ecology EcologyofEverydayLife | Page 37

32 ECOLOGY OF EVERYDAY LIFE giving way to genocidal devastation. We must consider the absurdity of fighters in the Polish resistance protesting the Holocaust on the basis of objections to the high 'technology’ of gas chambers alone. Low technologies that are supposedly fulfilling a benign function, are not always liberatoiy on a social level. Along the coast of Northern California, stretch miles of gargantuan windmills: while representing a low5 technology, these monstrosities also represent the state’s techno-fix to the problem of doling out 'energy’ in a centralized and bureaucratic fashion, blotting out the glittering sea shore along the way. Similarly, the enormous solar collectors in the Southwest represent a low technology of preposterous proportion. Rather than promote local and direct expression of technological ethics, such large scale technologies promote instead the centralized power of the state and corporations who engineer and execute the design of their own choosing. It is indeed crucial that our technological practices do not degrade natural processes. Yet it is also necessary that we do not harm the social world by usurping community self-determination. There is no recipe for a ‘good’ or 'ecological’ technology independent of a truly democratic context.. So, we might ask, if technology is not deterministic, if it is informed by particular social relationships, is it in fact simply ‘neutral? Are technologies blank slates to be written upon by those in power? Nothing could be farther from the truth. While there are many technologies, such as a knife, which contain a wide spectrum of potential functions, good and bad, there are many technologies which by their very design are ‘loaded’ in positive or dangerous ways For instance, a nuclear bomb is structurally biased by its design and function to kill inordinate amounts of people quickly or to ‘peacefully’ intimidate political leaders into submission. Llowever, while we might say that a nuclear bomb is not neutral we could not say that the technology of nuclear- bombs alone determined the events in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Although the nuclear bomb represented a necessary condition for the nuclear bombing of Japan, it did not constitute a sufficient condition. The sufficient condition was comprised of a set of social relationships: a hideous amalgam of foreign policy and a technological expression of that highly undemocratic and capital driven system, called ‘nuclear technology’. Given enough time, money, and undemocratic power to develop ‘technology’, those in authority can dream up some pretty lethal inventions. Similarly, organic fertilizer is structurally biased in a clear direction, albeit a positive one. It is constituted by the very intention underlying its design to enhance, rather than deplete, the composition of soil and water. However, while we might say that the technology of organic fertilizer is not ‘neutral’, we could not say that the technology of organic fertilizer will actually determine that die world’s soil and water will be enhanced. Rather, it is a set of social