Isn't science and technology the root cause of all environmental pollution?

Question

Give me your rationalizations please.

Answer 1

Wealth is the root cause. Money drives everyone to make more money.

List any industry or technology and it is driven by greed to make more.

Even pollution abatement or "going green" is driven by money.

Answer 2

No, pollution of some type has existed for as long as there has been an atmosphere or water to hold it. Volcanoes and forest fines release many pollutants, and well before science and technology came to play, human activity was impacting the enviroment. The first Europeans to see the area that eventually became Los Angeles commented on the pall of smoke that overhung the area from the many native campfires. The first know enviromental case was when Henry VIII ordered a man beheaded for burning soft coal instead of good English oak and allowing the noxious gases to enter the Tower of London.

Answer 3

Ideas are neither good nor evil - it's all in how they are applied.

The worst direct impact technology has had on the planet is an increase in atmospheric CO2. The industrial revolution spawned the heavy use of coal and the subsequent warming of the planet's atmosphere.

The worst indirect impact is the deforestation of much of the world. People in technologically underveloped countries enjoy the increase in the world's food supply but this increases the population and large areas of brush are cleared simply because a young mother had to find fuel to cook the evening meal. Increasing global temperatures and an increase in rainfall then results in devistating mudslides which happen because there is no plants left to hold the soil together.

Technology is most harmful when it is linked to huburus and greed. Many developed countries (America especially) believed technology could solve any problem. Then nature pushed back with pesticide resistant insects and antiobiotic resistant diseases. It all reminds me of the man who kept hitting himself in the head with a hammer. His solution? A bigger hammer!

Greed perverts science like nothing else can. Prior to the industrial revolution scientific discovery was much more open and certainly less competative than it is today. Early scientists realized everyone benefitted if ideas were freely accessable to everyone else. Now things have changed radically. It seems the whole point of science these days is to patent a great idea, form a corporation and then get filthy, stinking rich. The idea of course is a trade secret kept locked in some vault.

A good case in point is computer software. Most patented computer programs owe much of their functionality to code developed and distributed freely as "open source". This is then collected and bundled into commercial software costing thousands of dollars. If computer science follows the path physical science has taken, software will eventually become as unoriginal as next year's version of the internal combustion engine.

The American government has denigrated and demonized Cuba for many decades. However the few American tourists who visit are surprised to find antique automobiles running just as well as a brand new American car. The point here is that this proves that this technology can become a family heirloom and can theoretically last for centuries. Unfortunately Americans think they need a new car every 6 years, if they can afford it. To make matters worse, they don't get ordinary cars but energy inefficient, overprised status symbols. The manufacture of new automobiles is severly taxing to the environment in terms of energy consumption, but Americans pass the debt on to the rest of the world.

Answer 4

No.
Agriculture is a major cause of pollution.
So are volcanoes and forest fires.

Also, science and technology have made strides in reducing the pollution that is caused by necessary human activity.

Answer 5

No. Science and technology have caused some of the pollution, but what about all those living things on the planet that excrete methane gas? Are farts killing us too? Fires, volcanos, refineries, CO2 emissions, etc. all contribute to polluting the environment.

Help save the environment...hold that fart in next time. ;-)

Answer 6

Absolutely not. Consider a modern sewer system. Without them you have raw sewage leaching into ground water, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Places that don't have a modern sewage system have diseases like dysentary and cholora. Wild life also suffers.

Because of the science and technology of a modern sewer system you have water returned to the environment in a more acceptable state.

Answer 7

No, population is.

Do you know how much horse poop a city like New York would produce in a day if the only form or transport was low tech horses?

The streets would be filled with 4 feet of poop each day!

Answer 8

Pretty much except for methane that we, animals and rotting things create and the CO2 that we breath. Hey , lets move back in caves, give up electricity and driving and wear animal skins. That would reduce the problem.

Answer 9

Technology is no doubt a major contributor to environmental problems.
Hopefully technology will eventually begin to alleviate it.

Answer 10

INDUSTRY, though it often uses the advancements of science and tech, it's not science and tech causing the problem, it's irresponsibility on the part of industry.