Science and technology have unquestionably greatly promoted production, but have they really improved production efficiency? If “efficiency” is defined as “the amount of work completed per unit of time,” then this is obviously unproblematic; however, if we understand “efficiency” as “the ratio of output to consumption,” then it is not so simple. For “consumption” includes not only the time, labor, capital, and so forth that are invested, but should also count energy and environmental consumption as well—just like when you calculate the inputs for cooking a dish, in addition to the costs of the ingredients and seasonings directly put in at the time, and the cook’s labor, and so on, don’t forget the gas bill that only gets settled at the end of the month!
Let us take an example to look at[1]—“agricultural modernization” has relieved the shortage of arable land and the scarcity of grain. Compared with the peasant economy of feudal society and the slash-and-burn economy of primitive society, the high yields of modern mechanized large-scale agriculture are indeed something to be proud of. But is modern agriculture really so worthy of praise? Some things are not as simple as they appear on the surface. In fact, “slash-and-burn agriculture has a lower ‘absolute cost’ than irrigated agriculture[2],” and “burning makes the land more fertile, the large trees get to breathe more air, and a regularly and planned, controllable form of slash-and-burn cultivation reduces flammable grasses and trees, thereby preventing the occurrence of truly disastrous forest fires.”[3] Judging from this, compared with irrigated agriculture, slash-and-burn agriculture is not something to dismiss lightly either. So what about mechanized modern agriculture?
Of course, slash-and-burn agriculture is clearly a waste of energy: it burns trees that took hundreds of years to grow and damages the humus layer of the soil, and the fertility it brings is fleeting. Still, let us compare modern agriculture from another angle and see what modern agriculture depends on:—machinery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides! Where do the power that drives the machinery and the raw materials for making chemical fertilizers come from?—oil! When we laugh at slash-and-burn economies for wasting and backwardness by burning forests that took decades to grow (after all, those are still renewable resources), the modern agriculture that we call high-yield and advanced is “burning” oil that took millions of years to form! We ridicule slash-and-burn economies as inefficient for making such a huge fuss to burn a patch of forest just to raise soil fertility for only a few short years, while modern agriculture requires fertilization multiple times a year and is constantly causing topsoil loss; is such efficiency really higher or lower? Only one thing is perfectly clear: the damage to land caused by pesticide residues in modern agriculture can last for quite a long time indeed…
From the example of agriculture we see that increasing output does not mean increasing efficiency; on the contrary, the more advanced the technology becomes, the more energy and resources may be wasted, and the more irreversible damage may be done to ecology and the environment. It is just like how today we are eating the lavish feasts provided by modern technology; compared with the rough tea and plain rice that in the past required a whole day of hard labor to bring to the table, the experience is certainly delightful beyond words, yet we never think about the things that will only arrive at the end of the month as a bill……
Technology—fundamentally rejecting modern technology is unrealistic, and denying humanity’s great achievements in science and technology is likewise inappropriate. The key lies in how we understand these achievements. Modern people are too pleased with themselves over the accomplishments of technology, yet they forget what the point of developing technology is. Mr. Qian Mu put it very well: “Flying by airplane, soaring through the sky, is only somewhat faster; it does not necessarily mean that the person on the plane will undergo any great change deep within. If one speaks of the subtle stimulation arising in the inner life, sometimes riding an airplane is not as good as riding a sailboat or a mule cart, and sometimes it is even not as good as walking. To put it plainly, inventing the airplane, inventing the electric light—that kind of progress of the inquisitive mind is astonishing and worthy of pride. As for riding airplanes and using electric lights, that is still a kind of material life; it is still shallow and not of much depth, just as when you are eating sumptuous delicacies and wearing gorgeous clothing, none of that can likewise raise the value of your life.”[4]
The progress of technology is unquestionably an important embodiment of the progress of human civilization, but when modern people understand this achievement, they take materialized things like enjoying science and squandering technology as capital for arrogance, and this completely distorts the true meaning of technological progress. As Mr. Qian Mu said, inventing the airplane is indeed something worth being proud of, but we have no reason to swagger and secretly rejoice simply because we can fly on a plane and fly fast.
Of course we must develop science and technology, and we should vigorously promote their development. However, what is even more crucial is to put the meaning and place of science and technology in relation to humanity in proper order. Science is not an all-purpose magic key, nor is it a supreme creed. Science and technology, like philosophy, art, religion, and so on, all arise from humanity’s pursuit of beauty and nobility. Science and technology themselves are merely one road among others by which human beings pursue truth, goodness, and beauty; they are not the only road, still less the destination of the road! If the path is taken well, science can indeed become the “first productive force”; if the path is taken astray, science can also become the “first destructive force” of modern civilization!
Selected from an old article on December 8, 2005
[1] This passage is directly excerpted from my “Ecological Philosophy”
[2] [U.S.] Donald L. Hardesty, *Ecological Anthropology*, trans. Guo Fan and Zou He, Wenwu Publishing House, 2002, p. 52
[3] [German] Joachim Radkau, *Nature and Power—A World Environmental History*, trans. Wang Guoyu and Fu Tianhai, Hebei University Press, 2004, p. 49
[4] Qian Mu, *Idle Reflections on the Lake*, Sanlian Bookstore, 2000, p. 82
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply