LeCain argues that though the three techno-fixes did show the initial problem to be solved it later caused other environmental problems. Hence not solving the problem at all. He does mention that the positive side to that being that these problems created guidelines that engineers must follow when considering a possible techno-fix. The aftermath of these fixes can often cause a lot of environmental damage. Some meant to only be temporary end up in progress for too long and causing more damage than the initial problem. He mentions copper in the smoky mountains and how the smelting process for those ores created large amounts of air pollution. The operation was kept in business at the promise to remove any harmful chemicals within the smoke created. This, in turn, did solve the initial problem. But also caused harm to the environment by creating a different harmful substance, that wreaked more havoc on the environment. He sees these fixes as only temporary and questions their usefulness in the first place.
When knowing the consequences of our actions the question of whether or not we should continue our ways is really tough. I believe that it is a question of if we should or shouldn’t. It’s a question on if we can or cant. The need for such resources calls for operations to continue. Frankly, I don’t believe we can stop. There also a possibility that the solutions to these problems require resources that we need to mine to get to. I believe that the risk is worth the potential reward. I do agree with LeCain, but I also believe we shouldn’t be scared of our own consequences to advance.