LeCain argues for three reasons on why these three technological fixes can be concerning. First, he agrees that these fixes limit us to looking only inside the box, “We view the environment through the prism of a specific problem” (Lecain, p. 142). We choose to only look water pollution and make microorganisms that eat the pollution but they cause a negative side effect to the soil. That leads me to his second agreement. Sometimes scientist choose to ignore certain consequences for man bias reasons but for others it is hard to see something that you haven’t created yet and it can be hard to imagine the negative outcomes when you’re trying to do good. His third argument that he points out is there are limits to what technology can and cannot do, “all three types of tech-no fixes ultimately results in other environmental problems” (Lecain, p. 139). We can only assume how far technology fixes can bring us but we do have proper evidence that technology fixes have brought more harm the second time around.
I do think we need copper and other minerals for a very simple reason, which is how we live in today’s world depends heavily on mining. Everything we user to live comfortable in our day-to-day lives uses copper and other minerals. I do believe with LeCain and many others that mining for minerals is very bad for the environment but we would not be able to live the way we do without them. Take going green for example, solar, wind and water dames all take copper or another mineral to functions. I think LeCains agreement is strong but it is just not realistic. I mean we would live in wood huts and I am not going to lie that would suck in the cold winter months of Montana.