We are in need of a different perspective.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” — Albert Einstein

A recent article by a science writer on Medium captured his discussion with a World Bank representative. Within a brief ten-minute exchange, the banker effectively communicated that climate change constitutes a severe emergency, necessitating transformative and costly technological developments for our salvation.

While I have recognized the continued deterioration of our natural environment as the foremost global crisis for four decades—with climate change being a significant component—I found myself questioning whether I should feel optimistic about our leaders finally acknowledging the issue. Historically, capitalists have often dismissed environmental concerns, so why is climate change suddenly a priority for them now?

However, upon reviewing the banker’s proposed solutions, the motive became apparent. Almost all of his suggestions were aimed at generating substantial profits for corporations. This shift in focus from the World Bank, which has traditionally minimized environmental issues, now positions climate change as their primary concern.

Regrettably, these financiers and industrial leaders fail to realize that their own economic growth strategies are the root of the problem. They overlook that their technological “solutions” could exacerbate the situation.

Einstein’s assertion, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them,” took on new meaning as I reflected on the banker’s proposals. Our leaders are suggesting that we can address climate issues and restore the planet using the same capitalist technological frameworks that contribute to our demise.

This dominant mindset treats humanity as separate from nature, operating under the belief that we possess superior knowledge on how to manipulate the world. Natural resources—from soil to water, metals to flora and fauna—are viewed merely as commodities for human exploitation. The intent is to generate wealth for those who claim ownership over these resources, using science and technology to exert control over nature, ultimately benefiting a select few.

Underlying this way of thinking is the notion of scarcity, as articulated by Lynne Twist in her book The Soul of Money: “There’s never enough, so I have to get mine, and more is better.” This perspective naturally aligns with capitalist principles, where the accumulation of wealth is prized and hoarding is rationalized.

Examining the paradigms of human dominance and scarcity reveals a deeper narrative, which philosopher Charles Eisenstein refers to as “The Story of Separation.” This mindset fosters a belief that we exist alone in an indifferent universe, left to safeguard ourselves and our immediate families through wealth and influence.

This way of thinking has fueled relentless economic growth, a phenomenon economist Herman Daly describes as the ceaseless transformation of the living planet into lifeless products, which are consumed and discarded, resulting in pollution, climate change, and a myriad of other crises we face today.

Here are some proposed technological solutions and their shortcomings.

Aerosol Spraying — One suggestion involves dispersing large quantities of light-colored powder into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the Earth. Some plans propose using sea salt, while others advocate for various toxic powders, such as sulfates and aluminum, which eventually settle back to the ground. This process would require continuous replenishment, making it a never-ending endeavor. The scale of this operation is daunting, demanding regular flights over the oceans.

Furthermore, aerosols pose significant health risks for both humans and wildlife. An article from Rolling Stone highlights that aerosols “are among the deadliest substances, infiltrating our bodies and damaging vital organs.”

But is blocking sunlight even a viable solution? Sunlight is crucial for plant growth; thus, what impact would this have on food production? Research indicates that aerosol dispersal could lead to reduced rainfall, potentially resulting in droughts and famine—similar to the aftermath of major volcanic eruptions. The last thing we want is to hinder plant growth, yet that is precisely what aerosols would accomplish.

Such approaches are categorized as geo-engineering, attempting to reshape Earth to suit industrial capitalism rather than adapting to the existing ecosystem. Another geo-engineering proposal is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). While some carbon-burning power plants employ CCS to mitigate emissions, the concept of extensive networks of machines extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and burying it underground is a more radical proposition. The initial machines have just been established in Switzerland.

While aerosol spraying raises alarm, the concept of carbon capture borders on absurdity. The manufacturers claim they can remove just 1% of atmospheric carbon dioxide annually, necessitating 250,000 machine installations globally to achieve meaningful impact. Additionally, the environmental cost of constructing and operating these machines must be considered.

Renewable Energy — The anonymous World Bank official also mentioned the need for large-scale factories across continents to produce vast quantities of solar panels and wind turbines to replace fossil fuels. Many Western “environmentalists” may resonate with this idea, especially in light of proposals like the Green New Deal championed by progressive politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. However, do sprawling solar farms and wind parks truly contribute to planetary healing?

Most likely, the drawbacks of such green energy solutions outweigh their benefits on a grand scale. For instance, large-scale solar installations occupy considerable land and involve toxic materials. National Geographic notes that solar panels can contain elements like cadmium, lead, gallium arsenide, copper, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, methyl chloroform, and acetone.

Moreover, solar arrays depend on equally hazardous batteries for energy storage and require fossil fuels for their production, as noted by Derrick Jensen, Lianne Keith, and Max Wilber in Bright Green Lies.

Even solar panel manufacturers caution that these systems exhibit low energy efficiency despite high initial costs. Weather conditions—rain, clouds, winter, and high latitudes—diminish sunlight, necessitating backup power for many applications. Photovoltaics may work effectively in select small-scale contexts, such as rooftop panels in sunny regions, but they are not equipped to power an industrial society.

Wind energy faces similar challenges. Wind turbines do not generate as much power as fossil fuels, requiring extensive arrays that consume significant resources, occupy vast land, endanger wildlife, and provide inconsistent energy on calm days. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wind turbines typically require replacement after about 20 years, with many components currently lacking recycling options.

As for hydroelectric power from dams, it’s not as clean as presumed. Dams disrupt aquatic ecosystems, submerge agricultural land and communities, and release significant amounts of methane from submerged vegetation.

Various other technological alternatives, such as biomass and nuclear energy, are being explored and implemented. While they may offer some advantages, they also come with substantial downsides.

The core issue lies not within the technologies themselves but in the mindset that gives rise to them. In the long term, on a large scale, these solutions cannot succeed because they stem from a mentality of dominating nature rather than collaborating with it. Within the frameworks of Dominance, Scarcity, and Separation, material wealth and economic growth are prioritized above all else, and competitive capitalism is seen as the optimal means to achieve these ends.

Within this paradigm, the bankers’ technological solutions make complete sense, primarily because they are designed to generate profits for corporations. Hence, their implementation should come as no surprise. Meanwhile, concepts such as reducing consumption, fostering sharing, living harmoniously, and restoring damaged ecosystems remain unthinkable within this framework, as they do not yield profit.

The Value of Technology — Technologies are not inherently negative. They have enhanced human life in numerous ways, from medical advancements to household conveniences like microwave ovens and the Internet. When used judiciously, in support of natural processes—as seen in regenerative agriculture—technology can be beneficial. However, within the paradigms of dominance and scarcity, it is often deployed to sustain and expand industrialism.

Renewable energy sources will not replace fossil fuels; instead, they will merely compound the existing systems to maximize profits. This will lead to an increase in transportation of superfluous goods, more mining activities, deforestation, and heightened plastic pollution.

So, what mindset would allow us to utilize technology effectively, or even live without it? If we could reach a level where all beings, human and non-human, coexist in this life together, devoid of the pursuit of individual gain, might we then be able to assess whether a specific technology is suitable for a given situation?

This sentiment is not new; it has been echoed for over 2,500 years. The essence of humanity should be to commit to community, our planet, and/or a higher purpose, rather than chasing personal profit. Most religions and indigenous belief systems endorse this principle, although practice may vary.

If we believed in our shared existence, we might adopt technology on a smaller scale and closely monitor the outcomes. However, more critically, we need to cultivate low-energy, low-consumption lifestyles, engage in sharing, and make a fulfilling life our guiding principle, rather than succumbing to scarcity, dominance, and relentless economic growth. This is the mindset we genuinely require.

— — — — — -

Thank you for reading! Feel free to comment, share, or repurpose this content. Connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, Substack, or my blog, The Inn by the Healing Path. Consider hiring me for freelance work, editing, or tutoring via LinkedIn.