What is a techno-fix? It is a surprisingly controversial phrase that has conjured skepticism and trepidation when uttered. Simply put, a techno-fix is a technological solution to a problem. There are many examples throughout history such as the cell phone for long distance communication, the airplane for intercontinental travel or even the wheel for basic transport. Why does such a mundane phrase have this controversy around it?
Dane Scott’s paper “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate” seeks to lay out the debate over techno-fixes. He maintains a neutral tone throughout the paper with the goal of accurately showing all sides of the argument. He reveals both philosophical and practical critiques as well as philosophical and practical arguments in favor of techno-fixes. This blog post will focus on the philosophical considerations of techno-fixes.
Scott outlines several philosophical thoughts against techno-fixes. All stem from what Scott describes as “reframing a social problem as a technological one.” In doing so, critics argue that problem solvers fail to see the full picture, developing a tunnel vision that makes them overlook key aspects of the issue. Techno-fixes reduce “the complexity of [the] problem [and] may exclude many important factors, generating unforeseen consequences” (Scott). Scott then develops several specific philosophical critiques. He starts with the theories of Leo Marx who argued that a techno-fix mind-frame “is embedded deeply in what was, and probably is, our culture’s dominant conception of history.” He is arguing that the techno-fix has become a staple of humanity influencing the developmental path we have taken throughout history. It is as if the impulse to search for a techno-fix to a problem has become a reflex. Next Scott discusses the views of Langdon Winner who says that “it is usually taken for granted that the only reliable sources for improving the human condition stem from new machines, techniques and chemicals” again referencing the tunnel vision in looking for solutions.
I do not believe the philosophical critiques against techno-fixes stand. When outlining the philosophical arguments in favour of a techno-fix solution to agricultural issues, Scott builds context putting forth the great agricultural challenge: that our farmland needs to be able to feed an additional 3 billion people and also reduce the harmful environmental impacts. Scott presents the argument of Anthony Trewavas that a techno-fix is the best way to solve this problem. He argues that there are two options, increase the land dedicated to farming, therefore increasing the ecological impact, or increase the yields of current farms. Simply increasing the number of farms will result in a zero-sum game with any food benefits being offset by damages to the environment. On the other hand, Trewavas describes a techno-fix increasing the yields of current crops as a “win-win” (Scott). A techno-fix in agriculture could come in the form of genetically modified crops design to produce more, offer more nutritional value and be more resilient. It is a solution that can address both problems of the challenge. Detractors argue that focusing on the techno-fix is, again, ignoring the full picture. They say that the world already produces enough food, but a socially unjust distribution system prevents everyone from getting what they need. They believe an actual response to this issue involves addressing the social asymmetry, rather than reframing the issue as one that has a technological solution (Scott). Trewavas has a response to this. He says, “it is far easier for scientists to conjure more food from the plants we grow than to persuade the West to share its agricultural bounty with its poorer neighbors.” This is particularly interesting to me. He is fully acknowledging the social nature of this issue, contrary to the philosophical critiques raised against a techno-fix.
This is where the critiques fail. This human propensity to naturally search for a techno-fix is not the result of ignoring the social dimensions of an issue. It is the result of fully understanding the difficulty of dealing with a social issue. It is incredibly unlikely or, at the very least an extremely long process to uproot established social injustices and create lasting change. It is a tall ladder to climb and, while that ladder is being climbed, people are dying.
Areas are experiencing overpopulation and people are starving. Many in the world suffer from Vitamin A deficiency or VAD (Folger). There are real consequences to this food challenge. The search for a techno-fix is not brushing the social nature under the rug. It is taking a more efficient and practical approach to mitigating the problem and try to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible. Yes, people suffering from VAD would benefit from a fairer food distribution. Is that going to happen anytime soon? Not likely. Can they benefit immediately from Golden Rice, a techno-fix that has created a rice that is a reliable source of vitamin A (Folger)? Yes.
The philosophical arguments are flat out mistaken. A techno-fix is not a flawed philosophy embedded in our culture that overlooks social issues. The techno-fix is the result of looking at the whole picture and developing a reasonable response with an immediate impact.
-Kenny
References:
Folger, T. (n.d.) “The Next Green Revolution”. National Geographic Magazine. Retrieved from the National Geographic website.
Scott, D. (2011, June 1). “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: volume 24. 207-226. https://web-b-ebscohost-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=23953e20-a158-4394-b905-eb7719f9f4fd%40pdc-v-sessmgr05