Techno-Optimism
Techno-optimism is a relatively new concept, but I have heard several references to it and its underlying principles over the past few weeks, so I thought it would be worth discussing.
At its very core, the definition of techno-optimism is the belief that technology can continually be improved and can improve the lives of people, making the world a better place. In practice, there are two different kinds of techno-optimists: the good kind and the bad kind.
The good techno-optimists believe that humans can use technology for good, and can mitigate its negative effects. They believe that people can develop new technologies to address new problems as they arise. They essentially believe that technology should and will be used for good purposes. I would like to think of myself as this kind of techno-optimist in many ways (although there are some things I am pessimistic about).
The bad techno-optimists agree with all that, but they take it too far. The bad techno-optimists believe that technology can trump any problem so fervently that they tend to be apathetic to dealing with problems while they are in their early stages. One of our commenters, Jesse, posted a link to this book a while ago: The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy. The end of the subtitle – “why we will never run out of energy” – caught my eye first because it seems like such a silly statement to make. The more I looked into this book and other books and writers like this one, the more I realized that these people are serious techno-optimists, but they are often the bad kind. They put so much faith in the inventiveness of humanity that they convince themselves not to worry about the need for intense alternative energy research now. They assume that when the conditions are dire enough, that new technology will emerge from the market somewhere to save the day.
This image of a technological deux ex machina is highly improbable, and in my opinion, irresponsible. It is true that technology tends to develop and there are massive reserves of ingenuity coupled with incredible market forces that continuously drive innovation; however, ingenuity has not been able to solve every problem on short notice, and the market is far from perfect, especially in dealing with issues of long-term significance. The bad kind of techno-optimism is thinly veiled laziness that consigns responsibility for major issues to future generations instead of addressing them now. I had a teacher recently articulate a similar position when he referred in passing to global warming. Evidently he is one of many who ignore the threat of climate change as something for future generations to worry about once the problem reaches critical mass and the incentives are high enough for the market to produce new technologies to fix the problems.
The obvious problem with applying too much techno-optimism to complicated issues like alternative energy and climate change is that the solutions for these problems will require vast resources and time to develop and implement. If we wait until peak oil production comes and goes and the price of gas is in the double digits, and if we wait until catastrophic flooding and weather patterns produce enough incentives to start developing solutions for these issues, it will be too late for millions of people to save their lives and livelihoods. We must have optimism to drive us toward implementing solutions for the collective problems we face. We cannot allow our optimism to become an excuse for laziness.
If there was enough market incentive to develop innovative technology, it would be done — as you imply. However, until that demand arrives, the opportunity cost to the potentially interested business is far too high. This leads me to believe that most of these techno-optimist aren’t “lazy,” per se, just market conscious. But the classification of a bad techno-optimist is somewhat ambiguous, to me. It would be hard for an company to commit monetary suicide for the future.
Also, don’t you think there is a considerable amount of technological innovation in the field of alternative fuels? Enough that companies aren’t spending more than their budget can afford. Technological advances in Ethanol E85 (especially in the field of cellulosic Ethanol), Hydrogen cells, and biofuels are receiving more time and money than ever before. The market force and incentive is there, relatively speaking, and time and ingenuity are being invested into research and development for alternative fuel sources.
Not to sound too apocalyptic, but a energy “disaster,” or “crisis” (like an oil embargo or OPEC meltdown) could result in even more public support and political capital for technological advancement in alternative fuels. Disasters typically do produce the proverbial technological deus ex machina.
I certainly wouldn’t expect companies to altruistically devote their resources to developing and implementing technology that doesn’t immediately benefit them. I don’t think they are lazy for doing what is in their nature and looking out for themselves and their own immediate profit. That is why it is up to our society and our government to influence the market through incentives and laws and taxes to promote alternative energy and clean energy development. I think that the elements of society at large who resist that kind of regulatory action and put their faith blindly in unknown future technology are very lazy and very irresponsible.
You are right that there is more focus on alternative energy now than ever before, but it is not nearly enough because it still isn’t comparatively profitable here in the U.S. because of various things including our very low gas taxes. But with the other issue I mentioned, climate change, there is very little being done by companies. Again, it is understandable from their perspective, but it is irresponsible for our society to turn a blind eye to this dangerous pattern.