Science Vs. Technology

I had a very interesting debate the other day in one of my classes and I thought I would share it with you to get your perspective on the subject...I am taking a class called The History of Science and one of the first assignments we had was to comment and reflect on the difference between science and technology. Science was defined as a series of languages (biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics etc...) used to describe reality. Technology, is anything that has a practical application, i.e. tools or electronics. Our study of science and technology began in prehistoric times where it was very obvious that technology was a precursor to science. In bringing our discussion of technology versus science to the present, our professor emailed us an Op-Ed article recently published in the New York Times by Ernie Ellis, an associate professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland. Entitled, “Overpopulation is Not the Problem”, the article is mistaken for being a commentary on the troubles we are facing regarding overpopulation  It became so controversial that he wrote a follow up article to clarify his intentions.

Ellis tries to rectify the misconception that his article was about the troubles of overpopulation, rather, it is in fact about the problems with our societal construct. He merely points out the fact that the ability of our planet to sustain the growing human population does not lie in the lack of natural resources, available land, or even technology. It is a matter of regulation and adaptation. He admits that global warming as well as the extinction of animal species and loss of biodiversity is a problem. At the same time, however, he is also of the opinion that the solution to these problems lies within the advancement of technology, much of which we already have and a more rigid regulation of resources.

It is Ellis assumption that we have all we need to sustain life, even for 9 or 10 billion of us by the end of the century. It is the ability of society to use is to its fullest advantages that will determine if we can be successful. This, is in and where my new doubts lie. Ellis’s original article is not an attack on the science world, he is defending the science world and in turn attacking society. I do not disagree with the ideals he sets forth for a modified society, but what he is asking for is just short of world peace. He sums it up when he says “Human well being and improved stewardship of the biosphere are limited primarily by the strength of social systems and technologies, not by population or environment.” I agree with him that the technology is there, but will our global social system ever be able to work together to achieve this goal; what do you think?