world. What do you think? Can mortals save the planet. Will US citizens welcome the downgrade in their quality of life or will we experience a total economic collapse that will force us to welcome it?Do you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?first it would be neccesary to admit that there is no energy supply crisis and as far astreating global warming as a bonafide issue is to deny logic and scienfic data that indicates the opposite, that the seventies and 90's were the zenith of global temps,however let it not be said that emmission standards in population centers shouldn't be maintained to preserve air quality which is the only proof of atmospheric polution, having worked in automotive repair and maintenance my entire adult life Ihave never been shown a particle of NOX. pollutionDo you agree/think that if we rely on technology to solve our environmental problems we will...?
Don't be fooled, whatever is done to progress in this area - the bottom line is that if people who claim to be "self-sufficient" and want real energy change and alternatives keep putting Socialists like Nobama into office - they will have no choices eventually.



The duality of alternative energy/self sufficiency and Big Government/Big Brother will bring us to ruin.



Sadly, these are many of the same people who voted for Nobama, don't ask me why, I can not explain their dual minds....they want socialized/nationalized health care AND solar panels and wind turbines, holistic medicine, massage therapy organic foods, and FREEDOM? Doesn't work that way folks.