Although Douthwaite may view the technological fixes an outright positive aspect to society, the other authors view it in slightly different ways. In my opinion, Huesemann would argue that the social problems do not matter in respect to the environmental issues. (Huesemann pg.11 p.1) Furthermore, I think he would blame people like Douthwaite for the problems technology have caused society. Likely because he would consider Douthwaite to have not considered the negative ways technology impacts the environment. Furthermore, I believe that Johnston would see things in a similar light to Douthwaite (Johnston, Pg. 48 p.2). However, he would still acknowledge that the rapid changes often create negative impacts throughout the environment.
In my opinion, technological advancements have negative repercussions throughout society because of the disruptions they cause in the natural world. (Huesemann, pg. 11 p. 1) Because of this, humans ultimately harm themselves by trying to “improve” the natural environment, which they cannot. According to Barry Commoners fourth law of physics, “every gain is won at some cost.” (Huesemann pg.8 p. 1-2) This “law” is what technological pessimists seem to focus on. Because of this, they often ask if the unintended consequences of technology should prevent us from using technological solutions to our problems. In my opinion, this question should be determined entirely on a case-by-case basis. The reason being that science has recently evolved into trying to reduce the negative effects humans have caused throughout the world. Although this could ultimately cause more damage, attempting to restore these complex systems seems like a necessary debt that humans owe the world.
Do you think science should be used to try and fix the damages we have caused? Or should we limit our dependence on it, and allow the environment to adjust to what the world has become?