What do you think?
Rate this book
Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us Or the Environment
Techno-Fix questions a primary paradigm of our age: that advanced technology will extricate us from an ever increasing load of social, environmental, and economic ills. Techno-Fix shows why negative unintended consequences of science and technology are inherently unavoidable and unpredictable, why counter-technologies, techno-fixes, and efficiency improvements do not offer lasting solutions, and why modern technology, in the presence of continued economic growth, does not promote sustainability but instead hastens collapse.
The authors explore the reasons for the uncritical acceptance of new technologies; show that technological optimism is based on ignorance and that increasing consumerism and materialism, which have been facilitated by science and technology, have failed to increase happiness. The common belief that technological change is inevitable is questioned, the myth of the value-neutrality of technology is exposed and the ethics of the technological imperative: “what can be done should be done” is challenged. Techno-Fix asserts that science and technology, as currently practiced, cannot solve the many serious problems we face and that a paradigm shift is needed to reorient science and technology in a more socially responsible and environmentally sustainable direction.
The readers of Techno-Fix will learn a number of inconvenient truths about science and technology, topics that are rarely, if ever, covered in the media or discussed among professionals. Readers will be challenged to re-examine their current worldview, their paradigms and assumptions about the so-called promises of modern technology. But they will also feel empowered and inspired by the fact that most problems confronting humanity have inherently simple, low-tech solutions.
The authors of Techno-Fix, both Ph.D.s, have decades of experience in science and engineering, and deliver a highly readable, insightful and powerful critique of modern technology.
Techno-Fix has been endorsed by Richard Heinberg, Bill McKibben, David Suzuki, William Rees, and other notables in the environmental and academic community.
The authors explore the reasons for the uncritical acceptance of new technologies; show that technological optimism is based on ignorance and that increasing consumerism and materialism, which have been facilitated by science and technology, have failed to increase happiness. The common belief that technological change is inevitable is questioned, the myth of the value-neutrality of technology is exposed and the ethics of the technological imperative: “what can be done should be done” is challenged. Techno-Fix asserts that science and technology, as currently practiced, cannot solve the many serious problems we face and that a paradigm shift is needed to reorient science and technology in a more socially responsible and environmentally sustainable direction.
The readers of Techno-Fix will learn a number of inconvenient truths about science and technology, topics that are rarely, if ever, covered in the media or discussed among professionals. Readers will be challenged to re-examine their current worldview, their paradigms and assumptions about the so-called promises of modern technology. But they will also feel empowered and inspired by the fact that most problems confronting humanity have inherently simple, low-tech solutions.
The authors of Techno-Fix, both Ph.D.s, have decades of experience in science and engineering, and deliver a highly readable, insightful and powerful critique of modern technology.
Techno-Fix has been endorsed by Richard Heinberg, Bill McKibben, David Suzuki, William Rees, and other notables in the environmental and academic community.
464 pages, Paperback
First published September 13, 2011
63 people are currently reading
536 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
March 26, 2015
Welcome to our all-you-can-eat buffet of eco-predicaments, a remarkable achievement brought to you by our old friend, technological innovation. Our friend isn’t evil. He’s a hilarious charismatic trickster who excels at making comical mistakes. Every brilliant idea blows up in his face, flattens him with a boulder, or rockets him over a cliff. He never gives up. He never learns from his mistakes. He never succeeds.
Like the trickster, Americans are famous for our manic techno-optimism. Economic growth and material progress make us giddy with delight, and seventy-two percent of us believe that the benefits far outweigh the harms. The planet doesn’t matter. Technology will certainly enable the kids to have a somewhat life-like experience, riveted to their glowing screens. A sane person can only conclude that we live in a world of illusions.
Techno-Fix, by Michael and Joyce Huesemann, takes us on a voyage through the hall of illusions. It provides readers with magic x-ray glasses that allow us to see right through heavy layers of encrusted bull excrement and clearly observe our way of life in its bare-naked essence. It delivers a super-sized serving of precious common sense that should be a central part of every youngster’s rite of passage, but isn’t.
The human species invented techno-addiction, a dangerous habit that seems impossible to quit; we always need bigger doses. This addiction has put quite a kink in our evolutionary journey, repeatedly blowing up in our face. Science and technology are the mommy and daddy of most of our severe problems. No other species has developed a fascination with endless growth. The other critters have remained in balance for millions of years, limited by predators and food supply, nature’s brilliant time-proven design.
The Huesemanns note that we took a different path. “Humans have used powerful technologies to escape these natural constraints, first by using weapons to eliminate large predators, then by inventing agriculture to increase food supplies, and finally by employing sanitation and medical technologies to increase their chances for survival.”
Our devious experiments at controlling and exploiting nature have created a thousand nightmares. We’ve zoomed right past seven billion, giving the planet quite a fever. Still, the mainstream mindset is convinced that life is always getting better and better, and that technology will overcome any challenges on our joyride to utopia. We have no doubt economic growth can continue until the sun burns out, and nothing will ever slow us down. According to Huesemann’s Law of Techno-Optimism, “Optimism is inversely proportional to knowledge.”
The mainstream mindset is so weird — it celebrates the benefits of technology, and steps around the stinky messes, pretending not to see them. Innovation is never a free lunch. Every benefit has costs, and it’s impossible to predict every unintended consequence. When serious problems are discovered, we tend to resolve them with additional innovation, which generates additional unintended consequences. We can delay paying the bills for our mistakes, but every debt must and will be paid. It’s something like quicksand.
A century ago, the benefits of the automobile were immediately apparent, and the staggering unintended consequences were not. This technology has caused huge damage to our health, our families and communities, the ecosystem, and the unborn. Car problems are still growing, as billions of people in the developing world are eager to live as foolishly as Americans do. The car and the television are our two biggest techno-bloopers, according to the Huesemanns.
Foolish fantasies are the deliberate consequence of the mass media and advertising, which are tremendously successful at persuading folks that the purpose of life is to transfer as much stuff as possible from nature to landfills. “Needs” are what is necessary for survival and health, like food, shelter, and community. “Wants” are things we have no need for, stuff we have sudden impulses to acquire. They are infinite in number, constantly changing, generally frivolous, and often useless.
The path to consumer happiness and high status involves devoting a substantial portion of our lives to doing various sorts of work. For many, the work is less than meaningful or satisfying. The reward is trade tokens, which are used to acquire wants, and each purchase provides a brief consumer orgasm. The thrill is soon gone, the gnawing returns, and we are compelled to go back to the mall and get another fix.
No matter how hard we thrash our credit cards, we never arrive at our destination — wholeness and contentment. “We are chasing a mirage, thereby remaining forever dissatisfied and unhappy.” In the last 50 years, rates of depression in the U.S. have increased tenfold, and continue to rise (rates among the Amish are far lower).
Depression is also a result of our mobility and isolation. Until the industrial era, most people spent their entire lives in stable communities, and formed long-term social bonds with the people around them. Before the hell of automobiles, daily life included pleasant face-to-face encounters with others. Before the hell of glowing screens, people spent little time sitting alone.
Luckily, technology has a daffy response for any problem. It’s far easier to develop techno solutions than social solutions. Rather than attempting the social challenge of creating a way of life that isn’t so lonely and dreary, technology can simply chase away depression and anxiety with happy pills. It’s easier to build new road systems than it is to convince people to give up their cars. It’s easier to provide life-saving surgeries than it is to encourage people to vacate their couches and eat a healthy diet.
The Huesemanns harbor special loathing for the medical industry. It’s extremely expensive, and remarkably ineffective. Intelligent, low cost preventative care is not the focus. New treatments are constantly being developed. The dead generate no profits, so we keep very sick people alive on machines; we transplant organs. Death must be delayed by any means necessary, regardless of cost. “If it can be done, it should be done.” We need to remember that old age and death are normal and natural.
The last section of the book provides the theoretical solutions to our predicaments. This plan requires world leaders that will eagerly cooperate in rapidly and radically reconfiguring the way we live and think. It requires a humankind that is spiritually connected to nature, people who abhor pollution and mindless consumption, folks willing to make enormous sacrifices in order to ensure the wellbeing of future generations of all species. Energy will be renewable, non-renewable resources will be shunned, and all wastes will be safely biodegradable. The Huesemanns warn us that the transition might not be easy.
Like the trickster, Americans are famous for our manic techno-optimism. Economic growth and material progress make us giddy with delight, and seventy-two percent of us believe that the benefits far outweigh the harms. The planet doesn’t matter. Technology will certainly enable the kids to have a somewhat life-like experience, riveted to their glowing screens. A sane person can only conclude that we live in a world of illusions.
Techno-Fix, by Michael and Joyce Huesemann, takes us on a voyage through the hall of illusions. It provides readers with magic x-ray glasses that allow us to see right through heavy layers of encrusted bull excrement and clearly observe our way of life in its bare-naked essence. It delivers a super-sized serving of precious common sense that should be a central part of every youngster’s rite of passage, but isn’t.
The human species invented techno-addiction, a dangerous habit that seems impossible to quit; we always need bigger doses. This addiction has put quite a kink in our evolutionary journey, repeatedly blowing up in our face. Science and technology are the mommy and daddy of most of our severe problems. No other species has developed a fascination with endless growth. The other critters have remained in balance for millions of years, limited by predators and food supply, nature’s brilliant time-proven design.
The Huesemanns note that we took a different path. “Humans have used powerful technologies to escape these natural constraints, first by using weapons to eliminate large predators, then by inventing agriculture to increase food supplies, and finally by employing sanitation and medical technologies to increase their chances for survival.”
Our devious experiments at controlling and exploiting nature have created a thousand nightmares. We’ve zoomed right past seven billion, giving the planet quite a fever. Still, the mainstream mindset is convinced that life is always getting better and better, and that technology will overcome any challenges on our joyride to utopia. We have no doubt economic growth can continue until the sun burns out, and nothing will ever slow us down. According to Huesemann’s Law of Techno-Optimism, “Optimism is inversely proportional to knowledge.”
The mainstream mindset is so weird — it celebrates the benefits of technology, and steps around the stinky messes, pretending not to see them. Innovation is never a free lunch. Every benefit has costs, and it’s impossible to predict every unintended consequence. When serious problems are discovered, we tend to resolve them with additional innovation, which generates additional unintended consequences. We can delay paying the bills for our mistakes, but every debt must and will be paid. It’s something like quicksand.
A century ago, the benefits of the automobile were immediately apparent, and the staggering unintended consequences were not. This technology has caused huge damage to our health, our families and communities, the ecosystem, and the unborn. Car problems are still growing, as billions of people in the developing world are eager to live as foolishly as Americans do. The car and the television are our two biggest techno-bloopers, according to the Huesemanns.
Foolish fantasies are the deliberate consequence of the mass media and advertising, which are tremendously successful at persuading folks that the purpose of life is to transfer as much stuff as possible from nature to landfills. “Needs” are what is necessary for survival and health, like food, shelter, and community. “Wants” are things we have no need for, stuff we have sudden impulses to acquire. They are infinite in number, constantly changing, generally frivolous, and often useless.
The path to consumer happiness and high status involves devoting a substantial portion of our lives to doing various sorts of work. For many, the work is less than meaningful or satisfying. The reward is trade tokens, which are used to acquire wants, and each purchase provides a brief consumer orgasm. The thrill is soon gone, the gnawing returns, and we are compelled to go back to the mall and get another fix.
No matter how hard we thrash our credit cards, we never arrive at our destination — wholeness and contentment. “We are chasing a mirage, thereby remaining forever dissatisfied and unhappy.” In the last 50 years, rates of depression in the U.S. have increased tenfold, and continue to rise (rates among the Amish are far lower).
Depression is also a result of our mobility and isolation. Until the industrial era, most people spent their entire lives in stable communities, and formed long-term social bonds with the people around them. Before the hell of automobiles, daily life included pleasant face-to-face encounters with others. Before the hell of glowing screens, people spent little time sitting alone.
Luckily, technology has a daffy response for any problem. It’s far easier to develop techno solutions than social solutions. Rather than attempting the social challenge of creating a way of life that isn’t so lonely and dreary, technology can simply chase away depression and anxiety with happy pills. It’s easier to build new road systems than it is to convince people to give up their cars. It’s easier to provide life-saving surgeries than it is to encourage people to vacate their couches and eat a healthy diet.
The Huesemanns harbor special loathing for the medical industry. It’s extremely expensive, and remarkably ineffective. Intelligent, low cost preventative care is not the focus. New treatments are constantly being developed. The dead generate no profits, so we keep very sick people alive on machines; we transplant organs. Death must be delayed by any means necessary, regardless of cost. “If it can be done, it should be done.” We need to remember that old age and death are normal and natural.
The last section of the book provides the theoretical solutions to our predicaments. This plan requires world leaders that will eagerly cooperate in rapidly and radically reconfiguring the way we live and think. It requires a humankind that is spiritually connected to nature, people who abhor pollution and mindless consumption, folks willing to make enormous sacrifices in order to ensure the wellbeing of future generations of all species. Energy will be renewable, non-renewable resources will be shunned, and all wastes will be safely biodegradable. The Huesemanns warn us that the transition might not be easy.
September 11, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. It's not the most riveting writing - he's extremely detail oriented and tends to use the same sentence structure repeatedly, etc. and it's not told as a "story" but rather as an information dump - but all that said, it's fascinating stuff. The main thesis is something many of us already know and that is that technology is part of the heat-engine that is human industrial civilization and as such, will always - always! - contribute to the problem, and in aggregate, will do so more than it helps solve the problem. So all technology, at least in its current incarnations, in aggregate, will lead us closer to the end game of a livable planet. Much of the book is spent discussing why this is the case, and some of the book is spent offering solutions. Overall, the author has a plan, similar to what you'd expect: no technology unless we can recycle, reuse all waste, or in such small quantities that the earth system can absorb it safely. Not gonna happen. One gets the impression the author doesn't really believe it will happen either, but feels obligated to lay it out... just in case? Yeah. Right.
Two very valuable things one comes away with are: a breakdown of the analysis required to understand and analyze a given technology's impact, which he recommends we do in-depth at all stages of a technology's development (including at the idea stage); and, a long list of questions to help you think more deeply about the content in each chapter, which serve as great inspiration for questioning *everything* our industrial civilization does. Good stuff.
I read this book because I have been feeling distinctly "anti-technology" lately, which, as a computer geek by training and career has put me in an uncomfortable spot. But I saw it coming, and well, I can't go back in time and change my college major. Plus, I do so love to watch NASA and similar organizations using all their wonderful technology to clarify the crisis we're in and help us understand the Earth system.
So many people seem to think we can technology our way out of this problem we have created for ourselves. This book lays out the proof for why that is a futile path.
Two very valuable things one comes away with are: a breakdown of the analysis required to understand and analyze a given technology's impact, which he recommends we do in-depth at all stages of a technology's development (including at the idea stage); and, a long list of questions to help you think more deeply about the content in each chapter, which serve as great inspiration for questioning *everything* our industrial civilization does. Good stuff.
I read this book because I have been feeling distinctly "anti-technology" lately, which, as a computer geek by training and career has put me in an uncomfortable spot. But I saw it coming, and well, I can't go back in time and change my college major. Plus, I do so love to watch NASA and similar organizations using all their wonderful technology to clarify the crisis we're in and help us understand the Earth system.
So many people seem to think we can technology our way out of this problem we have created for ourselves. This book lays out the proof for why that is a futile path.
May 10, 2022
Estuvo bien.
De como la tecnología puede salvarno, pero ala vez destruirnos.
Creemos que la tecnología pueda repara los daños de la misma tecnología?
De como la tecnología puede salvarno, pero ala vez destruirnos.
Creemos que la tecnología pueda repara los daños de la misma tecnología?
May 28, 2021
I won’t sugarcoat it: this book is THICK, reads like a textbook at times, and took me longer than I’m willing to admit to finish. Regarding the latter, my copy of this book is FILLED with highlights, notes, and comments like “yes!!” - I had this eery sense after reading many different passages, a feeling of knowing “I’ve thought this before, and now here it is on paper, articulated concisely?!”
Coming from an engineering background, I relate whole-heartedly to the criticisms put forward: that scientists and engineers cannot continue being exempt from the consequences of their actions. Whether it be nuclear weapons, synthetic herbicides and pesticides causing algal blooms and a plethora of other issues, the development of plastics and other fossil fuel derivates (*cough cough* global climate change) that are scarcely recycled and whose particulates break down to be ingested by the lowest critters on the food chain, or the entirety of the medical industrial complex: why was this allowed to happen? Should the idea that “what can be done, should be done” continue to be the prevailing ideology as we move into the future?
The Huesemann’s drive home a very clear narrative: the industrial age immensely increased output potential through organized factory work and technological aid in the production process. This increase in output led directly to an increase in consumption: we see wants becoming needs, very quickly at that. Materialism only continued to skyrocket with help from the mass media: pervasive advertisements telling everyone in front of their TVs and listening in on radio what was now desirable, be it a vehicle, a microwave, or a personal computer. Simultaneously, the medical industrial complex was busy pumping out drugs and treatments to extend life expectancy, at no small cost. Cities were transformed to centre the personal vehicle as all-important, allowing workers to travel farther from their home to perform work, while allowing for people’s dispersal from tight-knit and local community settings. These are a few of the major ideas composed in this book: I highly recommend you read it to delve deeper into these topics (and into many, many more, too).
Michael and Joyce clearly did their research, and they’re ready to back up their claims. 1200 references and counting… At times the statistics were a tad overwhelming, but that may have been the point. Their work and their message is extremely important, especially as we work our way through the 2020s. It’s a time of reckoning, per se, on all fronts: social, political, environmental, technological. There is this common thread of discontent, feelings of frustration, loneliness, and a lack of community felt by many in the industrialized nations (I think especially the < 30 age group). Passivity will not solve our problems, individually or globally, and if I could only have one takeaway from this book, it is that NOW is the time to act.
Coming from an engineering background, I relate whole-heartedly to the criticisms put forward: that scientists and engineers cannot continue being exempt from the consequences of their actions. Whether it be nuclear weapons, synthetic herbicides and pesticides causing algal blooms and a plethora of other issues, the development of plastics and other fossil fuel derivates (*cough cough* global climate change) that are scarcely recycled and whose particulates break down to be ingested by the lowest critters on the food chain, or the entirety of the medical industrial complex: why was this allowed to happen? Should the idea that “what can be done, should be done” continue to be the prevailing ideology as we move into the future?
The Huesemann’s drive home a very clear narrative: the industrial age immensely increased output potential through organized factory work and technological aid in the production process. This increase in output led directly to an increase in consumption: we see wants becoming needs, very quickly at that. Materialism only continued to skyrocket with help from the mass media: pervasive advertisements telling everyone in front of their TVs and listening in on radio what was now desirable, be it a vehicle, a microwave, or a personal computer. Simultaneously, the medical industrial complex was busy pumping out drugs and treatments to extend life expectancy, at no small cost. Cities were transformed to centre the personal vehicle as all-important, allowing workers to travel farther from their home to perform work, while allowing for people’s dispersal from tight-knit and local community settings. These are a few of the major ideas composed in this book: I highly recommend you read it to delve deeper into these topics (and into many, many more, too).
Michael and Joyce clearly did their research, and they’re ready to back up their claims. 1200 references and counting… At times the statistics were a tad overwhelming, but that may have been the point. Their work and their message is extremely important, especially as we work our way through the 2020s. It’s a time of reckoning, per se, on all fronts: social, political, environmental, technological. There is this common thread of discontent, feelings of frustration, loneliness, and a lack of community felt by many in the industrialized nations (I think especially the < 30 age group). Passivity will not solve our problems, individually or globally, and if I could only have one takeaway from this book, it is that NOW is the time to act.
August 30, 2014
I liked this book a lot. I think it is not an easy topic to discuss, given the blind faith most modern societies have in technology. The problem is that technology is a vicious cycle; we pretend to solve problems caused by technology with more technology, with more technology, with more technology... and so on. This normally would not make sense for most of us. However, the authors highlight some reasons why this happens. For instance, there is what they call the "myth of value-neutrality", i.e. the belief that technology is not inherently harmful, but that the use and the users are the ones who make it so. This reminds me of something American gun supporters say all the time: "it is not guns who kill people, it is people who kills people."
There is also the current economic system and the pursuit of limitless profits. Technology is of course a great component of this growth, and those who own it just need to make incremental, usually useless changes (many times called "innovations") to make old technology useless and incompatible... thus creating the need for more.
More or less recent attempts to decrease the impact of technology have resulted in the belief that "efficiency" will lead to more sustainable societies... however the authors highlight what is called the Jevons Paradox, which says that any gain in efficiency in on end will result in more consumption at the other end. Efficiency just results in relative decoupling, but absolute consumption increases, partly because this is what the economic system wants, and because of the modern economies of scale.
The authors also provide the reader with interesting moral questions about e.g. the need to consume less and strengthen our bonds with society, the need to go local, the influence that television has on families and infividuals, and the need to accept death as a natural part of life.
I also liked the critical view the authors have on science and their discussions about the need to put more pressure on the ethics and responsibilities associated with the creation of knowledge.
I have heard some criticisms about the pessimistic nature of the narrative in this book, although in my opinion, the authors are being straight and clear. As a researcher in the field, I think what we need is sincere and straight-forward facts and food for thought in order to react to what is happening to our species and to the ones that support our life in this planet.
I agree that the last parts are a bit strange, since they suggest the use of technology, although a "better" one, as a solution to the problems they discussed themselves. The goodness of technology is tricky because of the cultural diversity our planet has and the different conditions each one of its cultures is subjected to.
There is also the current economic system and the pursuit of limitless profits. Technology is of course a great component of this growth, and those who own it just need to make incremental, usually useless changes (many times called "innovations") to make old technology useless and incompatible... thus creating the need for more.
More or less recent attempts to decrease the impact of technology have resulted in the belief that "efficiency" will lead to more sustainable societies... however the authors highlight what is called the Jevons Paradox, which says that any gain in efficiency in on end will result in more consumption at the other end. Efficiency just results in relative decoupling, but absolute consumption increases, partly because this is what the economic system wants, and because of the modern economies of scale.
The authors also provide the reader with interesting moral questions about e.g. the need to consume less and strengthen our bonds with society, the need to go local, the influence that television has on families and infividuals, and the need to accept death as a natural part of life.
I also liked the critical view the authors have on science and their discussions about the need to put more pressure on the ethics and responsibilities associated with the creation of knowledge.
I have heard some criticisms about the pessimistic nature of the narrative in this book, although in my opinion, the authors are being straight and clear. As a researcher in the field, I think what we need is sincere and straight-forward facts and food for thought in order to react to what is happening to our species and to the ones that support our life in this planet.
I agree that the last parts are a bit strange, since they suggest the use of technology, although a "better" one, as a solution to the problems they discussed themselves. The goodness of technology is tricky because of the cultural diversity our planet has and the different conditions each one of its cultures is subjected to.
February 19, 2022
I really liked and agree with many observations of the book: that under the current socioeconomic system technologies tend to further generate internalized pseudo-benefits and externalize costs in an unpredictable way. That many technologies promote separation between the exploiter and exploited. That the world is not on a sustainable path. That a significant change in values can help to reverse this. The scepticism toward scientism and stress on unpredictability resonated with Taleb's writings eg Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder.
But the suggested path forward, degrowth, is misguided. Degrowth neither necessary nor sufficient for sustainablility, and probably counterproductive as a rallying cry. Some fairly leftish commentators have recently covered this eg here and here.
Also, the trends an situation in human condition appear overly gloomy. I think eg Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, though not without their problems, provide a more balanced view. The differences could be due to the different selection and interpretation of data. Eg Huessman states:
Also, the potential of automation was not recognised:
So overall a perspective-widening book. However, some of the suggestions and claims the author makes don't seem grounded in sufficient expertise.
But the suggested path forward, degrowth, is misguided. Degrowth neither necessary nor sufficient for sustainablility, and probably counterproductive as a rallying cry. Some fairly leftish commentators have recently covered this eg here and here.
Also, the trends an situation in human condition appear overly gloomy. I think eg Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think and Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, though not without their problems, provide a more balanced view. The differences could be due to the different selection and interpretation of data. Eg Huessman states:
A good example of a social fix is the attempt to solve the persistent problem of world hunger by increasing food production via the application of industrialized agriculture despite the fact that hunger and starvation may not be due to food shortages but rather the result of various economic and political factors.He refers to the absolute number of people in hunger, which changed relatively little. However, a relative measure is probably more appropriate, and it has been declining steadily from 28% in 1970 to 11% in 2015.
Also, the potential of automation was not recognised:
(..) it is unlikely that the efficiency of labor can be increased in any profound way for all (..) jobs in the service sector (..) such as the restaurant and hotel business, transportation, retailing, landscaping, etc. In addition, it will be impossible to replace professionals working in medicine, law, research and education with machines.As of this review in 2022 many service workers like drivers, warehouse workers, etc can be and some are being replaced by machines. There are also examples in medicine and law. And the potential for changes was foreseen by many already around the time this book was written (see eg here).
So overall a perspective-widening book. However, some of the suggestions and claims the author makes don't seem grounded in sufficient expertise.
July 11, 2021
Not an easy read. If you look at the climate changes and what we are still doing is in many cases some techno-fix (or nothing at all), it scared a shit out of me. I've been techno-fixer myself, but can see how technology is causing climate changes, land eroding, species extinction. We are biased to use some new technology but we are not very keen on analyzing what negative impact it might have. Cars is a good example. Once there the numbers were number external negative effects were minor. Now where there are hundreds of millions of cars we should count in their price their impact to CO2 emission. We internalize profits and externalize risks, costs to society. Making cars more efficient wont solve the CO2 emission problem, we'll drive them more and longer because it is cheaper (and thus making problem worse). Nice book has in depth analysis how technology is big part of the problem (and fixing tech with more tech creates more problems) and how make adaption of new tech more conservative and analyzed. Changed my view of the world!
December 26, 2021
3,5 stars
This was a depressing read. The analysis part of the book where the authors broke down all the main statements how the technology will supposedly save the planet and humanity was really convincing with all the examples. And it won't and I agree - mass scale implementation of technologies will cause more problems than they solve. Current level of consumption of energy and other resources can't be maintained with new and more efficient technology. Adressing the root causes will help instead - degrowth, change of economic system and simplifying life will.
What I did not enjoy that much was how long and repetitive the book got. It could have been written with half the words. Also the philosophical parts turned more into a rant and got quite one sided. For example about how science and scientist are bad because they invent new technologies won't take any responsibility of the consequences. When you can bare those jargons, then I would recommend reading it.
This was a depressing read. The analysis part of the book where the authors broke down all the main statements how the technology will supposedly save the planet and humanity was really convincing with all the examples. And it won't and I agree - mass scale implementation of technologies will cause more problems than they solve. Current level of consumption of energy and other resources can't be maintained with new and more efficient technology. Adressing the root causes will help instead - degrowth, change of economic system and simplifying life will.
What I did not enjoy that much was how long and repetitive the book got. It could have been written with half the words. Also the philosophical parts turned more into a rant and got quite one sided. For example about how science and scientist are bad because they invent new technologies won't take any responsibility of the consequences. When you can bare those jargons, then I would recommend reading it.
December 7, 2022
Kaks korda proovisin raamatut läbi lugeda ja ei õnnestunud. Jätsin südamerahuga pooleli, sest raamat pole just õhemate kilda.
Kõige enam häiris, et väga olulised mõisted nagu innovatsioon, progress, tehnoloogia jms olid jäetud defineerimata, viidatud kirjanus oli suht aegunud ja mitte eriti tunnustatud teosed või artiklid. Üldine toon raamatul oli oodatava katastroofi hõnguline.
Ma üldjuhul usun ka seda, et tehnoloogia ei ole mingi imevits millele kliimamuutustes lootma jääda, kuid see raamat kaldus liialt eel-industraliseerunud ühiskonna romantiseerimisse, jättes täiesti kõrvale tõsiasja, et elu praegu on ikka kordades parem palju palju rohkematele inimestele.
Kõige enam häiris, et väga olulised mõisted nagu innovatsioon, progress, tehnoloogia jms olid jäetud defineerimata, viidatud kirjanus oli suht aegunud ja mitte eriti tunnustatud teosed või artiklid. Üldine toon raamatul oli oodatava katastroofi hõnguline.
Ma üldjuhul usun ka seda, et tehnoloogia ei ole mingi imevits millele kliimamuutustes lootma jääda, kuid see raamat kaldus liialt eel-industraliseerunud ühiskonna romantiseerimisse, jättes täiesti kõrvale tõsiasja, et elu praegu on ikka kordades parem palju palju rohkematele inimestele.
February 25, 2023
I was assigned this book for a graduate-level Environmental Philosophy course and I was deeply disappointed by it. This book is great if you are already biased toward the view of these authors and already partially convinced by their arguments, but you will be disappointed if you expect a sophisticated discussion on the drawbacks and benefits of modern technology on the environment. For every sound argument made, there is a bit of outright hyperbole that is hard to take seriously (some of which was so over the top that I laughed out loud). They also do more block-quoting of other thinkers than an undergrad trying to make word count. Can't recommend.
September 25, 2021
The authors make a lot of fair points about short sighted adaption of technology. I've found multiple of these arguments haunting me in my everyday life and making me more critical about technology and science ever since I started reading this book.
However, the book was highly repetitive, and it focused heavily on the negative. The authors seemed to be slightly out of touch with reality and dreaming about an utopia.
However, the book was highly repetitive, and it focused heavily on the negative. The authors seemed to be slightly out of touch with reality and dreaming about an utopia.
January 10, 2021
A provocative and searing critique of techno-optimism, Techno-Fix resonated with me, even though I found myself disagreeing with some of its proposed solutions. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2021...
September 24, 2025
Philosophy of the Environment class.
April 30, 2018
I thought this was one of the better books that I've read. The book shows how so-called techno-fixes can make matters worse and that there is always a price to be payed. It shows problems with our current culture and system, and by offering solutions it gives us hope. It doesn't shy away from telling things as it is either: the green dream of non-renewable energy sources; while part of the solution, will still require sacrifices and isn't without its own environmental impact.
The book is a great companion piece to Antifragile for several reasons:
1) Both talk how removing elements from the system might be better than adding elements to the systems: via negative versus via positiva
2) Both books talk about iatrogenics, this book goes more into depth about iatrogenics, while it was Antifragile and another book "Why we get Sick" which first introduced me to this concept
(I hold the view that the healthcare system in my country will someday blow up, there is much more energy being put into it than comes out of it)
3) This book has a similar idea as that of skin of the game from Antifragile: by having decisions makers and so on far removed from the consequences of their policies, i.e. the lack of skin in the game, makes them care less about these consequences or simply does not expose them to it
I recently read "The systems view of life" and have to say I like "Techno-fix" slightly more. I would recommend both. I thought "Techno-fix" was slightly more to the point, while "The systems view of life" explained a lot I feel wasn't all necessary. There was a lot of background talk in the "The systems view of life" and some of it I was already aware of. Both are well-written and important books however, thus I recommend both.
The book is a great companion piece to Antifragile for several reasons:
1) Both talk how removing elements from the system might be better than adding elements to the systems: via negative versus via positiva
2) Both books talk about iatrogenics, this book goes more into depth about iatrogenics, while it was Antifragile and another book "Why we get Sick" which first introduced me to this concept
(I hold the view that the healthcare system in my country will someday blow up, there is much more energy being put into it than comes out of it)
3) This book has a similar idea as that of skin of the game from Antifragile: by having decisions makers and so on far removed from the consequences of their policies, i.e. the lack of skin in the game, makes them care less about these consequences or simply does not expose them to it
I recently read "The systems view of life" and have to say I like "Techno-fix" slightly more. I would recommend both. I thought "Techno-fix" was slightly more to the point, while "The systems view of life" explained a lot I feel wasn't all necessary. There was a lot of background talk in the "The systems view of life" and some of it I was already aware of. Both are well-written and important books however, thus I recommend both.
June 11, 2019
This book is excellent. The Huesemanns are husband and wife, both are scientists but in different disciplines. Most of my reading these days is as research for my next book which will basically argue that we need an economic and social paradigm shift, away for the exponential growth debt-based consumption driven path which leads to civilisational collapse if we continue this disastrous path.
Often I encounter the argument that technology will somehow save us, the cavalry will arrive just in time to save the besieged wagon train. This book shows how the dream of technology based rescue is fatally flawed.
As this book argues "business interests often view nature as an unlimited source of wealth if all "artificial" constraints imposed by government agencies and environmental organisations were removed". However this is but one of the self-serving fallacies that are prolonging the doomed paradigm. Economic growth cannot continue on a finite planet because of ecological constraints. Technology will not change this fact. Though technology is often promoted in the media as being solely beneficial this is not true. As the Huesemanns argue "despite the fact that all technologies are value laden, the myth of value-neutrality continues to be perpetuated". Moreover negative side effects are inheritantly unavoidable.
This book is well-written, has lots of scientific peer-reviewed sources in the footnotes, and is very persuasive. Highly recommended.
Tony Smyth (author: Fukushima and the coming Tokyo Earthquake: and what it will mean for fragile world economy)
Often I encounter the argument that technology will somehow save us, the cavalry will arrive just in time to save the besieged wagon train. This book shows how the dream of technology based rescue is fatally flawed.
As this book argues "business interests often view nature as an unlimited source of wealth if all "artificial" constraints imposed by government agencies and environmental organisations were removed". However this is but one of the self-serving fallacies that are prolonging the doomed paradigm. Economic growth cannot continue on a finite planet because of ecological constraints. Technology will not change this fact. Though technology is often promoted in the media as being solely beneficial this is not true. As the Huesemanns argue "despite the fact that all technologies are value laden, the myth of value-neutrality continues to be perpetuated". Moreover negative side effects are inheritantly unavoidable.
This book is well-written, has lots of scientific peer-reviewed sources in the footnotes, and is very persuasive. Highly recommended.
Tony Smyth (author: Fukushima and the coming Tokyo Earthquake: and what it will mean for fragile world economy)
August 25, 2021
God was never our savior and neither will it be rational science and technology that will save the day.
This civilization with all it's technological advancements ( which is largely limited to most in the developed world , if that) is doomed. The question is how soon is that coming . The ledger of accounting when it comes to the environment is piling up on the liability end .
The popular audience might flock to books like 'The uninhabitable earth' but this is undoubtedly the best book of the topic I have read till date, that even experts and the intelligentsia will do well to read but probably wont.
A sentence from the movie 'children of men' captures it well, they try not to think about it.
There is tendency among these self proclaimed rationalists to engage in magical thinking that some magical technology will manifest itself and the rationalist's way of bringing about this coming of technical Jesus is through price signals on the 'free' market.
To echo the words of Rupert Reed , this civilization is finished, atkeast this iteration of it.
This civilization with all it's technological advancements ( which is largely limited to most in the developed world , if that) is doomed. The question is how soon is that coming . The ledger of accounting when it comes to the environment is piling up on the liability end .
The popular audience might flock to books like 'The uninhabitable earth' but this is undoubtedly the best book of the topic I have read till date, that even experts and the intelligentsia will do well to read but probably wont.
A sentence from the movie 'children of men' captures it well, they try not to think about it.
There is tendency among these self proclaimed rationalists to engage in magical thinking that some magical technology will manifest itself and the rationalist's way of bringing about this coming of technical Jesus is through price signals on the 'free' market.
To echo the words of Rupert Reed , this civilization is finished, atkeast this iteration of it.
July 24, 2012
The first two thirds of this book is a well-written and thorough critique of the technological system. The authors make convincing and well-articulated arguments against a variety of different technologies (medical, energy, etc) while at the same time stepping back to look at the value systems embedded in the technological system.
However, the end is disappointing as the authors argue in favor of so-called "responsible" and manageable technologies, increased regulations, and the like. After such a poignant critique in the first portion of the book, it's hard to believe that the answer could really be more technology.
However, the end is disappointing as the authors argue in favor of so-called "responsible" and manageable technologies, increased regulations, and the like. After such a poignant critique in the first portion of the book, it's hard to believe that the answer could really be more technology.
June 1, 2015
This book made me think about my life of knee jerk support of science my whole life. I still think most corporations are "evil", not intentionally, but they F things up, by their very nature. I will continue to read and explore to determine if it's time to pull the driveway in, get a gun , etc. or whether it's too late. ?
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews