Technological Perspective on Global Warming and Nanotechnology
New technologies are being created every year. From the next new cell phone feature to advances in bioengineering, technology is moving at a rapid pace. There is even more research done in laboratories, not only at the organismal level, such as testing new medicine on animals to ensure safety, but also at the molecular scale, where scientists and engineers are looking at the subatomic particles and structure in order to improve old products. Such technology created at this level is called nanotechnology. Some examples of nanotechnology are drug deliver, tissue engineering, better filtration systems, and improved efficiency in energy-related devices. Technologies are also trying to be more green, meaning that the technology would be environmentally-friendly and sustainable. This is one of the responses to a glooming topics being discussed today, global warming. Scientists hope that new developing technology could slow down the increase of Earth’s average temperature. Leslie White, Leo Marx, Alvin Weinberg, and Marvin Minsky each have their own perspective on the effects of nanotechnology and global warming on today’s society. Leslie White analyzes the root of society is culture. He defines culture as a system with principles and laws that define it. White purposes that there are three subsystems to the main culture system: technological, sociological, and ideological. These systems are arranged in tiers, with technological system being the foundation, then sociological system, and finally ideological. The technological technological subclass of culture are the “…material, mechanical, physical, and chemical instruments…” that are used in order for humans to utilize their natural habitat. (364) The communication between humans and nature is mimicked amongst other humans as
relationships begin to formulate. White suggests that this behavior is the sociological system. From these relationships begins to frame various “…ideas, beliefs, knowledge expressed in articulate speech or other symbolic form” or the ideological system. (364) With this system in place, humans find that life, thermodynamically speaking, is the struggle for free energy. In order to measure the degree of progress of culture, White postulates the following formula: E x T C, “in which C represents the degree of cultural development, E the amount of energy harnessed per capita per year, and T, the quality or efficiency of the tools employed in the expenditure of the energy.” (368). White would appreciate the new technology being created in laboratories today as nanotechnology use even less energy to create, operate, and maintain existing products. There is a growing potential for technology to even store excess energy to offset peak usage, such as during a mid-day in the summer, and prevent an electrical gridlock failure. While these new technology are using less energy, there is more technology readily available as more energy is being harnessed and cultural development is accelerated by the turn of the century, White may imply global warming is simply the product of technology using ample energy (based on his equation). Though, he does not know the fate for future civilization, as displayed when White mentions whether or not nuclear technology would be the end of the Homo sapiens or the beginning of many more new technologies. White could hypothesis the
same conclusion for global warming as global warming brings year-round warmer temperatures, more rain in some places, but not less in others, which help yield more crops annually. Therefore, White would suggest that nanotechnology is beneficial to culture while viewing global warming as a consequence of the increasing presence of new technology.
While Leslie White sees technology as the media that spurs progress in society, Leo Marx would argue quite the opposite view. In the last half century, Marx states that there is a growing minority of Americans that are skeptical of technology as an indicator of social progress. The origin of technological fixes as a beacon of progress originated from the Enlightenment era when expectations were exaggeratedly optimistic. Science and technology during that period was seen as “…the service of liberation from political oppression.” As time passes, these science-based technologies are perceived by its users as an adequate and consistent source for progress. Marx provides a brief historical overview in order to show that today’s technology is based on industrial capitalism, rather than an instrument to free political scrutinizes. The counter-Enlightenment or Romantic reactions to these technologies were growing as anti-mechanistic ideas were advocated by Thomas Carlyle who decried that the time was the “Age of Machinery.” With nanotechnology being machines that even the human eye cannot see, Leo Marx would be opposed to such new developments. Marx implies that without “a set of political, social, and cultural goals … at the beginning of the industrial era,” it is impossible to precisely measure the actual progress of new technologies. While new technologies make old processes more efficient, it also displaces society socially. For example, there would be less of a need to hire more workers at a factory due to better technology. Global warming would illustrates Marx’s view that today’s current growth of technology is out of control and that without a clear objective related to society, “…technological improvements may very well turn out to be incompatible with genuine *social+ progress.” Hence, Marx would claim that nanotechnology serves no immediate purpose for society and global warming is the result of a plethora of technology being created without a clear direction for the future.
Whereas Leo Marx argues that technology in modern age is detrimental to social progress, Alvin Weinberg illustrates that technology and society can co-exist as social engineering. When society presents a problem, engineers may come up either a social solution or a technological fix. In general, Weinberg states that social problems are more difficult and complex than technological problems as social problems are difficult to identify, let alone to come up with a solution. For example, automobile accidents are a social problem. The exact cause of automobile accidents may be due to numerous factors. A technological fix to automobile accidents was adding seat belts. While the initial response to seat belts was mainly negative due to discomfort of new technology, seat belts are now integrated into today’s automobile through social means such as “Click It or Ticket,” a law in which drivers may receive a ticket for not wearing their seat belts. Weinberg mentions that despite the numerous technologies currently being offered to fix social problems, these solutions are only short-term. Ultimately, social engineering must be used to solve problems with long-term solutions. In a way, the technological solution can be viewed as little steps taken in order to supplement the inevitable solution from social engineers. Weinberg would justify nanotechnology as a temporary fix to social problems such as energy dependence. While social engineers may try to regulate how energy is being used at the local, state, and federal levels, technologists would develop more methods of acquiring more energy such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy. Global warming demonstrates Weinberg’s theory precisely as some people view it as a social problem. While new technologies are being developed to reduce greenhouse gases, social actions will have to be taken in order to complement the technological solutions. A social answer could be a mandate on greenhouse gas level from the federal government (EPA).
Consequently, Alvin Weinberg emphasizes the fact that technological solutions must be supported by social directives in order to completely resolve a social problem. In a world of his own, Marvin Minsky views technology as deteriorating force in culture. When a culture cannot explain a phenomenon, myths are created in order to change the people’s thinking. These myths that are passed down from generation to generation serve as the values that people learned. If the culture is rooted in myths and technology has not intervened early enough, disapproval or outrage towards new scientific ideas is inevitable. Due to innate defense mechanism, people are unlikely to explore new technologies by putting myths in jeopardy of being disproven. There is also a desire to control as many elements in nature as possible. Minsky suggests that while this is not possible in reality, computers provide an avenue where everything is completely controlled - virtual realities. When every aspect is in a controlled environment, all the products are also the same. For example, if every person knew how to play the violin at the same masterfully skill level, what is the purpose of going to a violin concert? Minsky would view nanotechnology as that virtual reality where products could be made at the subatomic levels, controlling every molecule, positioning each and every one in the final product. Every product would be virtually the same as each product would have the same structure, both on the macro-level and the micro-level. Though, Minsky would view global warming as a myth. Due to current limitations in technology, global warming is not controllable and thus, the thinkers of culture would suggests myths about global warming in order to please the human mind with pleasant ideas; this is simply one of the numerous defense mechanisms people have.
Leslie White, Leo Marx, Alvin Weinberg, and Marvin Minsky have different attitudes towards both nanotechnology and global warming and their effects on society and culture. I agree with Alvin Weinberg’s proposition that with technological fixes must be followed by social solutions to society’s problems. The relationship between the technologists and social engineers is evident in today’s workforce as governments are funding new research for new technology in order to create
sustainable
solutions. Some developers are following the “Triple
Bottom Line”, which provides a framework that projects have three criteria it must fulfill: the project must be socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable. The “Triple Bottom Line” reemphasizes that the collaboration between the technologists and social engineers is needed in order to solve global problems. While Leslie White presents an equation E x T C, I believe that even with the increase of more efficient tools and increase of energy harvested, there is still areas around the world that still having difficulties finding life’s basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter. If C represents the degree of cultural development, then that C degree is relatively low in developing countries. Leo Marx presented a skeptical view that technology use to be apparatus against political domination and that today’s technologies are based on making money based on capitalism. While there are technologies that have made incredible amounts of money, such as Apple products, there are still technologies that contest governmental authority, such as social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and communication devices such as cell phones that can send “txt” messages, make phone calls, even video calls in an instant; every device is connecting the world so that the voice of one can be heard by many. Marvin Minsky shows how technology can alter culture by changing how its people are thinking, simply by challenging previously established theories with new postulates over and
over. Personally, I believe it is very difficult, if not impossible, to complete change someone’s thinking if they are already rooted in the belief, such as religion. Nanotechnology and global warming are today’s technological challenges that being explored. Alvin Weinberg promotes the sense of cooperation amongst technologist and social engineers in order to solve global issues, and in my own opinion, this is the best route to tackling these problems effectively.
