The leaders of the first Earth Day did lots of things right. When they were wrong, they were spectacularly wrong. Their general disapproval of technology is a case in point. Whatever environmental problems have been solved since 1970 have not been solved by laws alone. It has also taken the proper application of technology. As you say, technology is neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

I think that also applies to specific kinds of technology. GMOs, for example, are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It’s probably the same with biomimicry and some of the other technologies you mention.

Our society (and maybe the human race in general) has an unfortunate tendency to respond to one error by making the equal and opposite error. We also tend to rush into finding solutions for problems that wind up creating new problems.

Benjamin Franklin proposed burning coal instead of wood to prevent deforestation. Burning coal produces fly ash, among other pollutants. The eventual solution that cut down on air pollution entailed mixing coal ash with water and keeping it in retention ponds. At best they leak. At worst they rupture and pollute nearby rivers. So now Duke Energy is starting to take ash out of the ponds and shipping it to dedicated landfills. Problem solved? For a while perhaps.

You write that technology’s “impact is determined by the values of the culture it exists in.” We don’t put enough value on learning from mistakes! Trying, like some prominent Earth Day leaders, to halt the development of technology can’t work. But can we halt the headlong rush to adopt new technology without considering the consequences?