Tech is culture dependent though. You could theoretically go below 1 if it’s used wisely. For example vertical farms are less wasteful. But if course that doesn’t help if you’re buying a new phone every year.
Wouldn’t I=PA/T be more suitable then? As tech increases it should decrease the impact of population and affluence.
Anyway, sorry for being such a smartass. Of course it could be reciprocal. I guess what I am trying to get at is that it sounds like people think tech is bad for the environment, whereas actually it’s just our culture that’s doing it in.
Tech is culture dependent though. You could theoretically go below 1 if it’s used wisely. For example vertical farms are less wasteful. But if course that doesn’t help if you’re buying a new phone every year.
The buying a new phone is meant to be a part of affluence, rather then tech.
Wouldn’t I=PA/T be more suitable then? As tech increases it should decrease the impact of population and affluence.
Anyway, sorry for being such a smartass. Of course it could be reciprocal. I guess what I am trying to get at is that it sounds like people think tech is bad for the environment, whereas actually it’s just our culture that’s doing it in.
Or, proper running water systems vs having to buy plastic jugs of water.
Certainly the formula can be sharpened but it’s a decent heuristic for thinking about impact.