If there’s one big thing we can take away from English 340, it’s that there are two things that we humans treasure: technology and nature. As we study Thoreau and programming side-by-side, we begin to see how these two very different (arguably opposite) things can live in harmony and even advocate for each other. But we’ve been looking at the interaction between nature and technology through a very narrow lens thus far–that is, Thoreau’s lens. When we look at the relationship between nature, or the environment, and technology on a broader scale, things get a little fuzzy.
There’s no question that technology and nature are good for humans. We use technology everyday, from our cell phones and computers to hospital equipment and obtaining the fuel that runs our cars. It makes our lives easier, helps us be creative, fosters learning and communication, and simply keeps us entertained.
Nature, too, is our ally in getting by. How would Thoreau have written Walden if not for nature? How would we go camping and hiking and escape from our hectic lives for a while, if not for nature? Where would we get the resources we need to develop and share our technology–if not for nature?
But what about the final leg of this little love triangle? How do nature and technology feel about each other? It’s a question that environmentalists debate and struggle with everyday. There’s even a little equation–or, rather, two equations–they have to describe this relationship. It’s called IPAT or IPA(1/T) (depending on your stance).
IPAT stands for I = P x A x T. The “I” stands for the total impact on the environment, “P” stands for population, “A” for affluence, and “T” for technology. Basically, this means that the bigger the population, the more that population consumes, and the more technology they use, the bigger their impact will be on the environment. The argument for this is pretty well known; more technology means more oil (to build your devices), more pollution (a byproduct of production), more habitat loss (to house that production), and more waste (from when we’re done with our technology). The list goes on and on, and the process is outlined pretty well in this “nice” cartoon by Steve Cutts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPtKOrwf1h0[/embed]
However, not everybody feels this way. In the alternative equation, IPA(1/T), all of the letters mean the same thing, only the “(1/T)” means that with more technology, the total impact on the environment gets smaller. The idea behind this comes from all of the good things technology has done for protecting the environment: solar power, hydro power, wind power, and all the alternative resources that scientists are trying to make use of. We use technology to get rid of wastes more efficiently and to attempt to repair the damage that we’ve caused in the past. We use technology to protect habitats and wildlife and advocate for the environmental cause. We use technology to find solutions to the very problems that it causes. Take this video, for example, that talks about turning our roads into solar panels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU[/embed]
So which one is right? T or (1/T)? It’s technology versus technology, and nobody has the answer. A lot of people say that with technology we can fix anything. But what about the costs of new technology, both monetary and environmental? What about the oil and energy that goes into developing new devices and solar roadways? Can those things be circumvented, or will they pay themselves off overtime? Does it matter in the end? Will we ever stop using technology, even if it turns out that (1/T) isn’t accurate?
I don’t have the answers, though I like to think that we can find a way to make IPA(1/T) a reality. The secrets of relationship between the environment and technology might be something that only time can tell. Until then, we can only struggle to keep a balance between humanity’s two loves.