I like that idea. But because of the way these chemicals get everywhere, we need pretty much everyone on board. That won’t change unless we change incentives and negative externalities are felt by the actors that decide to use the chemicals. How do we do that? Same question for nuclear war, fossil fuels, and any other tragedy of the commons type situation.
back
1 comments
My hope is that this "techno-conservatism" would reflect and facilitate a mass movement which could then generate enough of a political and economic mandate to leverage us out of destructive applications of technology using existing systems of government. I feel like a lot of people, especially young people, are kind of already leaning this way. But I'm fairly apolitical myself, I don't want to start a revolution, y'know? If I run this up the flag pole and no one salutes, so be it.
"Techno-conservatism" isn't a political stance. Ecological harmony isn't a political goal, it's a prerequisite of any durable regime at all. The thing is living in harmony with nature is fun and economical so I would hope it's very popular once you've experienced it. (E.g. we have some hydrogen-powered buses here and the exhaust they put out is not smelly poison, it's actually refreshing! It has a delightful not-quite-aroma, it's moist and oxygenated. You only have to stand upwind of one once to realize that ICE vehicles are inferior.)
In the short-term, and on the personal scale, I'm imagining something like a neighborhood or small town as a kind of experimental zone or context. ( Check out Village Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes ) You're right that this wouldn't mitigate truly global issues like "forever chemicals" or global warming, but it's an improvement on what we're doing now. I think once there's a kind of "theme park" you can visit that shows what it's like to live well without messing up the environment it would really convince people to do it.