A lovely example of petitio principii

Apparently those who think that technological change will solve climate change don’t think it necessary to do non-technological change-type things to solve climate change. Which seems pretty logical to us. But apparently this is bad:

“Strikingly, we see the same tendency at the individual level, with greater faith in technological solutions going hand in hand with less engagement in climate action. Yet technology cannot substitute for the broader societal changes and large-scale shifts in consumption that are also needed.”

Which is that begging the question, or petitio principii. The assumption is made that broader societal changes and large-scale shifts in consumption are also needed, therefore mere technological change cannot solve the problem. But we’ve started by stating that there are those who think technological change can carry that burden - who, logically, will then think that broader societal changes etc are not required.

This before we get to a proper definition of a technology, which is simply a way of doing things. A change in technology thus includes such things as broader societal changes - changes in the way things are done.

Fabian Dablander, the lead author, said the belief that technology will largely solve climate change and its consequences, labelled “techno-optimism”, can lead to an over reliance on unproven solutions at the expense of the far-reaching socioeconomic transformations needed to address the climate and nature crisis.

The second part there entirely contradicts the first part. If - if - socioeconomic transformations are required then techno-optimism doesn’t work - using the definitions being used here not our wider one. If techno-optimism works then the socio etc aren’t required. We fear this illogic isn’t merely a petitio p to be honest.

Tim Worstall