Is technology and environmentalism compatible? Is technology neutral?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

"Reasonable destruction" - SRSLY?

For example - I buy paper. I understand that for it to be produced, trees are destroyed. Whenever possible, I try buy paper that is FSC approved, meaning that the forests it comes from are managed and inspected and for every tree destroyed, at least two are planted plus no entire areas are destroyed. I don't like the fact of what has to happen, but I do still find it necessary. In the end, what hatters is that we just leave something like we found it as a minimum, preferably in a better state. If we kill an animal, we kill a weak one who has a lower chance of survival naturally and avoid killing any that would harm the population such as the only fertile individual or one that is caring for young. If we cut down a tree for wood, we only take a few from one place and plant replacements. We give areas a chance to recover.

Anyways - the identification of these gadgets and "meaning" is striking, as is the perceived necessity of having them for happiness.
Do you really think, people are now (with cellphones) actually happier and have more meaningful lifes than when my generation was young and we had "only" regular phones? How does it relate to each other to call a friend 5 times a day on the cellphone to visiting that friend IRL?

None of which has any relevance to the neutrality or otherwise of their existence (plus I say that yes, some people do use things unnecessarily, but on the other hand, without any communication , I would not know 75% of my best friends, and it would be a 45 minute trip even to ask an AFK friend something.

So these things are tools - to achieve something else that then actually brings the meaning and happiness. The happiness is from having contact with others and from being in new places. It think that is an important distinction as to reach these things,there are other means.

Yes, I completely agree, but if they don't exist, then those opportunities are not available.

As I said in the previous post, much of this discussion is interesting, and perhaps I have been gradually driven into replying without making an overall more coherent point, but in the end it is unrelated to the actual topic - the NEED for technology is completely different to neutrality.

I think, and probably agree widely with HNM here, that by reducing impact drastically (!), keeping the technologies (or rather techniques and tools) that really are truely beneficial to human experience and that are having a low impact on other humans and nonhumans humanity could go a long way.

Now this, I can agree with. Realyl, the ebst of both worlds is what I consider the ideal situation.

Eventually, even these would not be sustainable, but there would be a long period of innovation that could create truely sustainable ways.

Hasn't that been my point for the entire thread?