Technology can help solve the worst problems

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
OPINION/ ANALYSIS
Technology can help solve the worst global posers
January 29, 2006

By Jeffrey Sachs

Long-term economic progress comes mainly from the invention and spread of improved technologies.

The scientific revolution was made possible by the printing press, the industrial revolution by the steam engine, and India's escape from famine by increased farm yields - the so-called green revolution. Today's era of globalisation emerged with the spread of computers and the internet.

So when we seek solutions to some of the world's toughest problems, they, too, are likely to be found, at least in part, in new technologies that can resolve old and seemingly intractable problems.

Consider poverty in Africa. Every conceivable explanation has been given, usually focusing on what Africans do wrong. But a visit to Africa's villages makes clear that the problems have more to do with the struggle for survival under difficult physical conditions than with any special problems that are unique to African societies.

Africa's farmers produce roughly a third or less food per hectare of farmland than their counterparts around the world, resulting in massive hunger, exacerbated by a heavy disease burden. Malaria poses a unique challenge, owing in large part to Africa's mosquito species, which are especially adept at transmitting the disease. Other tropical parasitic diseases imply similarly extraordinary burdens in Africa. Add the practical difficulties of broken-down roads and few cars and trucks, and economic isolation follows. So the challenges of survival are enormous.

Yet practical solutions are at hand, because simple and low-cost technologies can address specific problems. Low farm yields can be addressed through improved seed varieties specially adapted for African conditions, combined with technologies for replenishing soil and managing water.

Malaria can be controlled by newly designed long-lasting mosquito nets and a new generation of effective medicines. Other tropical diseases also can be controlled, and practical technologies for safe drinking water can dramatically reduce diarrhoeal diseases.

Cellphones, local wireless internet, and more paved roads could do much to break the economic isolation of Africa's villages.

Donor countries incessantly ask Africans to change their trade policies, government institutions, public administration, and more. Some of these changes are important, but the role of the rich countries has been lopsided, focusing on everything except how to finance and introduce practical technologies to solve practical problems.

The rich countries' mistakes wouldn't matter if African countries had enough money to adopt the needed technologies on their own, but Africa is so poor that it must get financial help to escape poverty.

Development challenges in Africa are just one example of how tough societal problems can be addressed by the design and spread of improved technologies.

The same will be true of how the world best addresses manmade climate change, another of those seemingly intractable global problems.

Right now, rich countries are changing the world's climate by emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year from the use of coal, oil and natural gas. In future years, China and India will make massive contributions to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet no country, rich or poor, is keen to cut its energy use, owing to concern that to do so would threaten jobs, incomes and economic growth.

New technologies will provide a key part of the solution. Already "hybrid" cars, which combine petrol and battery power, can roughly double fuel efficiency, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by half.

Similarly, engineers have developed ways to capture the carbon dioxide from burning coal in power plants and store it safely underground. This new technology, called "carbon capture and sequestration", can cut by 80 percent the carbon dioxide emitted during the production of electricity. The costs appear relatively small.

Consider also the depletion of ocean fisheries through overfishing. Global demand for fish is growing, and so, too, is the global capacity to catch fish, driving some species to the point of extinction. Improved aquaculture, in which fish are grown in man-made fishponds and reservoirs, is still far from being a perfect technology, mainly for environmental reasons, yet it is enormously promising.

On a recent visit to Africa, a senior agricultural scientist said that in today's world, the scientist was closer than ever before to the farmer, but farther away than ever from the policy makers. Politicians don't understand science, and rarely seek the advice of scientists and engineers in addressing major issues. Everything is viewed as politics and votes, not as technical problems requiring technological expertise, which is why Africa's poverty is so often attributed to corruption rather than to ecological challenges.

It is easy to dismiss the suggestion that technology can save the day. After all, technological advance also requires good governance, market forces, effective universities, and more. Politics will still play its role.

Nevertheless, it's time to recognise that governments are ill-equipped to understand the sophisticated technological challenges and opportunities facing the world, and that new ways are needed to ensure that science and technology are given the prominence needed to address a wide range of increasingly urgent global problems.

Now is the time for every major international agency and national government to assume responsibility for gaining the scientific and technological expertise that they will need in the 21st century. - Project Syndicate



Jeffrey Sachs is the professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

This is the first in a regular series

It seems it would better to begin investing in the sciences more than we are right now, as it seems that will be the economy of the future. Rather than allowing other countries to begin passing us in R&D.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
This has always been the basis of Economics... the only way to increase a production possibility frontier curve is via technological improvements. And it makes sense.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,799
6,775
126
The big money can only be extracted from people in the form of taxes who are afraid. The big money is in the industrial military complex that thrives on tax dollars devoted to war. Wars don't happen where people are happy so the big money is in human misery. These truth explain why you are patriotic. Billions are spent to insure you are on board the MIC team. Only you can promote war.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The big money can only be extracted from people in the form of taxes who are afraid. The big money is in the industrial military complex that thrives on tax dollars devoted to war. Wars don't happen where people are happy so the big money is in human misery. These truth explain why you are patriotic. Billions are spent to insure you are on board the MIC team. Only you can promote war.

Is this anything but a troll post?
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
this week i had to read a book by Edward Tenner titled, "Why things bite back", which technological optimists ought to look at.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067974.../002-7468139-1636803?v=glance&n=283155

To give a basic idea about the book, Tenner says that while technology has undoubtedly improved life, it has also brought what he calls 'revenge effects' which are unintended consequences of improvement. For example, he says that as a result of medicinal improvements we have less fatal illnesses, but more chronic ones. As a result of overusage of pesticides and antibiotics, resistant strains of diseases have sprung up. Perhaps my favorite example was of microscopic dust mites whose fecal pellets contain allergens which can be problematic for asthmatic people. They often congregate on carpets and rugs, and vacuum cleaners often throw the pellets high up in the air where they can settle for some time before settling down. Only a few expensive vacuum models appear to be able to trap such micro debris.

While I don't mean to sound like a luddite (if you ignore or misunderstand Tenner's characterizations, it's easy to get that impression from his book), better technology will certainly improve overall quality of life and solve certain problems, but create others.