This ties into the wider theory that the only way to meet carbon and other environmental goals long-term would be to drastically reduce our consumption of resources. I’m currently reading L’Âge des low-tech by Philippe Bihouix (The Age of Low-Tech) that posits that technological innovation simply cannot ‘save’ us. This approach does leave a bit to be desired with regards to Global North-South inequality though (eg. Is it right to say that the Global South cannot enjoy the benefits of planet destruction that the Global North has had for decades?)
Do they even want those “benefits”? I have not read that book, but I am reading another called “confessions of an economic hitman” and it shows how most modernisation projects in the global south and east are just ways to spend IMF, USAID and global development bank money on US companies, and to shackle those countries with debt, making them subservient to the US. It speaks of how many of the local people do not want roads, power generation facilities, cities full of consumerism… Etc.
Some medicine and agriculture might be appreciated, but not when it’s lining the pockets of big pharma.
It’s estimated that adequate healthcare and agriculture could have been provided to the whole world with less than half of the expenditure on the Vietnam war.
I now believe the idea that “innovation will save us” is just so that companies can keep profiting from our desire to try and fix some problems we’ve made. If we stop consuming and producing altogether, that is a fundamental breakdown of capitalism, which the capital does not want to happen.
These big companies that are interested in carbon capture via mechanical means or by seaweed or trees, just want it so they have an easy way out and don’t have to change anything they do, so they can keep producing and selling. Akin to the idea that you can just pay a bit of money to “plant some trees” and you’re golden. If those trees ever do get planted, I doubt they’ll survive the affects of climate change.
While I agree with your skepticism of the consummerist aims that ‘innovation will save us’ seeks to allow, the benefits I’m speaking about aren’t that. I’m talking about consistent long-term education, medical, food, energy etc. security that would genuinely improve everyday lives. Educational stability can’t come without the . I agree that being shackled to the US (or China for that matter) for the sake of ‘development’ is undesirable and under the current system inevitable for many nations pursuing infrastructure improvements. However, I do think that it at least should be possible for ‘development’ without this subservience, although development always comes at an environmental cost.
This ties into the wider theory that the only way to meet carbon and other environmental goals long-term would be to drastically reduce our consumption of resources. I’m currently reading L’Âge des low-tech by Philippe Bihouix (The Age of Low-Tech) that posits that technological innovation simply cannot ‘save’ us. This approach does leave a bit to be desired with regards to Global North-South inequality though (eg. Is it right to say that the Global South cannot enjoy the benefits of planet destruction that the Global North has had for decades?)
Do they even want those “benefits”? I have not read that book, but I am reading another called “confessions of an economic hitman” and it shows how most modernisation projects in the global south and east are just ways to spend IMF, USAID and global development bank money on US companies, and to shackle those countries with debt, making them subservient to the US. It speaks of how many of the local people do not want roads, power generation facilities, cities full of consumerism… Etc.
Some medicine and agriculture might be appreciated, but not when it’s lining the pockets of big pharma.
It’s estimated that adequate healthcare and agriculture could have been provided to the whole world with less than half of the expenditure on the Vietnam war.
I now believe the idea that “innovation will save us” is just so that companies can keep profiting from our desire to try and fix some problems we’ve made. If we stop consuming and producing altogether, that is a fundamental breakdown of capitalism, which the capital does not want to happen.
These big companies that are interested in carbon capture via mechanical means or by seaweed or trees, just want it so they have an easy way out and don’t have to change anything they do, so they can keep producing and selling. Akin to the idea that you can just pay a bit of money to “plant some trees” and you’re golden. If those trees ever do get planted, I doubt they’ll survive the affects of climate change.
While I agree with your skepticism of the consummerist aims that ‘innovation will save us’ seeks to allow, the benefits I’m speaking about aren’t that. I’m talking about consistent long-term education, medical, food, energy etc. security that would genuinely improve everyday lives. Educational stability can’t come without the . I agree that being shackled to the US (or China for that matter) for the sake of ‘development’ is undesirable and under the current system inevitable for many nations pursuing infrastructure improvements. However, I do think that it at least should be possible for ‘development’ without this subservience, although development always comes at an environmental cost.