January 5, 2007
鼓勵此網誌：0
Technology and Ecology
by J. Stan Rowe
Published in Home Place, Essays in Ecology, NeWest Books, Edmonton 1990, pp. 63-70)
Technology has become the primary means by which humans interact with the Earth-home. An outcome of artifice guided by human beliefs and purposes, technology makes visible the deep beliefs that consciously and subconsciously motivate society. Through it the people/planet relationship is made explicit. Hence the importance of a critical appraisal of technology, of its effects on the world, and of the extent to which its various forms are appropriate.
Technology, the Big T, has been variously defined. All agree that it is more than hardware, more than machines, tools, material instruments. An inclusive definition of T is: a reproducible and publicly communicable way of doing things. The key word communicable shifts T into the world of ideas, language, beliefs, culture--which explains why T-transfer from industrialized to non-industrialized nations is difficult until, either directly by acceptance or indirectly by acculturation, the receiving populations adopt western values, beliefs, perceptions. To benefit from our technology they must first believe what we believe and want what we want. According to a recent Mercedes-Benz advertisement: "Technology is only opportunity knocking--the secret is to open the right doors." To be effective, T must be directed to the right openings, the right visions, such as owner pride and smooth high speeds in the Mercedes model M-B 300.
An essential part of T consists, therefore, of cultural ideas, especially the values and goals espoused by influential people--in our society by business people. Their materialist philosophy provides the inspiration and encouragement for industry's material production. The built environment, steadily expanding, is the visible expression of T's cultural authority, influence and growth. Progress is T and T is progress.
Technology as Progress
Faith in T is deep rooted. Aldous Huxley considered it the modern religion, its symbol a decapitated cross and the Model T Ford. T is our provider and in it we trust to give us our daily bread and deliver us from evil. Yet the Good Life so provided is not free. Environment has been picking up the tab, paying our way. Now its ability to support humanity's appetites and wastes is running out.
The conventional use of the word "progress" often preceded by a resigned or cynical "you can't stop it," brings to mind T's gifts to our consumer society: living better electrically, acquiring more machines, eating exotic foods, travelling faster, and perhaps some day visiting the moon and planets. Progress is living "high on the hog" for the largest possible percentage of the human population, using more and more energy and processing more and more materials from the Earth's crust. Will we continue to call it progress as it slowly kills us?
Progress in a finite ecosystem cannot mean the absolute ascendancy of one species. Progress must mean the achieving of a creative symbiosis within the Home Place, where sympathy and care are extended by the dominant species to the rest of creation. To transcend traditional preoccupations with our own kind, preparing to appreciate the Ecosphere with all that is in it, requires an understanding of T and how we have used it both to exploit and to distance ourselves from Mother Earth.
Exosomatic Technology--Appendages for People
Technology churns out a variety of artifacts: tools such as pile-drivers, media such as television, cocoons such as buildings and cars, all of which like spectacles and hearing aids can be hooked on the body to increase the wearer's abilities and pleasures. Aircraft are fast legs, attached to people by seat belts in order to increase their speed of travel. Submarines are worn to swim under the oceans, microscopes and telescopes to see better and farther, telecommunication systems (giant vocal chords) for long-distance information exchange, bulldozer and dragline are muscles for earth moving, computers extend the mind's scope. Transmitted from generation to generation by culture rather than by genes, T is the new means of human evolution, increasingly adding to human versatility, power and size.
From this perspective, T provides (in addition to biomedical inside-the-body gadgets) a wide range of outside-the-body or exosomatic instruments, extending human abilities to change the world and all that is in it. Side effects are extraction of vast quantities of "raw materials" from the planet's surface to manufacture the array of technologic products, and a return flow of wastes and poisons at all stages from primary production to obsolescence.
Initially, purpose shapes the instruments but soon like body parts they begin to inspire their own use. Just as those born with good vocal chords can with difficulty be dissuaded from singing, so a boy with a new hatchet finds much that needs chopping. The United Nations dictum, "Wars begin in the minds of men" is a half-truth. Wars are also encouraged by the availability of arsenals of shiny potent weapons whose purpose is destruction. Dis-arm-ament is effective because it amputates the striking arms, separates the muscle-toys from the aggressive boys, removes the temptation to let the exosomatic instruments "do their thing" at the slightest provocation.
If technological instruments are body extensions, may they not also be viewed as disfiguring outgrowths, as excrescences with pathological tendencies? Three potential afflictions we suffer from "wearing" our technological armour are gigantism, addiction and alienation.
Technology and Gigantism
All technologies whose goals are increased power and control effectively lead to gigantism. Machines behave like enlarged limbs and organs, demanding energy for growth, repair and reproduction just as organisms do. A North American, considered together with her exosomatic appendages, is 80 times the size of a Bangladesh peasant judged by appetite for non-renewable resources (fossil energy, minerals) and renewable (ecosystem) resources.
Each western person bestrides the world like a Colossus, leaving his Susquatch imprints on land and water through the massive extraction, consumption and waste of resources that enlarged body size necessitates. Head counts are misleading when technologic size is not factored in. Is Canada under-populated with 30 million people? Before answering, bring in the technologic multiplier, the energy use per capita, that indicates our impacts on environment. Considering that every Canadian stomps the Earth like 80 peasants, our country is vastly over-populated. Further, in a world of rapid population growth but fixed space, of polluted renewable resources and dwindling non-renewable fossil fuels, the expectation that everyone can be an exosomatic giant on the North American model is unrealistic. The dream of the world's poor, who make up the majority of the human race, casts over the future a dark cloud that will only be dispersed when the rich nations begin to share by divvying up their wealth. Sharing is more realistic than depending on economic growth, for the world will never support at Canadian standards the six billion people expected in the year 2000. One billion could perhaps live as well as the citizens of Calgary and Winnipeg. Some say only 250 million.
The gigantism that industrial T confers is largely material. It effectively extends the power of our material bodies without doing much for our immaterial minds. Like a growing brontosaur, T's body size has far outdistanced brain size. Encouraged to be consumers, we surround ourselves with more and more artifacts, increasing our appendages and faculties, while our reasoning power and modicum of wisdom stay the same, or shrink before the TV set. The distortion of the body/brain ratio creates feelings of helplessness. The common fear that machines are out of control, that they are running people's lives, suggests that exosomatic evolution has outstripped its rational management.
If the diagnosis is correct, we would do ourselves a favour by reducing exosomatic T to restore a better body/brain ratio. In industry, fewer mega-projects and more "soft" local developments would reduce our gigantism. In agriculture, a larger eyes-to-acres ratio would improve on the wheat-belt trend of fewer eyes on larger farms.(2) Instead, the favoured prescription is to keep T growing, not attempting to enlarge comprehension per se but to supplement and beef up brain power with the latest T: AI, Artificial Intelligence, that also doubles for Artificial Insemination. If only T could deliver AW, Artificial Wisdom!
Technology as Addiction
Because they give us power and pleasure, exosomatic instruments are addictive. When "worn" even for a short time they become necessities, difficult to lay aside unless replaced with better, more efficient models. The rancher turns in his horse for a half-ton truck. The youth moves up from motorcycle to muscle-car. For those habituated to fast movement through the air, surface travel--except perhaps for recreation--loses its charm.
Progress is traditionally conceived of as greater power, control and efficiency--not less. To suggest giving up powerful Ts on the suspicion that they are dangerous and destructive is to invite scorn and the accusation of wanting "to go back to the cave." Georgescu-Roegen thought that this addiction--as attractive to humanity as a flame to moths--is the greatest obstacle to a rational human ecology. He was pessimistic about cures for the pervasive dependence on exosomatic comforts. "Perhaps the destiny of man is to have a short, but fiery, exciting and extravagant life."(1)
Like addictions to drugs, sex and gambling, being hooked on T is controllable if not curable. The first step is recognition that we have a problem, that T is a predicament, which then suggests the need to understand it and find satisfying alternatives to its destructive facets. The sometimes brilliant philosopher William James thought that the moral equivalent to warfare was an all-out battle with Nature, a constructive alternative to killing each other! We have proved that such battle is an immoral equivalent, for it kills everything. Perhaps a moral equivalent to war can be found by distinguishing friend from enemy, separating appropriate T that assists our symbiosis with the universe from the poisonous and destructive T of heavy industry and military might, then launching an all-out attack on the deadly kind before it destroys the world and ourselves completely. Let us declare our debilitating addiction to instruments of power, and explore the possibilities of cutting Big T down to little t.
Technology as Barrier
T is also an alienating influence, interposed between people and the planet. As the manufactured milieu grows, contact between people and the Ecosphere is steadily reduced. The built environment acts as a filter and barrier that "progress" renders thicker and more opaque, gradually eliminating and shutting off nature's direct sensual stimuli. During the last eclipse of the sun over southern Saskatchewan, children in many schools were only allowed to view that celestial phenomenon on television. Watching TV in buildings without windows is the model of self- induced alienation, annihilating all sense of ecological roots and dependencies.
T has been described as arranging the world so as to minimize direct experience of it, an alienating effect that results in sensory deprivation. Cut off from Nature's sights and sounds, people end up in single-species confinement. Aloneness in the city, with nothing to sense but themselves and made-things, induces various psychoses. T's cages isolate people from the Ecosphere milieu, their biological and evolutionary home, as effectively as iron cages isolate lions from their savannas. Just as zoo animals deteriorate when deprived of their natural home surroundings, so also humans as earthlings deteriorate when, like the legendary Antaeus, they lose touch with planet Earth.
Technology as Placenta
From the standpoint of human ecology, T is the system of values, beliefs and techniques by means of which a society, a culture, taps into, uses and modifies the Ecosphere, in the process changing both itself and the surrounding system. T is the instrument of contact between people and the miraculous enveloping environment from which over four and one half billion years of evolution they came. T is the means by which humanity extracts what it wants from the Earth and returns what it does not want to the Earth, playing an analogous role to the placenta and umbilical cord connecting fetus and mother. Should the fetus imperil its host by excessive demands and generation of wastes (a likely effect of gigantism), then both will suffer. As with mother and fetus, the only safe and sustainable ecological relationship between people and planet is one of moderate demands in a symbiotic alliance.
The dependency of people on the Ecosphere is complete. Indeed, all organisms are inseparable from their environments except in thought, and life is more an attribute of the Ecosphere than of the organisms it encapsulates. The natural world and all forms of life within it are inter-penetrated. Sophisticated T does nothing to reduce the people-planet dependency, but it does magnify the possibilities for exploiting and poisoning the relationship. The onus is on humanity to develop a technology appropriate to the well-being of the Earth, a T that does not imperil the Ecosphere but contributes to its healthy functioning.
Conventional T is purposive and aggressive. Comprising values and ideas as well as tools, it urges its own uses which, given our cultural past, are people-serving in a short-sighted way. Unless we recognize this fact we slide into the popular "technology is neutral" mode of thinking that backs away from any kind of control over our inventions and shrugs off the need for ethical choices at T's leading edge. The ultimate nonsense is justification of war because of the technologic advances it brings--poison gases that later yield insecticides, tanks that are the models for better tractors. Danger lurks in the idea that nothing is wrong with any T, that it is only what we do with it, what we make of it, that can be judged ethically. This, said McLuhan, is the numb stance of the technological idiot.
Evaluating Technology
Many human problems are unsolvable in the humanistic context. What is more important, mother or fetus? If human life, actual and potential, is believed to be paramount, there is no conclusive answer. But in the context of the Ecosphere, knowing what we know about carrying capacity and of social and environmental destruction due to over-population, most ecologists will come down on the side of the mother.
Similarly with T. What is appropriate and what inappropriate cannot easily be decided if the arguments consider only help or hindrance to people. Will it feed more of them, will it prolong their lives, will it make them more powerful, will it help them calculate faster? The usual conclusion is yes, do it, because people will be "better off."
A sounder standard for judgement is ecological, measured against the requirements for symbiotic survival in the Ecosphere. Then the measure of T's goodness or badness is its effects on the Earth system from which it draws materials and to which it returns wastes. Hitherto progress has meant more T, more industrial growth, more material goods, more wealth at the expense of the Ecosphere. Progress must be redefined as sustainable ecological relationships between humans and the Ecosphere, to which new kinds of T evaluated in the context of health and permanency can contribute. That is, T for two!
An appropriate T will respect the air-water-soil-sediment-organism matrix that is the milieu of life. It will not knowingly extract renewable resources faster than they are renewed nor will it introduce toxins and pollutants into the planet's life space. It will certainly not play around with radioactive substances nor falsely advertize them as safe, clean and cheap.
Citations
1.cholas Georgescu-Roegen. "Energy and Economic Myths, Part 2." The Ecologist: 5(7): 52.
2. Wes Jackson. Altars of Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth. 1987. North Point Press, San Francisco.
科技與生態
by J. Stan Rowe
鐘丁茂 徐雪麗 譯
Published in Home Place, Essays in Ecology, NeWest Books, Edmonton 1990,pp. 63-70)
科技已經成為人類與我們的家—地球之間相互作用的一種主要工具。受到人類信仰與人類目的巧妙引導的結果，科技很明顯地變成一種深層信仰，此一深層信仰被人們有意或潛意識地用以激發社會的發展，透過科技使我們更清楚明確地瞭解人類與地球之間的關係。因此，對於科技及其對世界的影響以及其延伸出的各種形式進行嚴謹的評估是非常重要的。
「科技」—以英文大寫「T」來表示—有許多不同的定義，但大家都同意科技不只是硬體設備、機器、工具、有形的器械而已。科技涵蓋的定義：「是一種“可複製的”（reproducible）與“可公開傳達的”（publicly communicable）方式」。“可公開傳達的”關鍵在於將科技轉變成思想、語言、信仰與文化的世界，這足以解釋為什麼「科技」從工業化國家轉移至非工業化國家是多麼困難的一件事！除非非工業化國家能直接接受科技的轉移或是間接透過文化適應—即接受科技的一方，其人們必需吸收西方的價值觀、信仰與觀念，否則非工業化國家是不可能成功接受科技的轉移。為了從我們的科技得到利益，非工業化國家首先必須相信我們科技先進國家所相信的、渴望我們所想要的。根據最近賓士汽車的廣告台詞：「科技來臨的唯一機會…就是開對了門」（Technology is only opportunity knocking…the secret is to open the right doors）。為了達到這個目的，科技必須被引導到對的開始、正確的視野，就像擁有賓士300型的車主以擁有高速行駛仍然平穩的車主而自豪一樣。
因此，文化思想是構成科技的基本成分，特別是具有影響力的人所信奉的價值與目標—在我們的社會中，這些具有影響力的人通常是商人。商人實利主義的哲學觀，提供工業物質生產的靈感與刺激，人造環境、穩定擴張、明顯地表現出科技的文化權威、科技的影響與科技的成長，“進步即是科技，科技即是進步”。
科技即是進步（Technology as Progress）
我們對科技的信仰是根深柢固的，赫胥黎（Aldous Huxley）認為科技是一種現代宗教，它的象徵是一個去首的十字架，其實就是象徵福特T型汽車。科技是我們的供應者，我們相信科技足以給我們每日生活所需的麵包以及讓我們從邪惡中獲得救贖，然而科技所提供的「舒適生活」與自由並沒有畫上等號。我們的環境早已因人類追求物質生活而傷痕累累，現在支撐人類慾望與浪費的環境承載能力早已被人類耗盡。
傳統上使用「進步」一詞，經常擺在「你無法停止它」這種認命或悲觀的說法之前，想起科技對我們消費社會所帶來的種種：有更多電子產品的生活、獲得更多的機器、吃到外來的食物、更快速的旅行、或是幻想有一天也許能拜訪月球和其他星球。進步是為了大多數人的貪得無饜，我們從地球榨取越來越多的能源、加工越來越多的物質，既使進步將緩慢地殺死人類，我們仍然稱其為進步嗎？
在一個封閉的生態系中，進步並不表示某一物種的絕對優勢，進步必須意謂著一個優勢物種展現其對地球上其他物種的同體大悲心，並與之共同實現創造性的合作共生關係，超越傳統人類高高在上的迷思，正確地評價生態圈以及生態圈內所有的一切。我們不但需要了解科技，更需要充分地瞭解人類過往是如何地使用科技、如何使用科技剝削地球資源、以及如何使用科技而導致我們自己越來越遠離我們的地球母親。
外在科技（Exosomatic Technology）—人類的附屬物
科技大量生產各式各樣的人工製品，例如，打樁機、電視媒體、以及足以緊緊防護人類免受傷害的建築物與汽車；所有科技製品就像是戴在人類身體上的眼鏡與助聽器，只為了增加穿戴者的能力與樂趣。飛機將人類連結在飛機座位的安全帶上以增加飛行的速度；人類利用潛水艇在海底下前進；人類使用顯微鏡與望遠鏡看得更清楚更遠；人類使用電信系統交換長距離的訊息；人類利用堆土機與繩索使勁開挖泥土；我們靠電腦延伸智力的範圍。世代之間的傳承主要是倚靠文化的傳承，而不再只是倚靠基因的傳承；科技成為人類演化的新工具，科技逐漸增加人類的各種能力與力量。
從此等觀點觀之，科技提供人類軀體以外的各種外在器具（exosomatic instruments），延伸人類改變世界及其上存在物的能力。科技從地球表面榨取大量原物料以製造更多的科技產品，然副作用卻是從生產到廢棄的所有階段中排放的廢棄物與有毒物質。
起初，是為了某些目的而製造出某些科技產品，但是很快地就像身體的部分一樣，這些科技產品開始產生它們自己的用途，就像天生擁有好歌喉的人，無法阻止他們唱歌；就像一個擁有一把新斧頭的小男孩，到處都有需要他砍伐的木頭。美國格言：「戰爭從人類的心靈開始」（Wars begin in the minds of men），這句話只對了一半，事實上，戰爭也受到擁有精良有效武器的兵工廠所影響；兵工廠成立的目的即是破壞，因此，裁減軍備是避免戰爭最有效的做法，它能切斷主要的武器來源，從逞兇鬥狠的小男生身上拿走「危險玩具」（muscle-toys）。去除外在科技誘惑的糖衣，讓外在科技在原有目的下「做事」，假如科技產品是身體的延伸，我們應該將它們視為身體外在的一部分？還是將它們視為病理學上的毒瘤？當我們穿上科技的盔甲時將面臨三種可能的問題：巨人症（gigantism）、上癮症（addiction）和異化（alienation）。
科技與巨人症（Technology and Gigantism）
由於所有科技的發展目標都在增強本身的能力與強化控制效能，因而導致科技巨大症。機器運作起來就像加大的四肢與器官，不斷需要供應能量才能成長、修復與再生，就如同有機體一樣。根據人類對非再生性資源（化石能源、礦物等）以及再生資源（生態系）的需求來計算，每一位北美人—一并考量她用在身上所有的科技附加物一的需求量是每一位孟加拉農民的八十倍。
每一位西方人駕馭地球就像歌羅西巨人（Colossus）一樣，在地上、水裡留下類似薩斯科奇巨人（Sasquatch）的巨大腳印，為了供應其巨大身體生活之需，必需大量搾取、消費與濫用自然資源。如果沒有將科技依賴度視為衡量需求量多寡的因素，而光以人口數來衡量需求量多寡則容易誤判，加拿大的人口數真的在三千萬人以下嗎？在回答這個問題以前，必須考慮到每人使用的能源量，才足以顯現出我們對環境的衝擊。只要一想到每一位加拿大人所使用的能源就等同於八十個孟加拉人使用的能源量，我們的國家真是嚴重地人口過剩！進一步地說，在一個人口快速成長但所能使用的生活空間卻是固定的世界裡，越來越多的可再生資源受到污染、逐漸減少的化石燃料，每個人期待能擁有北美人的生活模式是不切實際的。佔世界大多數人口的窮人，他們的未來仍是烏雲壟罩，看不到光明的未來，驅散這些烏雲的唯一方法，只有盼望那些富有國家願意分享他們的財富。與其讓貧窮國家靠經濟成長而富裕，還不如富有國家願意與窮人分享他們的財富，這才是較為實際可行的方法，因為既使到了西元2000年，我們地球的生態體系也無法支撐全球六十億的人口維持像加拿大人的生活水準。或許有十億人能維持與卡加利（Calgary）及溫尼伯（Winnipeg）居民一樣的生活水準，但是有些悲觀的人認為可能只有兩億五千萬人。
工業化科技所發展出的巨人症，意謂著需索大量的物質。雖然科技能有效地延伸人類有形軀殼的力量，卻無法增加人類非物質心靈的力量，就像一隻成年的雷龍一樣，科技的身體已遠遠超過它的腦容量。由於消費者的消費需求激發了科技的發展，製造了各式各樣的人工製品，使得人類自己陷入重重的人造世界中，並逐漸增加周邊附加製品及其功能，但在同時，我們的推理能力和智慧卻未有增長，甚或在電視機前逐漸喪失其推理能力與智慧。身體與大腦變得不成比例，徒生無能為力之感。科技最令人害怕的就是機器操縱人類的生活，而外在科技發展的速度卻遠勝過人類合理的管理，一旦機器失去了控制，人類該如何面對。
假如我的診斷是正確的，我們應該儘可能地降低外來科技，恢復身體與大腦的適當比例。在工業上，盡量減少開發計畫並且提供更多地區發展的軟體設施，將有助於降低我們罹患的巨人症；在農業上，重視土地耕種的比例，改善少數種植小麥田的大型農場。最好的方法是—維持科技的成長並不能一味地想要擴增科技的一切，先進的科技發展需與時俱進地增強我們人類的智能，這些最先進的科技包括：人工智慧（AI, Artificial Intelligence）、人工授精（Artificial Insemination），如果只有科技才能產生人工智慧（AW, Artificial Wisdom）的話！
科技是一種上癮劑（Technology as Addiction）
因為科技給予我們力量與樂趣，使得外在科技成為一種上癮劑，一旦我們短暫地運用科技之後，科技產品就會立刻變成我們的必需品，除非有更好的東西或更有效率的模式可以取代。牧場主人用他的馬交換半公噸的貨車；年輕人從騎摩托車提升為汽車；對於那些習慣於搭乘飛機與輪船快速旅行的人—除了消遣以外—飛機與輪船已經失去它們的魅力。
傳統的印象中，「進步」代表更大的力量、控制和效率，懷疑科技具有危險性和破壞力而想要放棄科技的人，容易背上想要“回歸原始時代”（to go back to the cave）的指責。Georgescu-Roegen認為人類對科技的上癮，就像是飛蛾撲火一樣，缺乏一個理性的人類生態學（human ecology）。他對於無法治癒大眾對外在科技的普遍依賴感到悲觀，他認為「也許人類的宿命就是擁有一個雖短暫卻強烈、興奮與浪費的生命」。
就像沉溺於藥物、性和賭博的問題一樣，我們對於科技的迷戀即使無法治癒也是可以控制的，首先，認知我們面臨的問題—科技是一種困境，我們必須瞭解科技，對於科技的破壞面應找出適當的替代方法。傑出的哲學家William James甚至有時認為道德與戰爭一樣，都是竭盡全力與自然對抗，道德只是一種有助於彼此殺害對方的替代方法，因為我們的道德與自然是敵對的！我們已經證明道德與戰爭是一種不道德的相同，因為它殺害自然的每一種東西。也許道德與戰爭的相同點就像朋友與敵人的區別一樣、適當的科技足以協助我們與宇宙共生，包括與重工業與軍事工業這種有毒和破壞性科技的共生，在科技完全地破壞世界與我們之前，我們應該針對致命的武器發動全面的攻擊，讓我們重視對機器動力無法自拔的沉溺上癮，探索將科技減至最低的可能性。
科技是一種障礙（Technology as Barrier）
科技也具有一種疏遠人類與地球之間關係的影響力，當人造環境不斷取代自然環境時，人類與生態圈的接觸將漸漸變少。改造環境的行為就像是一種過濾器或障礙物，使「進步」成為更複雜與更難理解的行為，逐漸地減少與隔絕自然對人類官能上的直接刺激。上一次日蝕出現在薩克斯其萬省（Saskatchewan）的南部上空期間，許多學校的學童只能被允許從電視上觀看天象，這種只能在建築物裡觀看電視，而無法讓學童在戶外觀看的情形，正是一種自導的疏離模式，這種模式消滅了人類所有的生態根源感與依賴感。
科技向來被認為足以克服自然對人類的限制，並有能力依人類之意志重新安排自然之秩序，以便使人類與自然直接接觸的經驗降至最低，這種疏離的結果是人類感官的剝奪，切斷人類與自然景色與天籟之音的接觸，最後人類僅能生活在單一物種（人）的限制之下。人類孤獨地生活在城市裡，除了人類本身及其科技製造出來的東西外，沒有任何與自然接觸的感覺，終於引發各種精神病症。科技的牢籠使人類與生態圈的環境疏離，然而生態圈正是人類的生命支撐與演化的家園，這種後果正如同獅子關在鐵籠一樣，從此使獅子與大草原變得疏離；就像動物園的動物呈現退化的情形一樣，因為它們被迫遠離它們的自然棲息地。由此可知，人類也會像動物一樣開始退化，就像傳說中的Antaeus人失去與地球接觸的機會一樣。
科技就像胎盤（Technology as Placenta）
從人類生態學的觀點，科技是一種價值、信仰與技術的體系，是一個社會或一種文化用以開發、利用及改造生態系的技術；在使用科技的過程中，它改變了週遭的環境，也改變了科技本身。科技是人類從地球榨取任何想要的東西，然後再把任何不想要的東西回歸地球的工具。科技扮演連接母體與胎兒之間的胎盤和臍帶的類似角色，然而胎兒可以需索無度、不斷地排出廢棄物（就像巨大症效應一樣）甚至危及母體的安全嗎？如此一來，胎兒與母體終將因此而受苦。就像胎兒與母體的關係一樣，維持人類與地球之間的安全與可持續生態關係之唯一方法，就是人類與地球產生同體大悲、相生相成的關係，克制人類的慾望而對地球母親秉持一種適度的發展。科技是人類經歷45億年演化之後，與環境接觸的神奇工具。
人類的生活完全依賴生態圈，的確，所有的生物除了思想之外，絕不可能與他們生活的環境分離，生命不僅僅只是該生命所具現之有機體特質，更屬於整個生態圈之特質。自然界各種因子彼此緊密連結，相因相入（inter-penetrated），而生存於其間的各種生命亦緊密連結、相因相入，並且與生活其中的各種生命形式相互交織成網狀結構。高度發展的科技無法降低人類對地球的依賴關係，但科技卻加速了人類對地球的剝奪與毒化。目前人類的重責大任便是發展適當的科技以增進地球的福祉，不僅不要危及生態圈的安危，而是幫助生態圈維持它的健康功能。
就約定成俗的見解而言，科技就是目的，就是積極進取的代名詞，它的功用就是可以在最短的時間內，為人類做最好的服務；不但在工具方面，科技也在價值及觀念上帶動人類文化的進步。除非我們能夠認清這個事實，否則我們正不知不覺地陷入「科技是中立的」（technology is neutral）通俗思考模式，這樣的思考模式，導致我們從應該善加控制科技發明的路上退卻下來，也不去理會科技的宰制是否有倫理選擇的需要？為戰爭的正當性辯護是一件最沒有意義的事，因為伴隨戰爭發展的科技將帶來—有毒的氣體—後來，這一技術用來生產殺蟲劑以及坦克車—後來，用來生產曳引機。諸如「任何科技本身都沒有錯誤」、「端視人類使用它來做什麼」、「或者要看我們是用什麼材料來製造科技產品」、「而這些都可以用倫理的準則予以批判」，以上種種與科技相關的觀念，實際上隱藏著極大的危險性，這就是麥可盧恩（McLuhan）說的「科技白痴的麻木立場」（the numb stance of the technological idiot）。
科技的評價（Evaluating Technology）
人類的許多問題是無法在人文學脈絡裡予以解決的。母體與胎兒，究竟哪個比較重要？假如人類的生命，不論是現存或潛在的生命都被視為至高無上，那麼這個問題就沒有確切的答案。但是此一問題若放在生態圈的脈絡中，如果我們瞭解生態承載力，也知道社會與環境的破壞肇因於人口過多，我相信大多數的生態學家將會支持母親才是最重要的。
同樣情況也出現在對科技的評價上。則當我們自問什麼是適當的科技以及什麼是不適當的科技時，假如只考慮科技對人類的功過，我們將無法輕易地下結論。如果單從下述問題思考：科技可以餵飽更多的人嗎？科技可以延長人類的壽命嗎？科技可以使人類更有力量嗎？科技可以幫助人類更快速的計算嗎？一般的結論皆認為答案是可以的，因為科技可以使人類變得更好。
以生態的標準作為評斷科技的好壞，才是更合理的標準。生態學的評斷標準不是以人類從科技獲得的利害做標準，而是對照生態圈中其他所有生物之基本生存需求作為衡量的標準。因而，衡量科技功過之標準，依據的是科技從地球上擷取的自然資源以及科技丟棄在地球上的廢棄物，對地球生態系產生的影響有多大而定。至今，人類仍相信「進步」即是意味著更多的科技、更多的工業成長、更多的物質商品、以生態圈為代價創造出更多的財富。「進步」必須重新定義為：「進步是維持人類與生態圈可持續的生態關係，有利於生態圈的健康與持續運作才是評價科技的新方式」。這麼一來，科技才真的有利於兩者。
適當的科技必須尊重“空氣-水-土壤-沉積物-有機體”這些生活環境的基本要素，我們不能再像過去一樣不斷地榨取再生能源，甚至遠遠超出再生能源的再生速度，我們當然也不可以任意地將毒素與污染物流入地球太空船中；可以確定的是，絕對不要與放射性物質共舞，更不要錯誤地將放射性物質宣傳成一種安全、清潔與便宜的能源。
by J. Stan Rowe
Published in Home Place, Essays in Ecology, NeWest Books, Edmonton 1990, pp. 63-70)
Technology has become the primary means by which humans interact with the Earth-home. An outcome of artifice guided by human beliefs and purposes, technology makes visible the deep beliefs that consciously and subconsciously motivate society. Through it the people/planet relationship is made explicit. Hence the importance of a critical appraisal of technology, of its effects on the world, and of the extent to which its various forms are appropriate.
Technology, the Big T, has been variously defined. All agree that it is more than hardware, more than machines, tools, material instruments. An inclusive definition of T is: a reproducible and publicly communicable way of doing things. The key word communicable shifts T into the world of ideas, language, beliefs, culture--which explains why T-transfer from industrialized to non-industrialized nations is difficult until, either directly by acceptance or indirectly by acculturation, the receiving populations adopt western values, beliefs, perceptions. To benefit from our technology they must first believe what we believe and want what we want. According to a recent Mercedes-Benz advertisement: "Technology is only opportunity knocking--the secret is to open the right doors." To be effective, T must be directed to the right openings, the right visions, such as owner pride and smooth high speeds in the Mercedes model M-B 300.
An essential part of T consists, therefore, of cultural ideas, especially the values and goals espoused by influential people--in our society by business people. Their materialist philosophy provides the inspiration and encouragement for industry's material production. The built environment, steadily expanding, is the visible expression of T's cultural authority, influence and growth. Progress is T and T is progress.
Technology as Progress
Faith in T is deep rooted. Aldous Huxley considered it the modern religion, its symbol a decapitated cross and the Model T Ford. T is our provider and in it we trust to give us our daily bread and deliver us from evil. Yet the Good Life so provided is not free. Environment has been picking up the tab, paying our way. Now its ability to support humanity's appetites and wastes is running out.
The conventional use of the word "progress" often preceded by a resigned or cynical "you can't stop it," brings to mind T's gifts to our consumer society: living better electrically, acquiring more machines, eating exotic foods, travelling faster, and perhaps some day visiting the moon and planets. Progress is living "high on the hog" for the largest possible percentage of the human population, using more and more energy and processing more and more materials from the Earth's crust. Will we continue to call it progress as it slowly kills us?
Progress in a finite ecosystem cannot mean the absolute ascendancy of one species. Progress must mean the achieving of a creative symbiosis within the Home Place, where sympathy and care are extended by the dominant species to the rest of creation. To transcend traditional preoccupations with our own kind, preparing to appreciate the Ecosphere with all that is in it, requires an understanding of T and how we have used it both to exploit and to distance ourselves from Mother Earth.
Exosomatic Technology--Appendages for People
Technology churns out a variety of artifacts: tools such as pile-drivers, media such as television, cocoons such as buildings and cars, all of which like spectacles and hearing aids can be hooked on the body to increase the wearer's abilities and pleasures. Aircraft are fast legs, attached to people by seat belts in order to increase their speed of travel. Submarines are worn to swim under the oceans, microscopes and telescopes to see better and farther, telecommunication systems (giant vocal chords) for long-distance information exchange, bulldozer and dragline are muscles for earth moving, computers extend the mind's scope. Transmitted from generation to generation by culture rather than by genes, T is the new means of human evolution, increasingly adding to human versatility, power and size.
From this perspective, T provides (in addition to biomedical inside-the-body gadgets) a wide range of outside-the-body or exosomatic instruments, extending human abilities to change the world and all that is in it. Side effects are extraction of vast quantities of "raw materials" from the planet's surface to manufacture the array of technologic products, and a return flow of wastes and poisons at all stages from primary production to obsolescence.
Initially, purpose shapes the instruments but soon like body parts they begin to inspire their own use. Just as those born with good vocal chords can with difficulty be dissuaded from singing, so a boy with a new hatchet finds much that needs chopping. The United Nations dictum, "Wars begin in the minds of men" is a half-truth. Wars are also encouraged by the availability of arsenals of shiny potent weapons whose purpose is destruction. Dis-arm-ament is effective because it amputates the striking arms, separates the muscle-toys from the aggressive boys, removes the temptation to let the exosomatic instruments "do their thing" at the slightest provocation.
If technological instruments are body extensions, may they not also be viewed as disfiguring outgrowths, as excrescences with pathological tendencies? Three potential afflictions we suffer from "wearing" our technological armour are gigantism, addiction and alienation.
Technology and Gigantism
All technologies whose goals are increased power and control effectively lead to gigantism. Machines behave like enlarged limbs and organs, demanding energy for growth, repair and reproduction just as organisms do. A North American, considered together with her exosomatic appendages, is 80 times the size of a Bangladesh peasant judged by appetite for non-renewable resources (fossil energy, minerals) and renewable (ecosystem) resources.
Each western person bestrides the world like a Colossus, leaving his Susquatch imprints on land and water through the massive extraction, consumption and waste of resources that enlarged body size necessitates. Head counts are misleading when technologic size is not factored in. Is Canada under-populated with 30 million people? Before answering, bring in the technologic multiplier, the energy use per capita, that indicates our impacts on environment. Considering that every Canadian stomps the Earth like 80 peasants, our country is vastly over-populated. Further, in a world of rapid population growth but fixed space, of polluted renewable resources and dwindling non-renewable fossil fuels, the expectation that everyone can be an exosomatic giant on the North American model is unrealistic. The dream of the world's poor, who make up the majority of the human race, casts over the future a dark cloud that will only be dispersed when the rich nations begin to share by divvying up their wealth. Sharing is more realistic than depending on economic growth, for the world will never support at Canadian standards the six billion people expected in the year 2000. One billion could perhaps live as well as the citizens of Calgary and Winnipeg. Some say only 250 million.
The gigantism that industrial T confers is largely material. It effectively extends the power of our material bodies without doing much for our immaterial minds. Like a growing brontosaur, T's body size has far outdistanced brain size. Encouraged to be consumers, we surround ourselves with more and more artifacts, increasing our appendages and faculties, while our reasoning power and modicum of wisdom stay the same, or shrink before the TV set. The distortion of the body/brain ratio creates feelings of helplessness. The common fear that machines are out of control, that they are running people's lives, suggests that exosomatic evolution has outstripped its rational management.
If the diagnosis is correct, we would do ourselves a favour by reducing exosomatic T to restore a better body/brain ratio. In industry, fewer mega-projects and more "soft" local developments would reduce our gigantism. In agriculture, a larger eyes-to-acres ratio would improve on the wheat-belt trend of fewer eyes on larger farms.(2) Instead, the favoured prescription is to keep T growing, not attempting to enlarge comprehension per se but to supplement and beef up brain power with the latest T: AI, Artificial Intelligence, that also doubles for Artificial Insemination. If only T could deliver AW, Artificial Wisdom!
Technology as Addiction
Because they give us power and pleasure, exosomatic instruments are addictive. When "worn" even for a short time they become necessities, difficult to lay aside unless replaced with better, more efficient models. The rancher turns in his horse for a half-ton truck. The youth moves up from motorcycle to muscle-car. For those habituated to fast movement through the air, surface travel--except perhaps for recreation--loses its charm.
Progress is traditionally conceived of as greater power, control and efficiency--not less. To suggest giving up powerful Ts on the suspicion that they are dangerous and destructive is to invite scorn and the accusation of wanting "to go back to the cave." Georgescu-Roegen thought that this addiction--as attractive to humanity as a flame to moths--is the greatest obstacle to a rational human ecology. He was pessimistic about cures for the pervasive dependence on exosomatic comforts. "Perhaps the destiny of man is to have a short, but fiery, exciting and extravagant life."(1)
Like addictions to drugs, sex and gambling, being hooked on T is controllable if not curable. The first step is recognition that we have a problem, that T is a predicament, which then suggests the need to understand it and find satisfying alternatives to its destructive facets. The sometimes brilliant philosopher William James thought that the moral equivalent to warfare was an all-out battle with Nature, a constructive alternative to killing each other! We have proved that such battle is an immoral equivalent, for it kills everything. Perhaps a moral equivalent to war can be found by distinguishing friend from enemy, separating appropriate T that assists our symbiosis with the universe from the poisonous and destructive T of heavy industry and military might, then launching an all-out attack on the deadly kind before it destroys the world and ourselves completely. Let us declare our debilitating addiction to instruments of power, and explore the possibilities of cutting Big T down to little t.
Technology as Barrier
T is also an alienating influence, interposed between people and the planet. As the manufactured milieu grows, contact between people and the Ecosphere is steadily reduced. The built environment acts as a filter and barrier that "progress" renders thicker and more opaque, gradually eliminating and shutting off nature's direct sensual stimuli. During the last eclipse of the sun over southern Saskatchewan, children in many schools were only allowed to view that celestial phenomenon on television. Watching TV in buildings without windows is the model of self- induced alienation, annihilating all sense of ecological roots and dependencies.
T has been described as arranging the world so as to minimize direct experience of it, an alienating effect that results in sensory deprivation. Cut off from Nature's sights and sounds, people end up in single-species confinement. Aloneness in the city, with nothing to sense but themselves and made-things, induces various psychoses. T's cages isolate people from the Ecosphere milieu, their biological and evolutionary home, as effectively as iron cages isolate lions from their savannas. Just as zoo animals deteriorate when deprived of their natural home surroundings, so also humans as earthlings deteriorate when, like the legendary Antaeus, they lose touch with planet Earth.
Technology as Placenta
From the standpoint of human ecology, T is the system of values, beliefs and techniques by means of which a society, a culture, taps into, uses and modifies the Ecosphere, in the process changing both itself and the surrounding system. T is the instrument of contact between people and the miraculous enveloping environment from which over four and one half billion years of evolution they came. T is the means by which humanity extracts what it wants from the Earth and returns what it does not want to the Earth, playing an analogous role to the placenta and umbilical cord connecting fetus and mother. Should the fetus imperil its host by excessive demands and generation of wastes (a likely effect of gigantism), then both will suffer. As with mother and fetus, the only safe and sustainable ecological relationship between people and planet is one of moderate demands in a symbiotic alliance.
The dependency of people on the Ecosphere is complete. Indeed, all organisms are inseparable from their environments except in thought, and life is more an attribute of the Ecosphere than of the organisms it encapsulates. The natural world and all forms of life within it are inter-penetrated. Sophisticated T does nothing to reduce the people-planet dependency, but it does magnify the possibilities for exploiting and poisoning the relationship. The onus is on humanity to develop a technology appropriate to the well-being of the Earth, a T that does not imperil the Ecosphere but contributes to its healthy functioning.
Conventional T is purposive and aggressive. Comprising values and ideas as well as tools, it urges its own uses which, given our cultural past, are people-serving in a short-sighted way. Unless we recognize this fact we slide into the popular "technology is neutral" mode of thinking that backs away from any kind of control over our inventions and shrugs off the need for ethical choices at T's leading edge. The ultimate nonsense is justification of war because of the technologic advances it brings--poison gases that later yield insecticides, tanks that are the models for better tractors. Danger lurks in the idea that nothing is wrong with any T, that it is only what we do with it, what we make of it, that can be judged ethically. This, said McLuhan, is the numb stance of the technological idiot.
Evaluating Technology
Many human problems are unsolvable in the humanistic context. What is more important, mother or fetus? If human life, actual and potential, is believed to be paramount, there is no conclusive answer. But in the context of the Ecosphere, knowing what we know about carrying capacity and of social and environmental destruction due to over-population, most ecologists will come down on the side of the mother.
Similarly with T. What is appropriate and what inappropriate cannot easily be decided if the arguments consider only help or hindrance to people. Will it feed more of them, will it prolong their lives, will it make them more powerful, will it help them calculate faster? The usual conclusion is yes, do it, because people will be "better off."
A sounder standard for judgement is ecological, measured against the requirements for symbiotic survival in the Ecosphere. Then the measure of T's goodness or badness is its effects on the Earth system from which it draws materials and to which it returns wastes. Hitherto progress has meant more T, more industrial growth, more material goods, more wealth at the expense of the Ecosphere. Progress must be redefined as sustainable ecological relationships between humans and the Ecosphere, to which new kinds of T evaluated in the context of health and permanency can contribute. That is, T for two!
An appropriate T will respect the air-water-soil-sediment-organism matrix that is the milieu of life. It will not knowingly extract renewable resources faster than they are renewed nor will it introduce toxins and pollutants into the planet's life space. It will certainly not play around with radioactive substances nor falsely advertize them as safe, clean and cheap.
Citations
1.cholas Georgescu-Roegen. "Energy and Economic Myths, Part 2." The Ecologist: 5(7): 52.
2. Wes Jackson. Altars of Unhewn Stone: Science and the Earth. 1987. North Point Press, San Francisco.
科技與生態
by J. Stan Rowe
鐘丁茂 徐雪麗 譯
Published in Home Place, Essays in Ecology, NeWest Books, Edmonton 1990,pp. 63-70)
科技已經成為人類與我們的家—地球之間相互作用的一種主要工具。受到人類信仰與人類目的巧妙引導的結果，科技很明顯地變成一種深層信仰，此一深層信仰被人們有意或潛意識地用以激發社會的發展，透過科技使我們更清楚明確地瞭解人類與地球之間的關係。因此，對於科技及其對世界的影響以及其延伸出的各種形式進行嚴謹的評估是非常重要的。
「科技」—以英文大寫「T」來表示—有許多不同的定義，但大家都同意科技不只是硬體設備、機器、工具、有形的器械而已。科技涵蓋的定義：「是一種“可複製的”（reproducible）與“可公開傳達的”（publicly communicable）方式」。“可公開傳達的”關鍵在於將科技轉變成思想、語言、信仰與文化的世界，這足以解釋為什麼「科技」從工業化國家轉移至非工業化國家是多麼困難的一件事！除非非工業化國家能直接接受科技的轉移或是間接透過文化適應—即接受科技的一方，其人們必需吸收西方的價值觀、信仰與觀念，否則非工業化國家是不可能成功接受科技的轉移。為了從我們的科技得到利益，非工業化國家首先必須相信我們科技先進國家所相信的、渴望我們所想要的。根據最近賓士汽車的廣告台詞：「科技來臨的唯一機會…就是開對了門」（Technology is only opportunity knocking…the secret is to open the right doors）。為了達到這個目的，科技必須被引導到對的開始、正確的視野，就像擁有賓士300型的車主以擁有高速行駛仍然平穩的車主而自豪一樣。
因此，文化思想是構成科技的基本成分，特別是具有影響力的人所信奉的價值與目標—在我們的社會中，這些具有影響力的人通常是商人。商人實利主義的哲學觀，提供工業物質生產的靈感與刺激，人造環境、穩定擴張、明顯地表現出科技的文化權威、科技的影響與科技的成長，“進步即是科技，科技即是進步”。
科技即是進步（Technology as Progress）
我們對科技的信仰是根深柢固的，赫胥黎（Aldous Huxley）認為科技是一種現代宗教，它的象徵是一個去首的十字架，其實就是象徵福特T型汽車。科技是我們的供應者，我們相信科技足以給我們每日生活所需的麵包以及讓我們從邪惡中獲得救贖，然而科技所提供的「舒適生活」與自由並沒有畫上等號。我們的環境早已因人類追求物質生活而傷痕累累，現在支撐人類慾望與浪費的環境承載能力早已被人類耗盡。
傳統上使用「進步」一詞，經常擺在「你無法停止它」這種認命或悲觀的說法之前，想起科技對我們消費社會所帶來的種種：有更多電子產品的生活、獲得更多的機器、吃到外來的食物、更快速的旅行、或是幻想有一天也許能拜訪月球和其他星球。進步是為了大多數人的貪得無饜，我們從地球榨取越來越多的能源、加工越來越多的物質，既使進步將緩慢地殺死人類，我們仍然稱其為進步嗎？
在一個封閉的生態系中，進步並不表示某一物種的絕對優勢，進步必須意謂著一個優勢物種展現其對地球上其他物種的同體大悲心，並與之共同實現創造性的合作共生關係，超越傳統人類高高在上的迷思，正確地評價生態圈以及生態圈內所有的一切。我們不但需要了解科技，更需要充分地瞭解人類過往是如何地使用科技、如何使用科技剝削地球資源、以及如何使用科技而導致我們自己越來越遠離我們的地球母親。
外在科技（Exosomatic Technology）—人類的附屬物
科技大量生產各式各樣的人工製品，例如，打樁機、電視媒體、以及足以緊緊防護人類免受傷害的建築物與汽車；所有科技製品就像是戴在人類身體上的眼鏡與助聽器，只為了增加穿戴者的能力與樂趣。飛機將人類連結在飛機座位的安全帶上以增加飛行的速度；人類利用潛水艇在海底下前進；人類使用顯微鏡與望遠鏡看得更清楚更遠；人類使用電信系統交換長距離的訊息；人類利用堆土機與繩索使勁開挖泥土；我們靠電腦延伸智力的範圍。世代之間的傳承主要是倚靠文化的傳承，而不再只是倚靠基因的傳承；科技成為人類演化的新工具，科技逐漸增加人類的各種能力與力量。
從此等觀點觀之，科技提供人類軀體以外的各種外在器具（exosomatic instruments），延伸人類改變世界及其上存在物的能力。科技從地球表面榨取大量原物料以製造更多的科技產品，然副作用卻是從生產到廢棄的所有階段中排放的廢棄物與有毒物質。
起初，是為了某些目的而製造出某些科技產品，但是很快地就像身體的部分一樣，這些科技產品開始產生它們自己的用途，就像天生擁有好歌喉的人，無法阻止他們唱歌；就像一個擁有一把新斧頭的小男孩，到處都有需要他砍伐的木頭。美國格言：「戰爭從人類的心靈開始」（Wars begin in the minds of men），這句話只對了一半，事實上，戰爭也受到擁有精良有效武器的兵工廠所影響；兵工廠成立的目的即是破壞，因此，裁減軍備是避免戰爭最有效的做法，它能切斷主要的武器來源，從逞兇鬥狠的小男生身上拿走「危險玩具」（muscle-toys）。去除外在科技誘惑的糖衣，讓外在科技在原有目的下「做事」，假如科技產品是身體的延伸，我們應該將它們視為身體外在的一部分？還是將它們視為病理學上的毒瘤？當我們穿上科技的盔甲時將面臨三種可能的問題：巨人症（gigantism）、上癮症（addiction）和異化（alienation）。
科技與巨人症（Technology and Gigantism）
由於所有科技的發展目標都在增強本身的能力與強化控制效能，因而導致科技巨大症。機器運作起來就像加大的四肢與器官，不斷需要供應能量才能成長、修復與再生，就如同有機體一樣。根據人類對非再生性資源（化石能源、礦物等）以及再生資源（生態系）的需求來計算，每一位北美人—一并考量她用在身上所有的科技附加物一的需求量是每一位孟加拉農民的八十倍。
每一位西方人駕馭地球就像歌羅西巨人（Colossus）一樣，在地上、水裡留下類似薩斯科奇巨人（Sasquatch）的巨大腳印，為了供應其巨大身體生活之需，必需大量搾取、消費與濫用自然資源。如果沒有將科技依賴度視為衡量需求量多寡的因素，而光以人口數來衡量需求量多寡則容易誤判，加拿大的人口數真的在三千萬人以下嗎？在回答這個問題以前，必須考慮到每人使用的能源量，才足以顯現出我們對環境的衝擊。只要一想到每一位加拿大人所使用的能源就等同於八十個孟加拉人使用的能源量，我們的國家真是嚴重地人口過剩！進一步地說，在一個人口快速成長但所能使用的生活空間卻是固定的世界裡，越來越多的可再生資源受到污染、逐漸減少的化石燃料，每個人期待能擁有北美人的生活模式是不切實際的。佔世界大多數人口的窮人，他們的未來仍是烏雲壟罩，看不到光明的未來，驅散這些烏雲的唯一方法，只有盼望那些富有國家願意分享他們的財富。與其讓貧窮國家靠經濟成長而富裕，還不如富有國家願意與窮人分享他們的財富，這才是較為實際可行的方法，因為既使到了西元2000年，我們地球的生態體系也無法支撐全球六十億的人口維持像加拿大人的生活水準。或許有十億人能維持與卡加利（Calgary）及溫尼伯（Winnipeg）居民一樣的生活水準，但是有些悲觀的人認為可能只有兩億五千萬人。
工業化科技所發展出的巨人症，意謂著需索大量的物質。雖然科技能有效地延伸人類有形軀殼的力量，卻無法增加人類非物質心靈的力量，就像一隻成年的雷龍一樣，科技的身體已遠遠超過它的腦容量。由於消費者的消費需求激發了科技的發展，製造了各式各樣的人工製品，使得人類自己陷入重重的人造世界中，並逐漸增加周邊附加製品及其功能，但在同時，我們的推理能力和智慧卻未有增長，甚或在電視機前逐漸喪失其推理能力與智慧。身體與大腦變得不成比例，徒生無能為力之感。科技最令人害怕的就是機器操縱人類的生活，而外在科技發展的速度卻遠勝過人類合理的管理，一旦機器失去了控制，人類該如何面對。
假如我的診斷是正確的，我們應該儘可能地降低外來科技，恢復身體與大腦的適當比例。在工業上，盡量減少開發計畫並且提供更多地區發展的軟體設施，將有助於降低我們罹患的巨人症；在農業上，重視土地耕種的比例，改善少數種植小麥田的大型農場。最好的方法是—維持科技的成長並不能一味地想要擴增科技的一切，先進的科技發展需與時俱進地增強我們人類的智能，這些最先進的科技包括：人工智慧（AI, Artificial Intelligence）、人工授精（Artificial Insemination），如果只有科技才能產生人工智慧（AW, Artificial Wisdom）的話！
科技是一種上癮劑（Technology as Addiction）
因為科技給予我們力量與樂趣，使得外在科技成為一種上癮劑，一旦我們短暫地運用科技之後，科技產品就會立刻變成我們的必需品，除非有更好的東西或更有效率的模式可以取代。牧場主人用他的馬交換半公噸的貨車；年輕人從騎摩托車提升為汽車；對於那些習慣於搭乘飛機與輪船快速旅行的人—除了消遣以外—飛機與輪船已經失去它們的魅力。
傳統的印象中，「進步」代表更大的力量、控制和效率，懷疑科技具有危險性和破壞力而想要放棄科技的人，容易背上想要“回歸原始時代”（to go back to the cave）的指責。Georgescu-Roegen認為人類對科技的上癮，就像是飛蛾撲火一樣，缺乏一個理性的人類生態學（human ecology）。他對於無法治癒大眾對外在科技的普遍依賴感到悲觀，他認為「也許人類的宿命就是擁有一個雖短暫卻強烈、興奮與浪費的生命」。
就像沉溺於藥物、性和賭博的問題一樣，我們對於科技的迷戀即使無法治癒也是可以控制的，首先，認知我們面臨的問題—科技是一種困境，我們必須瞭解科技，對於科技的破壞面應找出適當的替代方法。傑出的哲學家William James甚至有時認為道德與戰爭一樣，都是竭盡全力與自然對抗，道德只是一種有助於彼此殺害對方的替代方法，因為我們的道德與自然是敵對的！我們已經證明道德與戰爭是一種不道德的相同，因為它殺害自然的每一種東西。也許道德與戰爭的相同點就像朋友與敵人的區別一樣、適當的科技足以協助我們與宇宙共生，包括與重工業與軍事工業這種有毒和破壞性科技的共生，在科技完全地破壞世界與我們之前，我們應該針對致命的武器發動全面的攻擊，讓我們重視對機器動力無法自拔的沉溺上癮，探索將科技減至最低的可能性。
科技是一種障礙（Technology as Barrier）
科技也具有一種疏遠人類與地球之間關係的影響力，當人造環境不斷取代自然環境時，人類與生態圈的接觸將漸漸變少。改造環境的行為就像是一種過濾器或障礙物，使「進步」成為更複雜與更難理解的行為，逐漸地減少與隔絕自然對人類官能上的直接刺激。上一次日蝕出現在薩克斯其萬省（Saskatchewan）的南部上空期間，許多學校的學童只能被允許從電視上觀看天象，這種只能在建築物裡觀看電視，而無法讓學童在戶外觀看的情形，正是一種自導的疏離模式，這種模式消滅了人類所有的生態根源感與依賴感。
科技向來被認為足以克服自然對人類的限制，並有能力依人類之意志重新安排自然之秩序，以便使人類與自然直接接觸的經驗降至最低，這種疏離的結果是人類感官的剝奪，切斷人類與自然景色與天籟之音的接觸，最後人類僅能生活在單一物種（人）的限制之下。人類孤獨地生活在城市裡，除了人類本身及其科技製造出來的東西外，沒有任何與自然接觸的感覺，終於引發各種精神病症。科技的牢籠使人類與生態圈的環境疏離，然而生態圈正是人類的生命支撐與演化的家園，這種後果正如同獅子關在鐵籠一樣，從此使獅子與大草原變得疏離；就像動物園的動物呈現退化的情形一樣，因為它們被迫遠離它們的自然棲息地。由此可知，人類也會像動物一樣開始退化，就像傳說中的Antaeus人失去與地球接觸的機會一樣。
科技就像胎盤（Technology as Placenta）
從人類生態學的觀點，科技是一種價值、信仰與技術的體系，是一個社會或一種文化用以開發、利用及改造生態系的技術；在使用科技的過程中，它改變了週遭的環境，也改變了科技本身。科技是人類從地球榨取任何想要的東西，然後再把任何不想要的東西回歸地球的工具。科技扮演連接母體與胎兒之間的胎盤和臍帶的類似角色，然而胎兒可以需索無度、不斷地排出廢棄物（就像巨大症效應一樣）甚至危及母體的安全嗎？如此一來，胎兒與母體終將因此而受苦。就像胎兒與母體的關係一樣，維持人類與地球之間的安全與可持續生態關係之唯一方法，就是人類與地球產生同體大悲、相生相成的關係，克制人類的慾望而對地球母親秉持一種適度的發展。科技是人類經歷45億年演化之後，與環境接觸的神奇工具。
人類的生活完全依賴生態圈，的確，所有的生物除了思想之外，絕不可能與他們生活的環境分離，生命不僅僅只是該生命所具現之有機體特質，更屬於整個生態圈之特質。自然界各種因子彼此緊密連結，相因相入（inter-penetrated），而生存於其間的各種生命亦緊密連結、相因相入，並且與生活其中的各種生命形式相互交織成網狀結構。高度發展的科技無法降低人類對地球的依賴關係，但科技卻加速了人類對地球的剝奪與毒化。目前人類的重責大任便是發展適當的科技以增進地球的福祉，不僅不要危及生態圈的安危，而是幫助生態圈維持它的健康功能。
就約定成俗的見解而言，科技就是目的，就是積極進取的代名詞，它的功用就是可以在最短的時間內，為人類做最好的服務；不但在工具方面，科技也在價值及觀念上帶動人類文化的進步。除非我們能夠認清這個事實，否則我們正不知不覺地陷入「科技是中立的」（technology is neutral）通俗思考模式，這樣的思考模式，導致我們從應該善加控制科技發明的路上退卻下來，也不去理會科技的宰制是否有倫理選擇的需要？為戰爭的正當性辯護是一件最沒有意義的事，因為伴隨戰爭發展的科技將帶來—有毒的氣體—後來，這一技術用來生產殺蟲劑以及坦克車—後來，用來生產曳引機。諸如「任何科技本身都沒有錯誤」、「端視人類使用它來做什麼」、「或者要看我們是用什麼材料來製造科技產品」、「而這些都可以用倫理的準則予以批判」，以上種種與科技相關的觀念，實際上隱藏著極大的危險性，這就是麥可盧恩（McLuhan）說的「科技白痴的麻木立場」（the numb stance of the technological idiot）。
科技的評價（Evaluating Technology）
人類的許多問題是無法在人文學脈絡裡予以解決的。母體與胎兒，究竟哪個比較重要？假如人類的生命，不論是現存或潛在的生命都被視為至高無上，那麼這個問題就沒有確切的答案。但是此一問題若放在生態圈的脈絡中，如果我們瞭解生態承載力，也知道社會與環境的破壞肇因於人口過多，我相信大多數的生態學家將會支持母親才是最重要的。
同樣情況也出現在對科技的評價上。則當我們自問什麼是適當的科技以及什麼是不適當的科技時，假如只考慮科技對人類的功過，我們將無法輕易地下結論。如果單從下述問題思考：科技可以餵飽更多的人嗎？科技可以延長人類的壽命嗎？科技可以使人類更有力量嗎？科技可以幫助人類更快速的計算嗎？一般的結論皆認為答案是可以的，因為科技可以使人類變得更好。
以生態的標準作為評斷科技的好壞，才是更合理的標準。生態學的評斷標準不是以人類從科技獲得的利害做標準，而是對照生態圈中其他所有生物之基本生存需求作為衡量的標準。因而，衡量科技功過之標準，依據的是科技從地球上擷取的自然資源以及科技丟棄在地球上的廢棄物，對地球生態系產生的影響有多大而定。至今，人類仍相信「進步」即是意味著更多的科技、更多的工業成長、更多的物質商品、以生態圈為代價創造出更多的財富。「進步」必須重新定義為：「進步是維持人類與生態圈可持續的生態關係，有利於生態圈的健康與持續運作才是評價科技的新方式」。這麼一來，科技才真的有利於兩者。
適當的科技必須尊重“空氣-水-土壤-沉積物-有機體”這些生活環境的基本要素，我們不能再像過去一樣不斷地榨取再生能源，甚至遠遠超出再生能源的再生速度，我們當然也不可以任意地將毒素與污染物流入地球太空船中；可以確定的是，絕對不要與放射性物質共舞，更不要錯誤地將放射性物質宣傳成一種安全、清潔與便宜的能源。
