The development of technology has revolutionized our society. From the internet that connects individuals globally, to medical innovations that save lives, technology is often perceived as the solution to all problems.  Genetic modification, a branch of biotechnology, is viewed by many as the solution to world hunger. This technology could possibly eradicate food insecurities. With genetic modifications that increase yield, eliminate the need for pesticides, and make crops resistant to climate changes, biotechnology could solve all agricultural problems. However, the reality of the situation is not so easy. There are fallacies related to using technologies to solve every problem that arises. Dane Scott highlights both philosophical and practical criticisms of a technological fix mindset in his paper about biotechnology (Scott 2010). This paper will be using the criticisms Scott presents in terms of the agricultural sector.

Scott presents a multidimensional discussion on the criticisms regarding the concept of “technological fix” concerning the agricultural industry (Scott 2011). A technological fix is a term used to describe the common ideology that technology has the capability to solve all problems, whether it be within the agricultural sector or external. Scott divides the criticism into two distinct categories, the first being philosophical and the second being practical. While both are essential to understanding the full range of objections regarding the technological fix, this paper will apply the practical criticisms to agricultural examples.

This first practical criticism Scott puts forth regards the actual inability within technology to solve the problem at hand. The development of Roundup Ready crops enabled the agricultural sector to freely use herbicides that previously would have harmed the crops (Folger 2014). Instead of the problem being damage to crops by weeds and invasive plants, genetically modified crops shifted the problem to pollution due to increased herbicide use (Scott 2011). These technological fixes focus almost singularly on solving one issue, while potentially creating or exasperating many others. The environment is an extremely complex web, with a vast amount of interconnecting parts.

The second practical criticism focuses on the cyclical nature of using technology to fix problems used by technological advancements (Scott 2011). As genetically modified crops evolve to become resistant to pests, the same pests may, in time, overcome the resistance. In the case of Bacillus thuringiensis corn, more commonly called Bt corn, genetic modifications were made to increase the crop’s resistance to corn rootworms. However, the evidence is now showing this resistance is diminishing (Folger 2014). This example illuminates how, despite technology solving pests’ previous problems, a new problem arises from using the same technology.

The third practical criticisms highlight the lack of concern and regard for underlying conditions regarding the technological fix ideology (Scott 2011). To assume that a genetically modified crop is the solution to end world hunger deals more accurately with the concepts put forth by the third criticism. Increased yields while abating the issue fail to deal with the systematic problem of food insecurity. Nobody is denying the agricultural success the comes from the genetic modification of crops; increased yields, pest resistance, drought tolerance are all characteristics that are important in maintaining the world’s food output. However, none of the genetic modifications deal specifically with the issue of accessing food.

There is no doubt that technology has its place within society. There are a vast number of benefits that can only be provided through technological advancements. However, the idea the technology is the solution to all problems presents many fallacies. Technology is not the only solution to our problems, nor is it always the best suited. The question that remains focuses on the limits of using technology to solve problems. At what point does technology itself become the problem?

 

Sources

Folger, Tim. The Next Green Revolution, October 2014. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/.

Scott, Dane. “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate.” Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 24 (2011): 207–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9253-7.