environment ethics question

Some pundits would describe this age as one with no sense of history! In fact, it is assumed that where technology is going is where history is going - as if they are one and the same!

Karl Mannheim s famous distinction: ideology is a set of wish-images intended to evolve the existing order into a better one…Utopia represents a wish to break with bonds of the existing order, to overturn it for a new reality….The Utopia of the ascendant bourgeoisie was the idea of freedom. (Text p. 61).

The question is raised whether history is merely the record of technological change! While advances in technology contribute to change in societies? Is it not man who is the mover in these modifications?

It seems we link technology to the concept of inevitable and relentless change. But what is its purpose? What is its end? People often resist change - sometimes with good reason. Some progress noted in the past has revisited human kind in later generations as crisis: remembering how well received antibiotics were for their curative benefits, until over-prescribed and resistant germ strains infected people in later years or generations.

Throughout history we found technological advances which were deemed useful and good, and gradually they needed to be replaced because their effectiveness had waned. One example: irrigation canals would help with making water available for crops and animals, but over the years could contribute to salinity of the soil lessening its fertility. The Aswan High Dam in Egypt (seen below) which was supposed to bring amazing results to Egyptian fellah (farmers) and provide hydroelectric power to the area both had poor initial results.

The dam prevented the silt from being deposited, fertilizing the soil and actually clogged the turbines preventing efficient energy generation. Oh, and then there was the Lake Nasser which is south of the dam - the increased humidity due to the lake began showing up in erosion and moving of the antiquities: Temple of Abu Simbel.

Perhaps the main issue within this discussion of history and technology is the fact we look it at as various episodes or events, not as a whole. Medical technology has made tremendous advances, but some of this progress has grave moral and ethical ramifications. As surgical practice 200 years ago is viewed as primitive at best by students today, the laser technology today in the retina doctors and other surgeons offices have made success in delicate procedures achievable with minimal side effects in the patients recovery.

Indeed, technological advances in the navigation and operation of automobiles by computer may make it possible for a person with severely diminished vision to operate a motor vehicle. Need a maid to vacuum your home? Not necessarily with the programmable robotic vacuums on sale today! (see image on left)

The media occasionally announces developments in genetics and the number of students entering the field of genetic engineering - does this give you pause, or increased hope for a future free of some illnesses and diseases, and the need for donors and transplants? And take the media - how does it influence perception in this discussion of history and technology? Actually as this lesson was being prepared, a news report of the tropical cyclone affecting India (October 2013) can give us pause to reflect: the technology is available, but not in the location needed to have given timely warning to the people to get out of harm s way. The same argument came about in 2004 when the Christmas tsunami affected Thailand - the warning was given, but not received early enough to allow people to move to higher ground. Is this an Eastern versus Western value difference?