Also, world population is huge, and growing huger, and has a lot of needs, half our electricity in the U.S. comes from burning coal. Billions of toilets flush every day. Many places in the world still lack toilets. So it is impossible to eliminate all sources of pollution. But we can stop polluting our bodies directly with nasty cigarettes and "mad scientist" contraceptive potions and poisons. Let human population grow freely without restraint. More and more people would be glad to live.
Increased technology generally has led to less pollution in the last few decades with the exception of China and India due to their development from really backward economies. I prefer increased technology with pollution and can't wait until it improves some more.
Pollution is an issue and always has been, especially in big cities. This is an issue that can be agreed upon as a whole. CO2 (fossil fuels) has been unfortunately and irresponsibly labeled as a pollutant. It's the other pollutants that are a problem. I'll take the ease and timely manner that fossil fuels bring to transportation and tweak it a bit to comfort the emotionally dissatisfied environmentalists. It's more of an emotional issue when it comes to CO2 than it is a harmful one.
BTW : Technology doesn't pollute. The application of that technology is what determines air and water quality. Food is the greatest example of "waste" we have. Over 50% of the food processed on the planet is wasted through transportation and other things by the time it hits the "dining room table". People in the US are too spoiled to grow their own and we are too dependent on Government agencies to inspect our food before it hits the market. Technology could do much better in helping us serve ourselves but the looney-leftist (AGW advocates included) won't have it if it is within their power to control it.
I love a good garden to raid!!!
That kind of depends on how much technology, and how much pollution.
Our present trend in the Western world--increasing technology, tolerable and decreasing levels of pollution--is definitely not one I'd trade for no technology, no pollution.
But I read a book a while back (dystopian steampunk set in an obvious analog of Japan) where the technology they had was not far beyond the early industrial revolution (or so it seemed to me), and the pollution from it was so nasty that you pretty much couldn't breathe outside without some kind of respirator, and the plant they fueled the technology with literally destroyed farmland (they slowed the destruction with a fertilizer made from, well, people--part of what made the book dystopian). In a case like that, I'd pick no tech and no pollution.
It's all a matter of tradeoffs. How much you're giving up, and how much you're gaining. And we shouldn't have to make any more environmental tradeoffs than we can comfortably manage, which is why I'm all for solar, wind, and nuclear power, as well as higher efficiency, biomass power, and all the other wonderful solutions out there that can reduce (and eventually eliminate) our dependence on fossil fuels.
Modern technology comes with less pollution. Better, cheaper, cleaner, sustainable, less social costs, less military costs, fewer growth limits and less environmental costs.
You question was a meaningful choice 100 years ago. Now the choice is old technology with pollution or modern technology with less pollution.
Technology with pollution. Our entire recent increase in life expectancy and quality of life has come with technology with pollution.
One thing that is easy to note is that as silly as humans are, we make good decisions with respect to this. Take Chemflunky's dystopia example. Clearly our life expectancy would not be continually increasing if we did not balance the two. So its not like we will actually continually increase technology to the point of pollution overcoming technology in terms of the effect on our life expectancy or quality of life.
Of course, we could still nuke ourselves into oblivion, but that would really take us down to little technology and massive pollution.
I prefer technology with no pollution.
(I know, that option does not appear in your multiple-choicelist but this question, particularly in this YA section, cannot be answered by many with a straight yes-or-no / black-or-white answer).
There is such a thing as Technology without or with much less pollution. Solar panels, solar heaters, wind and wave energy, to name just a few.
Technology with no pollution.
Raisin Caine
Much of our gains in standard of living and of life span coincided with reductions of pollution. No, I'm not saying less pollution is the cause, though it probably contribute SLIGHTLY to longer life span, but pollution is certainly not necessary for either quality or quantity of life.
we really have no say in co2 levels, these are determined by temperature, which in turn is determined by the Sun.
