Nuclear technology

The solution to the first problem, that of controlling nuclear technology, is primarily political. At its root is the anarchy of national self-government, for as long as the world remains divided into a multiplicity of nation-states, or even into power blocs, each committed to the defense of its own sovereign power to do what it chooses, nuclear weapons merely replace the older weapons by which such nation-states maintained their independence in the past. The availability of a nuclear armoury has emphasized the weaknesses of a world political system based upon sovereign nation-states. Here, as elsewhere, technology is a tool that can be used creatively or destructively. But the manner of its use depends entirely on human decisions, and in this matter of nuclear self-control the decisions are those of governments. There are other aspects of the problem of nuclear technology, such as the disposal of radioactive waste and the quest to harness the energy released by fusion, but, although these are important issues in their own right, they are subordinate to the problem of the use of nuclear weapons in warfare.

Population explosion

Assuming that the use of nuclear weapons can be averted, world civilization will have to come to grips with the population problem in the next few decades if life is to be tolerable on planet Earth in the 21st century. The problem can be tackled in two ways, both drawing on the resources of modern technology.

In the first place, efforts may be made to limit the rate of population increase. Medical technology, which through new drugs and other techniques has provided a powerful impulse to the increase of population, also offers means of controlling this increase through contraceptive devices and through painless sterilization procedures. Again, technology is a tool that is neutral in respect to moral issues about its own use, but it would be futile to deny that artificial population control is inhibited by powerful moral constraints and taboos. Some reconciliation of these conflicts is essential, however, if stability in world population is to be satisfactorily achieved. Perhaps the experience of China, already responsible for one-quarter of the world’s population, is instructive here: in an attempt to prevent the population growth from exceeding the ability of the country to sustain the existing standards of living, the government imposed a “one-child family” campaign in the 1970s, which is maintained by draconian social controls.

In the second place, even the most optimistic program of population control can hope to achieve only a slight reduction in the rate of increase, so an alternative approach must be made simultaneously in the shape of an effort to increase the world’s production of food. Technology has much to contribute at this point, both in raising the productivity of existing sources of food supply, by improved techniques of agriculture and better types of grain and animal stock, and in creating new sources of food, by making the deserts fertile and by systematically farming the riches of the oceans. There is enough work here to keep engineers and food technologists busy for many generations.

Ecological balance

The third major problem area of modern technological society is that of preserving a healthy environmental balance. Though humans have been damaging the environment for centuries by overcutting trees and farming too intensively and though some protective measures, such as the establishment of national forests and wildlife sanctuaries, were taken decades ago, great increases in population and in the intensity of industrialization are promoting a worldwide ecological crisis. This includes the dangers involved in destruction of the equatorial rainforests, the careless exploitation of minerals by open-mining techniques, and the pollution of the oceans by radioactive waste and of the atmosphere by combustion products. These include oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, which produce acid rain, and carbon dioxide, which may affect the world’s climate through the greenhouse effect. It was the danger of indiscriminate use of pesticides such as DDT after World War II that first alerted opinion in advanced Western countries to the delicate nature of the world’s ecological system, presented in a trenchant polemic by American science writer Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring (1962); this was followed by a spate of warnings about other possibilities of ecological disaster. The great public concern about pollution in the advanced nations is both overdue and welcome. Once more, however, it needs to be said that the fault for this waste-making abuse of technology lies with man himself rather than with the tools he uses. For all his intelligence, man in communities behaves with a lack of respect for the environment that is both shortsighted and potentially suicidal.

Interactions between society and technology

In the first place, it can be clearly recognized that the relationship between technology and society is complex. Any technological stimulus can trigger a variety of social responses, depending on such unpredictable variables as differences between human personalities; similarly, no specific social situation can be relied upon to produce a determinable technological response. Any “theory of invention,” therefore, must remain extremely tentative, and any notion of a “philosophy” of the history of technology must allow for a wide range of possible interpretations. A major lesson of the history of technology, indeed, is that it has no precise predictive value. It is frequently possible to see in retrospect when one particular artifact or process had reached obsolescence while another promised to be a highly successful innovation, but at the time such historical hindsight is not available and the course of events is indeterminable. In short, the complexity of human society is never capable of resolution into a simple identification of causes and effects driving historical development in one direction rather than another, and any attempt to identify technology as an agent of such a process is unacceptable.

The putative autonomy of technology

Secondly, the definition of technology as the systematic study of techniques for making and doing things establishes technology as a social phenomenon and thus as one that cannot possess complete autonomy, unaffected by the society in which it exists. It is necessary to make what may seem to be such an obvious statement because so much autonomy has been ascribed to technology, and the element of despair in interpretations like that of Jacques Ellul is derived from an exaggerated view of the power of technology to determine its own course apart from any form of social control. Of course it must be admitted that once a technological development, such as the transition from sail to steam power in ships or the introduction of electricity for domestic lighting, is firmly established, it is difficult to stop it before the process is complete. The assembly of resources and the arousal of expectations both create a certain technological momentum that tends to prevent the process from being arrested or deflected. Nevertheless, the decisions about whether to go ahead with a project or to abandon it are undeniably human, and it is a mistake to represent technology as a monster or a juggernaut threatening human existence. In itself, technology is neutral and passive: in the phrase of Lynn White, Jr., “Technology opens doors; it does not compel man to enter.” Or, in the words of the traditional adage, it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools, and so, just as it was naive for 19th-century optimists to imagine that technology could bring paradise on Earth, it seems equally simplistic for pessimists today to make technology itself a scapegoat for human shortcomings.