Has “Green” Technology Steered Us Wrong, or is it Our Want of Hi-Tech Gadgets?

Our want of Hi tech gadgets is simply fueled by rampant consumerism.
Do we really need Ipods and Blackberries and mobile phones with cameras and web access, not to mention sat navs of dubious accuracy and sporadic coverage?

As my big Sis once said, I need a camera on my phone as much as I need to pee in the washing machine..
And kids..aren't they happier playing with the packaging, a sand pit a bucket of water.
Del

I think I was looking at this wrong in the sense that what makes some products "green" like you said is that they are simply less detrimental to the environment than a similar product. For example, a solar tanning bed is much better for the environment than one that runs off of the grid (too many assumptions needed to keep this statement argument free so I will not even try, let's just say "point noted.")

So two things become obvious problems: 1) why do we need a gadget to get a tan (vampirism aside) 2) why does the word green sometimes connotate a less environmentally destructive alternative? 3) Why do some people not get that their ways are destructive, and yet they get to brag about the good they are doing by throwing at the "green card," so to speak. Maybe we should alter that meaning to avoid this from happening.

In summary, gadgets that do something we have already have I chalk up to evolutionary regression. Saying green has become more than an economic buzzword, it's become an excuse to justify environmental ignorance. Third, just cause you choose to blatantly waste the planets resources with your lavish lifestyle don't go all high and mighty on me and expect me not to laugh in your face.

Yes, you do have the freedom to do all of these things and that is what makes this country great, but that doesn't make you any less wrong, and please don't throw the "green" word out to satiate your poor understanding/self esteem.

I'm not arguing that people should not have a right to say who purchases what, etc. just don't piss on my head and call it a "green" shower.

Well said. Here is my take on your three questions:

1) Well I don't need a tanning bed and I don't care if someone feels they do. That's their dilemma. I pretty much take a libertarian mindset here.

2) The word green is simply a marketing ploy to appeal to peoples' sense of guilt about their footprint on the planet. Seems to work pretty good now, but people will get tired of it.

3) That question's answer is pretty easy. Some people are just idiots. They were put on this Earth just to agitate those that are not idiots.

My preferred way of dealing with people that are digging themselves into a hole is to just hand them a bigger shovel.

You will be surprised at the number of them that will actually thank you for it.

it's your money.

this is a free country.

central authority should regulate how and where you spend your money.

Thank God (oops) I thought I was the only one left! For a minute there I was beginning to feel like the omega man!

What I find very interesting lately is the phenomenon I like to call "Green Lemmings". These are the people who spend a tremendous amount of money for the sake of saving the planet. We must remember that the planet will do fine, it is just MAN that will foul it up just enough to make it unlivable.

I digress, the essence of all that is green is just that GREEN...Bucks, Cash, Daneiro, the big pay off, Mullah. This charade has become the new American economy. What do we manufacture anymore...I know, green house gases, plastic waste, scrap paper and so on. Where will the next cash windfall come from, IPods and anything that has to do with "saving" the planet. So lets get all the green lemmings in line, because I have a bridge to sell and maybe some water front property in Arizona, Its just that I'm waiting for the market to come back.

lake front property in arizona

[dandy bridge too :-D]

kidding aside

I'm sure most of us are in favor of increased efficiency, which would be the real goal

The shameless marketing is the cause of the objections

More of the world [India & China] want to live a convenient lifestyle, which requires energy, so figuring out how to do more with less will be an ongoing challenge.

this is not a new challenge & predates most of us :D

I'm not "green". I'm just a lazy tightwad, who happens to be helping the planet a little by my actions.

Really, that statement might not be appreciated that much now, but after you pass away you may be surprised.

I am also cheap. I drive a 92 jetta, it gets so many miles per gallon that current technology doesn't really compare as a whole, (please don't argue with this statement unless you want to put actual cash dollars down) which only illustrates my point about gadgetry being just that: only gadgets, not truly functional, but I digress because I love.

Yes, the backyard is a great place to get a tan, its also a great place to dry clothes, in case you were thinking about getting a solar powered clothes dryer, and its a great place to grow food, relax, and spend time with loved ones, none of which require gadgets.

Really, technology is one thing, but doing things the way they used to be done, in many cases, is true progress altogether. That's my idea of a "green revival."

What's so funny about solar powered tanning beds? I sell them at my business. Actually our new model is in for only $1999. Take a look.

How do you mow it?

Good question. I do see how they water it.

solar powered sissors

Green Technology is a market for gadgets which in some cases make a lot of sense. Granted there are a lot of bogus claims of savings with some products, but that happens with any technology.

The steering issue is one of education. There are lots of gadgets that do make sense. Take the occupancy sensor for lighting control for example. In some environments these work well for turning off lights when they are not needed. Of course these are not new, but in California there is a version used that requires a person to manually turn on the switch. Later it turns off the light automatically some time after no occupancy is detected. Commercial and industrial businesses tend to waste power due to manually operated systems. Fixing all of this stuff ultimately creates jobs. Opportunities have to be hunted down.

Green Technology may not satisfy our want of hi-tech gadgets, but using resources wisely generally requires a longer term payback. Cost usually decides the choice.

I think this is born out of peoples want to do good things for there planet and future children, however without a really strong focus on pooling resources by our governments and industries who prefer to kill, sorry i mean have the real power it is difficult for any one individual to be (oh god i hate this word and term) Green.

Just one extravagant example is the absolute waste of resources the Washington city are planning. To build a huge dome to cover the whole city devouring millions of pounds of resource, and they think it will help cool the city. A City in a green house.

Did i actually see that on the television or am i dreaming.

In the U.K our millenium dome was a big foley.

Good Health Dub

If it wasn't for all the fancy gadgets like TV, radio, internet + computer, internet + cell phone, cell phone by itself,...how would the "tree huggers" know that we are polluting the Earth?

You sound rather like that chap on the telly - the one who carries an umbrella and does historical stuff .

Perhaps your comments are a tad cyncical, but I can't disagree. As a species we are driven to want more than the next person. More of <whatever> we don't actually need.

Had we been born in a different century, I might find myself in the fortunate position of occasionally corresponding by letter with you (_{ps, it's in the margin} ). Although I wouldn't slate the advantages of the internet one bit, it does make me wonder how much more 'civilized' and environmental friendly it could be to have such old style communication. A poor example, but I'm minded of some places I know where people actually know the neighbours and indulge in such antiquated concepts as face-to-face discussion, swapping a bit of veg from their veg patch, and living a life that is somewhat 'greener' than the one most of us have. A bit whimsical and nostalgic, but in my observation gadgetry does not lead to greater happiness in life.

At one time, the slogan was "Daddy, what did you do during the war". I fear that one day, future generations will be asking similar of us and the issues raised by this thread. The reason for my fear is that like a German in the late 40's, I will be (if still alive) saying "I don't know how it all happened". The Royal Society, as I'm sure you know, just clarified some interpreted ambiguity on it's position over climate change*.

Forgive the slight digression, but your cycle tails have me somewhere between laughing and crying. Once had a job on the graveyard shift at a place 12 miles from home. Rode their and back each day on a cranky old ex-posty bike in the pitch black. Sturmey Archer that didn't want to play nice and change gear etc etc. The memmory has given me a good chuckle.

* Sorry all, but the dreaded phrase was bound to enter here.

Climate change is a fact ... at noon it is definitely hotter! yak yak yak yak.

GREEN IS GOOD-GREEN IS GOOD-GREEN IS GOOD-GREEN IS GOOD-GREEN IS GOOD

SAVE THE PLANET-SAVE THE PLANET-SAVE THE PLANET-SAVE THE PLANET

JOIN THE CAUSE OR ELSE..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FkB4uiizVo

Or else you will join the Soylent Green movement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE

Those of you who grew up in the age of the Beatles may not understand this..........

"No Pressure". Orwell's "1984" for the age of the 30 second sound byte.

The new high tech electric meters are here. Big Brother is now watching. Better raise your hand. And stay below his radar.

Yeah, the planet has a problem. We don't even know whether we can do anything about it. We do what we can. The electronic gismos help. Somewhat. Probably not enough to accomplish anything. But they make people feel good either way.

What can be done to reduce effects of human activity on our climate will come about due to the power of the only viable force at our disposal. Economics will be this driver. If you want to be a winner watch the economics of energy. Buy high quality stuff. Keep your powder dry.

Anything else in a world of nuclear weapons and cheap machine guns in the hands of just about everyone who wants them is just dreaming. There is scant reason to believe that the large nation-states of today will be able to survive the tribal instincts of humanity fighting for ever scarcer resources and caring only about their own people.

In addition to the millions that we'll kill on purpose I predict that in this century a billion humans will die from floods and starvation traceable to climate change. Good or bad? Depends on whether you are a victim or a survivor.

Yeah ........ right.....that "green" energy saving washing machine you bought; the one that leaves the clothes wet so you use twice the energy to dry them. That'll really help.

Ed Weldon

I have heard that in India, the EE textbooks used to train engineers have the windmill as the standard symbol for the power source. Countries that don't have a jillion dollars already tied up in old school fossil fuel technology may be able to make the transition more quickly than we can. Whether they do or don't, it would be arrogant to think they gave much thought to our opinions on the subject. And you are right: its all about economics. We had our wake up call on the dangers of relying on imported energy a generation or so back and we biffed it. Remember, before bashing Al Gore became all the rage among conservatives, it was Jimmy Carter who served as the punching bag. Somehow enough people scarfed up the oil industry propaganda to take what should have been a common sense national security decision and turn it it to an intramural food fight. We snoozed and now we loose. That's how the market works. Funny how that old propaganda campaign that helped get us into this mess is still wildly popular in some circles.

As with any movement, there are radicals within the green movement. They see this as a war between mother earth and mankind, with them being the self appointed soldiers on the side of the environment.

The scary part is, that they are infiltrating both our schools and our governments, and the tactics they use are based strictly on emotion. Logic and common sense do not come into play. Anything they say or do is justified within the framework of their convoluted view of the world.

There are also self appointed leaders of this bunch of malcontents. Al Gore, being one of them. He flies around in a private jet, makes about $300,000 per speach engagement and has mansions in the east and west. He keeps these people inflamed.

One problem. Al Gore's carbon footprint for one year, is bigger than that of the last three generations of my family, combined.

Well the video had the opposite affect on me obviously.

I just got back from Goma, DR of the Congo this week. I volunteer with HEAL Africa often now ... going into remote areas with doctors and nurses to care for victims of the insanity that persists there.

It is no exaggeration, that every member puts their life in peril on such outreach missions.

You apparently were able to read the post before it was censored. I hope you realize ... it was not an attack on you.

But when logic, common sense, and emotion come together ... you will do what needs to be done and lets leave it at that.

http://www.healafrica.org/action-in-community-p-13.html ... if you care to know what I have just returned from ... no pressure, no pressure at all. (I still have to live up to my namesake ... or I'd go mad.)

Not quite, some of us may or may not be subject to part time cross dressing or transvestism, This automatically doubles your carbon footprint regardless of your green credentials, ie twice as many cloths twice as many gadgets and twice as many beauty products, not to mention the two vehicles, ie the work van she won't be seen dead in.

A certain person i know has all the gear welders, test equipment, nearly every tool known to man, and at the same time hair tongs etc etc etc.

Cause and effects are integral part of all human activities. Green technologies is the right approach humanity Vs heading on. To be 100 % greener the complex pre requisites are that a green technology should be,

* At he lowest possible cost.

* Burning of any matter for power and energy is the deadliest sin we humans do daily.

* Water resources and water disposal needs clean and safety handling.

* Materials should renewable and future sustainability is the concern for all of us.

* Business oriented green technologies with mere slogans will not sustain for long.

Truly green technologies only will salvage our issues.

Both.

Take something as simple as a mobile phone. Would anybody truly feel they were back in the stone-age without one ? No, but try and separate a teenagers texting fingers from their phone.

Far be it from me to suggest that we all sit around of an evening playing charades and other parlor games by candlelight, but just maybe the extent to which technology is used by all has implications, not just for 'green' issues but for social ones such as family structure.

"Green" ? Exactly what is that ? Not much more than a marketing term.

Trying to assess the planetary impact of something touted as 'green' is near on impossible. All the process that occurs to produce solar cells. Transport cost of recycled material. It all gets hidden when those with a vested financial interest want to sell 'green'.

Reducing packaging, yes, but somewhere along the line it will cost a job if using less material or energy. People will neither like or accept that.

Dashing to use so called green technology is akin to the way in non-indigenous species have been used in the past for pest control. Anybody care for a Cane Toad ?

The first line of getting to some sort of environmental sensibilty is with avoiding waste. Something like 1/3 of all food purchased in the UK ends up in the bin. I have neighbours who will drive 300 yards to pick up a newspaper.

Tanning beds ? Yes, Hero, it's their money and choice, but the energy impact does affect everyone else. Even the cost of treating their vanity induced skin cancer.

Don't get me wrong, technology has it's place, but maybe at low level - a certain somebody has a rather nice solar heating system .

Just stirring the pot folks. Anyway, I have to go take a pee on the vegetable plot now.

"Tanning beds ? Yes, Hero, it's their money and choice, but the energy impact does affect everyone else. Even the cost of treating their vanity induced skin cancer."

These people pay the bill. They pay for the extra electricity and medical bill gets spread around.

We pay for everyone's aggregate ills and it is a bit of a drag, but where do you draw the line?

If you choose to ban tanning because of the social drag, why not smoking? What about rock climbing? How about drinking, boating, jet skiing, diving, hunting, driving, what we eat...? Shouldn't we force everyone to bed a certain time and up again to do exercise?

It isn't called the slippery slope for nothing. Sure, we could select a tyrant to control our lives down to the smallest details; just so we live safer and healthier, but do you really want that?

Or is this a case where you simply feel your way is the right way and people should be living the way you do? I think everyone judges other people that way, at least a little, because it is our only frame of reference we really have.

I think the real issue we have is with our social structure. The fact that we have become so permissive of any and every type of activity that we no longer have a social norm for people to operate by - anything goes. As such people rely on our legal system for their moral compass. If we do that we eventually relinquish ourselves to mindless cattle, caught in the channels of cattle rails, with little or no real liberty.

As I have said before, it is one thing to do the right thing because we are mandated by law, but far nobler to do the right thing because we are compelled to do so out of one's principles.

If we surrender the right to choose for ourselves we eliminate the chance of becoming principled.

We pay for everyone's aggregate ills and it is a bit of a drag, but where do you draw the line?

Yep. good point, and no disagreement here.

Visit any hospital, and many (if not most) of those being treated could have their condition tracked to some sort of lifestyle choice. Same could be said of economic circumstance and many other spheres of life. This line of discussion could become quite political. I'm possibly closer to your own thinking than both our post might indicate.

An extension of the point you made is that 'should we tolerate all', and let things develop in a 'market forces' type way. I'm inclined to think this is an abdication of responsibility. To take the case of medical costs, should we should take financial responsibility upon those who chose to smoke, drink, undertake dangerous sport. That's a highly charged, and inevitably political point.

The right to chose for ourselves is an important one, but it does carry the responsibility of how it impacts the lives of other people. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. Point's well made by you, and I thank you for that, but I'm going to back out of this convo because I think it will almost certainly end up as a discourse on politics rather than technology. Much as I enjoy the topic, here is not the place.

The thread might benefit from some slight re=phrasing of title or wording.