[EnergySpin]

People have been using the term "techno-fix" a lot lately. But what does this term mean? Is it possible to come-up with a definition of techno-fix that is general enough (i.e. not grounded on specific examples) to introduce it as a concept? My impression is that the term has extremely vague boundaries which impedes its categorical use. I would really appreciate any input on this particular topic

[UncoveringTruths]

I'll Check with Johnny Quest! He's crazy like that...

[MonteQuest]

A techno-fix is a myopic solution to a much greater problem. It says we we'll figure out new technologies to fix things and ignores that there are really limits. A technofix is usually geared toward the massive production and consumption of the status quo.

It may be "doom & gloom" to imagine a lower-tech world that relies on local ecosystems for everyone's needs close to home, but such a course happens to adhere to scientific principles and the historical record.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A') techno-fix is a myopic solution to a much greater problem. It says we we'll figure out new technologies to fix things and ignores that there are really limits.

[MonteQuest]

See my edit in my first post. Let's narrow this down.

[gg3]

Speaking as an engineer, a technofix is an attempt to remedy a big-picture problem by reducing it to an arbitrarily limited number of variables, and then attempting to alter the value of those variables with a single solution that is promoted as a "magic bullet" or panacea.

For example, the big picture of the energy crisis also includes global warming, population, consumption levels, and the distribution of wealth among the world's nations. You can't address one without addressing the rest of them or the result will still be that the system breaks.

So, for example, pinning one's hopes on a new energy technology, or a new economic alignment (don't forget that economics is a technical discipline), is bound to fail because the system will continue unsustainable behavior until it hits some other limit further down the line.

Any engineer with a decent brain in his/her head knows that when you make an adjustment in a complex system, it will have other effects downstream aside from the intended effect. Good engineers take the time to look downstream to minimize risks that are associated with unintended effects.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'S')peaking as an engineer, a technofix is an attempt to remedy a big-picture problem by reducing it to an arbitrarily limited number of variables, and then attempting to alter the value of those variables with a single solution that is promoted as a "magic bullet" or panacea.

For example, the big picture of the energy crisis also includes global warming, population, consumption levels, and the distribution of wealth among the world's nations. You can't address one without addressing the rest of them or the result will still be that the system breaks.

So, for example, pinning one's hopes on a new energy technology, or a new economic alignment (don't forget that economics is a technical discipline), is bound to fail because the system will continue unsustainable behavior until it hits some other limit further down the line.

Any engineer with a decent brain in his/her head knows that when you make an adjustment in a complex system, it will have other effects downstream aside from the intended effect. Good engineers take the time to look downstream to minimize risks that are associated with unintended effects.

[EnergySpin]

Monte I saw your edit ... I think your line of thinking is alinged to a paper/book review I read on FEASTA. Will try and put this on the thread later today.
Take care

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'M')onte I saw your edit ... I think your line of thinking is alinged to a paper/book review I read on FEASTA. Will try and put this on the thread later today.
Take care

[EnergySpin]

Quick link ... so people can digest the link. The Schumacher Society published a book called "Gaian Democracies - Redefining Globalisation and People-power". The book was reviewed by the people at FEASTA. From the book review (which can be read here)
I isolated the following excerpt:
Excerpt A
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to the authors, 'tame' problems are those that arise from linear systems, have definable outcomes and can be conclusively 'solved'. Examples of tame problems include getting rid of a computer virus, or putting a man on the moon - you know what to do and know when you've done it (pp.40-41). 'Hard systems' thinking and approaches - those drawing on engineering, technology and mechanics - are suited to such problems.

'Wicked' problems are of a different order and kind altogether. They are non-linear, have no definitive 'solution', or 'right' answer, are dynamic and change over time and as a result of intervention. They cannot be defined clearly and "The problem-solving process ends when you run out of time, money, energy or some other resources - not when some perfect solution emerges" (p.42). The vast majority of the problems we face in the 21st century are 'wicked' problems which require 'soft' rather than 'hard' systems solutions and methodologies.

Now, a number of important conclusions follow from this (on the face of it) simple four-fold model - soft/hard systems thinking and wicked/tame problems. The first is that applying hard systems thinking to wicked problems will not only not work (and therefore be a waste of resources and time), but will in all likelihood only serve to exacerbate the existing problem and/or create new wicked problems. In short, applying a technocratic 'solution' to a 'wicked' or non-technocratic problem, or indeed approaching a complex, wicked problem using a 'problem-solving' (as opposed to a 'problem coping' approach or mentality) will fail. In relation to the natural world, the authors rightly point out that, "Natural systems cannot be controlled with hard systems thinking" (p.57). Yet this is the dominant approach we find in (western) societies and its institutions in science, economics and politics. Examples of this vary from 'technocratic' approaches to 'crime' - such as the installation of CCTV cameras or issuing of identity cards, to increasingly medical and pharmaceutical approaches to health (including, worryingly, mental health). What is even more disconcerting is that the dominant paradigm prescribes that the solution to the problems caused by technocratic and 'hard systems' thinking is...more hard-systems thinking and technocratic approaches! Like the fabled lance of the Greek mythical hero Achilles, technology and hard-systems thinking are held to be able to 'heal' the wounds they themselves have caused.

The dominant 'worldview' or 'paradigm' for dealing with problems in modern societies seeks clear, definite 'solutions' rather than seeing a lot of the problems we face (especially ecological ones) as problems we cannot 'solve' or get rid of (due to their intrinsic complexity, interrelatedness and 'fuzzy' boundaries), but as ones for which we need to develop 'coping mechanisms'. That is, we need soft-systems methodologies to cope and learn to live with 'wicked' problems and minimise their negative impact on human interests and well-being.

[EnergySpin]

To wildwell and pstarr ...
your input was appreciated. But we are trying to define the terms in a more general setting i.e. not just in relation to energy. We will come to EROEI arguments though and supply-demand.
The point I indirectly made in the first post of the thread is that any technological solution will have colateral side effects. Everyone accepts that i.e. the invention of fire had the un-anticipated effect of burns, forest-fires etc. However unless someone takes the extreme position that ALL technology is a techno-fix (and hence should not or cannot be used) it should be possible to define "acceptable" technological interventions(of various intensity levels) for various problems (including no intervention at all). Stick to the general problem, we will deal with energy later on.
In particular try to come up with problems from your everyday (or professional life) and possible solutions that could either "good solutions" or techno-fixes. gg3 made a very good observation based on his engineering background which seems to largely conform to the definition of "hard" /"soft" solutions from the Schumacher book.
Stay in the debate ... all of you (both your initial position-statements registered with me)

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'T')o wildwell and pstarr ...
your input was appreciated. But we are trying to define the terms in a more general setting i.e. not just in relation to energy. We will come to EROEI arguments though and supply-demand.
The point I indirectly made in the first post of the thread is that any technological solution will have colateral side effects. Everyone accepts that i.e. the invention of fire had the un-anticipated effect of burns, forest-fires etc. However unless someone takes the extreme position that ALL technology is a techno-fix (and hence should not or cannot be used) it should be possible to define "acceptable" technological interventions(of various intensity levels) for various problems (including no intervention at all). Stick to the general problem, we will deal with energy later on.
In particular try to come up with problems from your everyday (or professional life) and possible solutions that could either "good solutions" or techno-fixes. gg3 made a very good observation based on his engineering background which seems to largely conform to the definition of "hard" /"soft" solutions from the Schumacher book.
Stay in the debate ... all of you (both your initial position-statements registered with me)

[Wildwell]

It could lead there but wide acceptance would be very difficult and to enforce it would be undemocratic. However a localised community can be created by like minded people. Given the right inputs there is nothing to stop that taking place. On wider note it would only lead there from an economic point of view, unless you are suggesting a dictatorship. Other than from a personal point of view or a lobbying point of view, constructed solutions should be disregarded as a world wide solution and are not worth discussing as a wider context. The best solution would be for groups and planners to lead by example from a local level.

[EnergySpin]

Wildwell and pstarr I have to keep you focused (the horror , the horror)
I appreciate the examples provided by both of you. What about a a general definition of a techno-fix?
Pstarr by throwing in information technologies and light-rail in the same thread with knives you seem to adopt a position that does not preclude high-technology (information processing technologies = modeling+software+hardware=human mind + semiconductor industry) .
In a weird way you approach Wildwell' argument about EROEIs; a technology that enables a person/society etc to harness more energy that went into its construction and maintenance is not necessarily deemed to be "techno-fix" just because it is high tech.
Yet such an industry will not always be "localized". Keep the local vs regional vs state vs democracy vs global out for this (for now).
PS There are no externalities in a sustainable system. True energy / environmental accounting incorporates "external cost". Externalities is one of those fancy economical terms used to justify our irresponsible behaviour that shifts most of the "cleaning up" to other people/next generations.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'T')here are no externalities in a sustainable system. True energy / environmental accounting incorporates "external cost". Externalities is one of those fancy economical terms used to justify our irresponsible behaviour that shifts most of the "cleaning up" to other people/next generations

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'T')here are no externalities in a sustainable system. True energy / environmental accounting incorporates "external cost". Externalities is one of those fancy economical terms used to justify our irresponsible behaviour that shifts most of the "cleaning up" to other people/next generations

[EnergySpin]

Let me continue my angina example to show you how the same intervention can be a techno-fix or techno-appropriate depending on its use.
As I said before, when someone has a chronic blockage in his heart arteries , there exist three different ways to address that:
1) bypass surgery
2) stents
3) medications (like nitroglycerin, propranolol etc)
For your garden variety chronic angina (i.esomeone who does not have diabetes) all three interventions are equally effective in controlling symptoms and none can increase survival (I would appreciate if people from the overpopulation thread did not make any irrelevant comments for now)
Since (3) is the least energy/material intensive I think it is techno-appropriate for the situation. Selecting (1) or (2) is a technofix for this particular problem. BTW this is an example, people with heart disease should talk to their physician if they have any problems, do not base any health decisions on this thread (afterall there are lawyers lurking in this forum )
Let's examine a different example:
Someone presents with acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) which is caused by acute blockage in the arteries of the heart.
Possible interventions include:
1) stents
2) clot-buster drugs
Studies across the world have shown a marginal benefit of stents over clot-busters for this situation. One may use either depending on the situation and how fast he can deploy the intervention. For example in my setting ( a university hospital with cardiologists available 24-7) stents are techno-appropriate.
If I were in a hospital in the middle of no-where and sitting in the policy board I could mandate that we hire interventional cardiologists / build a cath-lab OR secure access to the clot-busters AND redirect funds in ensuring that a) tele-consulting services were availanle b) the EMS system in my locale had access to a chopper to fly the patient who failed the clot buster medication to a referral center.
The former policy would be a techno-fix, the latter techno-appropriate. I maximized the utility of my finite resources without compromising patient care (the strategies have been shown to be equivalent). The growth argument would have me build a cath-lab (which would be underutilized and a waste of resources), the development argument would favour for the latter strategy. Material /energy throughput was maximized in the first example, minimized in the second. Note that human development (i.e. access to a cardiologist) was not sacrificed. But high-technology of computer networks was used to maximize his value as a physician for both the referral center as well as my small hospital.