The simple thought that technology can solve our social problems means we have reached a scary time. My opinion aside, the Huesemanns and Johnston would say something similar. “Technology can thus be employed to buy us time during which we can attend to that fundamental, fascinating building block of social sciences — ourselves,” (Douthwaite, pg. 32). The other author’s, I think would agree, that technology can act or help as a short term fix to a problem. Douthwaite believes that technology can fix problems for a while but describes this fix as being temporary (whether short or long), similar to the Huesemanns and Johnston. Where they disagree is at the cause-and-effect level. “Therefore, when humans, using science and technology, attempt to optimize nature for their own purposes, they immediately disturb the natural balance,” (Huesemann, pg. 7). Huesemann and Huesemann write about how artificially changing the environment, in any way, even if temporary, will change the course of that environment for good. Johnston stated in his piece that, not only do you change the environment for good, you change society for good. For an example, knowing that there is a chance to change some genetic variation in a living thing, can create all sorts of moral unrest.
Technological fixes to environmental and social systems have negative consequences because technology offers a new weight to an already balanced system. The systems, both nature and nurture, have been balancing themselves for most of history. Now, with the rapid increase of technological developments, the natural scale can’t keep up. That being said, I don’t believe we should stop solving issues, both environmentally and socailly, simply because there might be negative consequences. There are times when the good outweighs the bad and we need to recognize that.