ABSTRACT
Advocates of the technology orientated approach to sustainable development usually do not put much trust in the likelihood that individuals will do what they should or refrain from doing what they should not do – with should being defined by sustainability experts or politicians. They rather trust in technology because it can, in the technophile's view, take care of many unsustainabilities, and because it is always obedient to its designer. Therefore, they argue that the solution lies in a large scale, qualitatively different industrial revolution focusing on ecoefficiency, high-tech ingenuity and market forces (L. Winner, personal communication, 7 March, 2002). This view is the sequel to the young Lewis Mumford's hope that technology would lead to ‘improvements in environmental, social and economic spheres’ (according to Ebersole, 1995). Concrete manifestations of this optimism range from incrementally improved resource efficiency of existing technologies such as high mileage cars and co-generation power plants, to radical technological innovations like hydrogen fuelled cars, nuclear fusion, genetic engineering or Supercritical Water Oxidation. 1 Rohracher and Ornetzeder explain that most ‘architects, planners and energy experts’ are among those for whom ‘this technical strategy is the most favourable one’ (2002, p73). According to Guy and Shove this approach follows the prevailing ‘techno-economic paradigm’ (2000, p55) and tries to optimize, but not to transform, the overall socio-technical regime, which consists of:
the whole complex of scientific knowledge, engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, established user needs, regulatory requirements, institutions and infrastructures.
Hoogma et al, 2002, p19