To me, the framing of pro/anti technology does not seem useful.
The real distinction lies in the stance towards handling of resources, i.e. space, energy, water etc.
The historically strong conservationist line of thought argues that resources are limited and that their use needs to be curbed. That can happen with or without technology, but the core argument is that current levels of demand are unsustainable.
The alternative, perhaps default/mainstream narrative is that technology will allow for further increases in exploitation/extraction.
I would argue that neither of the opposing perspectives negates the role of technology in increasing efficiency. The question is whether that in itself is sufficient.
Interestingly enough, there has long been a trend that completely went against the conservationist perception (i.e. we now have an order of magnitude more people on the planet than was though possible), but there seem to be shifts towards signs that true limits are nearing - i.e. with depleted aquifers that permanently degrade land use (because previously porous rock formations collapse and prevent further flow of water).
Perhaps we'll see some new S-curve enabling technologies that change this - at least I hope so. But the times are definitely interesting again (not in a good sense).
The real distinction lies in the stance towards handling of resources, i.e. space, energy, water etc.
The historically strong conservationist line of thought argues that resources are limited and that their use needs to be curbed. That can happen with or without technology, but the core argument is that current levels of demand are unsustainable.
The alternative, perhaps default/mainstream narrative is that technology will allow for further increases in exploitation/extraction.
I would argue that neither of the opposing perspectives negates the role of technology in increasing efficiency. The question is whether that in itself is sufficient.
Interestingly enough, there has long been a trend that completely went against the conservationist perception (i.e. we now have an order of magnitude more people on the planet than was though possible), but there seem to be shifts towards signs that true limits are nearing - i.e. with depleted aquifers that permanently degrade land use (because previously porous rock formations collapse and prevent further flow of water).
Perhaps we'll see some new S-curve enabling technologies that change this - at least I hope so. But the times are definitely interesting again (not in a good sense).