Can new technology save the world?

18 December 2024 ·

We should not naively believe that our society can be made sustainable simply by replacing some technology. We know that our way of life is not sustainable and that we cannot continue much longer without everything collapsing into environmental disaster. The big question is how we can change things so that our way of life on Earth can continue. The government's often-debated hockey stick policy is based on the theory that new technology is needed to save the world from destruction. All environmental policy programmes are based, in whole or in part, on the hope that new technology will solve our problems. But can we save the world with pyrolysis, electric cars and artificial intelligence? The answer is a resounding no. The chance that Jesus will finally fulfil his promise to return and save us is greater and more scientifically justified, because at least we have written historical sources that explain a causal relationship. The hypothesis that the world can be saved by developing new technology, on the other hand, is taken from a pipe dream and contradicts all historical documentation. Although new technology can do many things and has had an enormous impact on the world's development, it will never be able to solve the current problems we are facing right now. There are some logical reasons for this. Over the last 200 years, we have become accustomed to a positive spiral in which technological development has led to economic growth, which has led to increased production and consumption of food and other goods, which has led to further economic growth, which has enabled investment in new technology. When this correlation has solved all our problems for the last 200 years, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that economic growth and new technology will also be the solution to the problems of the future. But it cannot! This is because our current crisis is due to overconsumption of the world's resources, and consumption cannot be removed from the equation for the positive spiral. The crisis is due to overconsumption at all levels of society. Too much burning of fossil fuels. Cultivation of virtually all fertile land on the planet. Dumping more waste into the oceans and natural areas than they are able to process. 95% of all birds and mammals on the planet are domesticated animals, and wild populations are now too small to sustain themselves. You name it. We are simply filling up too much space on Earth and using too much of virtually everything. Too many people who consume too much. But can new technology make us consume and emit less? New technology does not come out of nowhere. New technology comes from investing in the development of technology, and investment requires financial resources. Major technological advances have always come during periods of economic growth. Leonardo da Vinci could have invented a helicopter ahead of his time, but the implementation of new technology is only possible when there is the economy to implement it. It is also emphasised time and again in political programmes that we need more economic growth in order to be able to afford to solve the climate crisis and all the other crises that result from our overconsumption of resources. However, this is precisely where the argument falls apart. For 200 years, we have had uninterrupted economic growth and uninterrupted increased consumption of the resources that have caused our crisis. There are a few exceptions, namely the world wars, the oil crisis in 1973, the financial crisis in 2008 and the coronavirus crisis. During these periods, global economic growth temporarily declined and CO2 emissions fell. If we measure mercury pollution in ice core samples from the Greenland ice sheet as a result of silver mining in Roman times, we see the same correlation, namely that there will always be a close link between economic growth, resource consumption and pollution. There are no exceptions, which is only logical. Economic growth means more economic resources, and money will always end up being spent on something. Either the money is spent on consumption, or it is invested in the production of something that ends up being consumed. Investments in new technology mean investments in making production more efficient, and efficiency improvements will always lead to economic growth, which will lead to increased consumption. This connection cannot be broken. Even if you think you can refrain from consumption by burying your gold in the garden and throwing away your tax card, this will only result in the price of gold rising, making other gold owners richer and increasing their consumption. If we spend our money at the hairdresser's or on a painting or something else useless, then a hairdresser or an artist will earn money, and they will go out and spend that money on material consumption. There are no historical precedents where economic growth in a society has been decoupled from resource consumption and environmental impact, because it is not possible. The Danish government is, of course, trying to convince us that Danish economic growth is