Before reading this, I never really thought technology fixing was a specific ideal, and on top of that that it was something that I believed in. And then all of a sudden, my new found belief was criticized and I thought to myself, “Do I actually believe in this?” Techno-fix is the idea that all of culture’s problems, including social, are solvable by introducing a new technology. For example, is your population starving? If yes, the solution is not social welfare, it’s inventing a new harvester or creating GMOs to feed your population of needy starving people. This ideal became very popular with political and economic elites after WWII. During WWII, a lot of resources were put into creating technologies to defeat the enemy, which included the atomic bomb. After the war ended, there was a movement within the science community to repurpose the devastating new technology into something that would positively affect society. A good example of this would be using nuclear technology to start generating electricity. Also, on the topic of economic elites a lot of these techno-fixes are and were products. So of course economic elites are fans of techno-fixing.
As I said earlier I went through a roller coaster of emotions while reading these articles. Huesemann and Huesemann brought this ideal down to earth for me. They believe that we should be cautious about techno-fixes. Techno-fixes do not take into consideration the damage they may cause. Take the example of nuclear power from earlier. No matter your opinion on the energy source, it is irrefutable that there have been major environmental impacts of nuclear disasters. The Huesemann pair use the example of global warming as an impact of techno-fixes as well. Ultimately, I believe that techno-fixing has brought on a lot of amazing changes, but the drawbacks are a large reason why scientists should take a more holistic approach to handling society’s problems.