A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for completion of Environmental History &amp

In this paper I am going to explain how technology shapes flooding problems. First I will explain and compare the perspectives of techno-optimists and techno-skeptics to technological solutions. Then I will elucidate the pluralization of nature and how nature is an organism which needs to be respected as any other living being. Over the last century, sea levels have been on the rise, putting many places in danger. It is our obligation to find solutions to rising sea levels so we do not have to be forced to leave our homes for shelters. My life place of South Florida has been experiencing flooding more than ever. I have observed times where it will rain for two days straight, without stopping, and it looks like a hurricane came through. These dangers of floods are not limited to just the area I live in. Due to human-caused global warming, oceans are expanding all over the world. This problem is affecting all living beings on earth. The polar ice caps melting, in conjunction to warming oceans, create a chain reaction in the eco-system. A solution must be implemented soon, otherwise we will all be out of time.

As R. Bruce Hull uses the terms techno-skeptics (those who have little faith in technological advances) and techno-optimists (those that believe technology is the answer) identify solutions for environmental problems (Hull, 2006). My first solution leans toward the “soft green” view, which limits destruction of natural systems by biomimicry (Hull, 2006, p. 67). Biomimicry is technology that mimics the way nature systematically works. For example the creation of a custom hybrid tree with advanced technology that imbibe excess water and toxins, as well as release triple the oxygen into the atmosphere compared to “nature made” trees. The term soft green “attempts to mimic nature and minimize disruption to natural systems,” (Hull, 2006, p. 67). The second perspective is using a “hard green” technology, which directly targets the outcome of environmental damage, when the flood is at a critical point. Hard green technologies are the complete opposite of soft green technology, but both advocate technological solutions for environmental dilemmas.

Techno-skeptics believe that technology is not the answer to solve environmental problems. They would feel as though the idea of creating a hard or a soft green technology is a trap into an endless cycle of relying on machines. There would need to be several testing’s and reviews to be conducted over a long period of time before it would be approved for use. Techno-skeptics would view the hybrid trees emitting three times as much oxygen, as potentially harmful due to the possibility of fires. Unlike the sequoia trees which emit an abundant amount of oxygen and require regeneration through fire, hybrid trees, for example, need to be fire resistant due to their unnatural machine like state. This puts people in danger, according to the techno-skeptic, and calls for a “Precautionary Principle,” discussed in the next paragraph (Weston, 2012). It will also be severely taxing on the economy to spend millions of dollars on creating and testing the proposed tool (Hull, 2006, p. 66). The hybrid trees are considered to be geo-engineered which means they are re-engineering the planet, (Weston, 2012). Geo-engineering is directly manipulating the natural state of the Earth. This may be considered both greens, depending on the frequency of change in the natural system. The use of bio-mimicry (Hull, 2006, p. 67), reduces the rate of disturbance. This type of technology is considered soft green by Hull because it is a reflection to a real tree, mimicking nature. The hard green technology, for the sake of this paper will be called a water micrometer, will be used resembling an anti-hose. It is similar to a fire extinguisher putting out a heat source right away, but shrinks the hydrogen and oxygen bonds into vapor. However, just like genetically engineered hybrid trees, the naturalist techno-skeptic would deny this technology for it is not focused on preservation.

Anthony Weston mentions the “Precautionary Principle” in which skeptics are appeased by knowing there will minimal or no harm done to the environment prior to implementation of the technology used (Weston, 2012, p. 63). However, the techno-skeptic still would not be convinced this is the only solution because it does not focus on protection of the environment before and after a disaster. Hull terms “carrying capacity,” as a concern techno-skeptics have toward the decisions made by stake holders (Hull, 2006). Carrying capacity is the limit of resources the environment has to offer to an ever growing population. Not only would there need to be several tests conducted on the environment, resources would be continuously used without limitations. Moreover, the development for this project would be on a large scale and may potentially fail to a catastrophic level due to the complex interconnected systems used to create this project (Hull, 2006, p. 66). Techno-skeptics are more concerned with solving the problem by its root cause and prevent the future outcome of floods and rising sea levels. The techno-skeptic would want to see the CO2 emissions lessened by targeting big oil companies and agriculture. They may also want to expand restoration projects on natural preserves. This view point is not wrong, it is simply against mechanizing nature (which will be looked into later in this paper).

On the other hand, techno-optimists are accepting to mitigation of the environment right away. Their role is to solve problems when things get critical (Hull, 2006, p. 62). They have faith that a problem can be solved at a higher rate through the use of technology. Weston, a techno-optimist, mentions that the trillions spent on mobilizing green technology using human creativity, is a risk worth taking (Weston, 2012, pp. 10-20). Weston would agree that the continuous building of barriers and flood drainages have not improved the inevitable. The way to solve a problem is to “think off-scale” for a “deeper change” (Weston, 2012, pp. 10-14). Weston would support a technology which acts as an eliminator of human impact by reducing flood waters and filtering toxins out of the water and air. This idea is considered off-scale because it does not focus on the end point, but on the dynamic and infinite opportunities for mitigating nature (Weston, 2012, p. 19) . Weston states “’Man the Destroyer’ can only aim to shrink his impact down to nothing,” which this technological solution aims to accomplish (Weston, 2012, p. 17). He also mentions that humans contribute to CO2 levels by “thirty one billion tons per year,” through heavy use of non-renewable fuel burning and agriculture (Weston, 2012, p. 63). If technology caused the problem, then technology should be used to solve it. Daniel Botkin, a techno-optimist, claims nature depends on technology and humans. He says these tools will “help us manage wisely what we realize we have inadvertently begun to unravel,” (Botkin, 1990, p. 26). He claims that it is our responsibility to make the Earth a comfortable home for each of us. By taking responsibility of the Earth, and working in conjunction with technology is part of the “pluralization of nature.”

The term “pluralizing nature” means to look at the natural world through many frameworks. One conceptual framework is the anthropocentric view, which means human centered. Hull “pluralizes” nature by explaining the anthropocentric perspective of treating nature as a machine (Hull, 2006, p. 40). Botkin also mentions the machine-age beliefs such as “nature knows best” and “nature undisturbed was constant,” (Botkin, 1990, p. 27). Some techno-optimists believe that it is not important whether species are exotic, but what functions they perform in the ecosystem; an anthropocentric view point (Hull, 2006, p. 48). On the other hand, techno-skeptics fear that humans will never reach a proper understanding of ecosystems enough to manipulate it (Hull, 2006, p. 48). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the mechanistic model is what has shaped agriculture today and created a Socioeconomic-centered (money centered) industry (Hull, 2006, p. 43). Botkin argues that mechanizing nature is an old idea of a model of nature, which humans try to control ecosystems like they would an airplane. He compares a mechanized nature to a family mill a “self-sustaining and repairable, regenerating system,” (Botkin, 1990, p. 102). However he also mentions “The organic view has been traced by archaeologists and anthropologists to early cultures, prescientific and non-Judeo-Christian,” (Botkin, 1990, p. 93).

Aside from the religious aspect, the Earth had a time limit, a mortality evident by the loss and gains of erosion (Botkin, 1990, p. 95). Machines are not able to regenerate or procreate, they must be controlled by humans. Thus to think that nature is a machine, is an anthropocentric perspective geared toward ultimate control. Botkin quotes Thomas Pownall by describing trees in the forest growing up and dying as men do. This type of perspective can change the way we make decisions toward the environment. The age of viewing nature as an organism brought a greater appreciation and aesthetic value. It also conveyed an understanding of the interconnectedness between animals and nature. Without one species thriving, another may suffer just as well. The belief of man being connected to nature is one which unifies divinity and mortality. This view point is important to know because it gives the perspective of nature being finite and fragile. Thus it is vital to make careful decisions when operating on the Earth. In order for harmony to exist, each living and non-living part of nature must be considered and respected.

Botkins, whom made it clear he does not believe that nature is a machine is one of the most resourceful techno-optimistic authors. He explained that mechanized nature forgets the intelligence of dynamic organismic nature. Organicism or holism is another framework defined by Hull as “dynamic equilibrium,” allows the techno-skeptic to have faith that nature is able to heal itself without human interference (Hull, 2006, p. 45). An example of this would be the functional use of forest fires to replenish the trees by creating nutrient rich soil from the ash. Hull describes the dynamics of nature by nature being influx and constantly changing, (Hull, 2006, p. 24). He talks about the dramatic migration of trees from environmental changes, which were due to the animals moving to more sustainable climates. This knowledge gives benefit to the techno-skeptic who believes that nature does not need technology to find a better home. However, a techno-optimist would agree that the assistance of technology will help the rate of migration by faster methods.

The anthropocentric view is the extended result of socioeconomic-centric developments. These socioeconomic-centric perspectives are economically focused projects which contributed to environmental crises. Eugene Hargrove explains that the first settlers were determined to cultivate all land possible, and if not cultivated then it was a waste (Hargrove, 1980). Agriculture being the first environmentally unconscious act upon the first settlers has evolved through socioeconomic-centric persons to real-estate and other commerce. In order to undo some of the damage of the industrial age, compromising most of the luxuries we have today can steer us toward a solution through mitigation. To mitigate is to change our way of life for the benefit of the environment (Weston, 2012). However Hull, Weston and Botkin suggest that not only should we focus on mitigation, we should change the relationship we have with non-human things. By developing a relationship with technology and nature will result in technological developments which aim to help the environment. Anthropocentricism will shift from Socioeconomic-centric into biocentric – life thinking. The biocentric perspective shifts the common way of focusing just on our (human) benefits, and incorporates all living things.

Combining techno-optimistic values with nature in an organismic perspective will change the role of technology in general.

If techno-skeptics shifted to “Off-Scale Thinking,” a union would be created between both worlds through the use of creativity (Weston, 2012). The techno-skeptic may suggest that technology is an anthropocentric pompous idea that is dangerous and unwise to implement without proper testing. Yet testing cannot be considered true testing if it is done in a laboratory- scientists must test their products on Earth, and we only have one. However, we cannot rely on the safety of a precautionary principle if we are in need of immediate assistance. After so many years and so many warnings of what is to come, the only way out is to act immediately. The lessons nature has taught us from the past, as Hull indicates, if you only have a hammer you only have one solution (Hull, 2006). If you have other tools, other frameworks, you are able to create a multitude of ideas which will suit every perspective. Conceptual frameworks helps us to recognize many possible solutions and continue living in a thriving environment.